Rhymes With Right

November 30, 2006

Report Criticizes Electronic Voting

Indeed, these questions are precisely why I (and others) urged Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman to go with an optical scanner system when we went to paperless electronic voting. We got the paperless eSlate instead.

Paperless electronic voting machines used throughout the Washington region and much of the country "cannot be made secure," according to draft recommendations issued this week by a federal agency that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The assessment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the government's premier research centers, is the most sweeping condemnation of such voting systems by a federal agency.
In a report hailed by critics of electronic voting, NIST said that voting systems should allow election officials to recount ballots independently from a voting machine's software. The recommendations endorse "optical-scan" systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts.

Personally, I think we should use a system similar to the "scantron" forms that my students use on tests -- one that is simple, clear, and leaves a paper original that is easy to verify. And the technology is not high-tech at all.

And if we had, I suspect that Nick Lampson would not be headed to Congress from CD22, given that Congresswoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs suffered a huge drop in votes due to the complicated method of casting a write-in vote.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Pelosi -- Not Ready To Lead

When even a liberal newspaper in your home state questions your leadership style, you know you are in trouble, Nancy.

Nancy Pelosi has wisely decided not to appoint Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., who as a federal judge was impeached and convicted by Congress in the 1980s, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Unfortunately, Pelosi [did not] bestow the chairmanship on the obvious alternative: her fellow Californian, Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
Pelosi's problem with Harman is reminiscent of her ill-fated endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., to be House majority leader. In both cases, her attitude seemed to be shaped by personal considerations Â— friendship with Murtha, rivalry with Harman ...
Whatever the explanation, Pelosi's reluctance to appoint Harman raises the question of whether the incoming speaker of the House is ready to be a national leader as well as a party boss. A boss' priority is to settle scores and reward supporters; a leader has higher obligations ...

Frankly, her leadership style is reminiscent of my former congressman here in CD22 -- with the exception that Tom Delay usually rewarded competence.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

CAIR Chapter Calls For Free Speech Restrictions

To stop terrorist incitements? No.

To end anti-Semitic utterances by imams and other Muslim leaders? No.

What the Tampa Chapter wants is a legal distinction between Â“free speechÂ” and Â“hate speechÂ”, says Ahmed Bedier, the chapterÂ’s director.

Comments from national pundits and bloggers can incite violence and hate crimes, said Bedier, who came to the forum with a handout that featured a list of quotes that CAIR considers Â“anti-Muslim hate speech.Â”
The list included the words of commentators such as Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, and religious figures such as Pat Robertson and the Rev. Billy Graham.
But it also included quotes from the Hogans and ultra-right-wing blogger Vilmar Tavares, who also lives in Hernando County and whose blog often includes anti-Muslim sentiments, Bedier said.
There should be a distinction between free speech and hate speech, Bedier said. The latter could incite a potentially violent person to commit a hate crime, he said.
Â“It may be what pushes that person over the edge,Â” he said.

In other words, anything that is anti-terrorist, opposes Islam, or even simply offends Muslims ought to be banned because it might Â“incite a potentially violent person over the edge.Â”

I guess the move towards the dhimmification of we infidel-Americans will begin with the elimination of our right to even speak out.

Selwyn Duke examines how this sort of distinction might well be used to eviscerate the First Amendment if we are not vigilant.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Third World County, Madman Returns, Wake Up America, Adam's Blog, Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, The HILL Chronicles, Bullwinkle Blog, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 3 kb.

November 27, 2006

Homeowners Association Fascist Seeks To Suppress Religious, Political Speech In Colorado

One of the many titles for Jesus Christ is Prince of Peace. And one of the many symbols of the Christmas holidays is a wreath. One Colorado homeowner combined the two ideas into a peace symbol wreath. Now one man Â– the president of the homeowners association Â– is seeking to force the holiday decoration down because he and a few other community members donÂ’t like the perceived message.

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.
Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.
"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

The homeowner has a different point of view.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."
Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.
"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus."

And Kearns is quite clear that he is out to suppress a point of view that he does not like.

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

But the bylaws state that billboards, advertising and signs (and a wreath, even one with an unorthodox design, does not fall into any of those categories, in my humble opinion) may be permitted by the associationÂ’s architectural control committee. When Jensen went to the committee and ordered them to require the wreathÂ’s removal, the committee refused, presumably on the grounds that there was nothing wrong with the holiday decoration.

So Kearns acted like any other fascist dictator would when he failed to get his way.

He dismissed the committee and imposed the fine himself.

After all, we canÂ’t let ideas like Â“Peace On EarthÂ” get associated with Christmas.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

November 25, 2006

The Right To Elect A Convicted Felon?

Well, that is what the Houston Chronicle is arguing for today.

The ousting of Galveston Councilman Marc Hoskins is a frustrating development Â— and not just to the young politician and his supporters. It reflects a natural but counterproductive attitude toward anyone with a criminal record Â— an attitude guaranteeing that ex-felons can never be readmitted to society, even after repenting and serving their time.

I'll give them this much -- that Hoskins was not tossed off the ballot last spring and prosecuted for filing a false affidavit at the same time is a bit frustrating. After all, Hoskins affirmed that he was eligible for the office, despite clear statutory language forbidding convicted felons from serving as elected officials. Instead, it has only been in the last week that Hoskins was removed from the city council by a judge.

The ruling affirmed the arguments of Galveston County District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk, who filed a lawsuit against the councilman. Sistrunk cited a state statute barring from public office any felon who lacks a pardon or other release from felony-related "disabilities." These disabilities include losing the rights to vote and hold office.
Hoskins says several attorneys deemed him eligible, in part due to a new law allowing felons to vote. In any case, he signed a mandatory, pre-campaign affidavit certifying his eligibility. City officials aren't allowed to challenge these affidavits, and no one else took it upon himself to try.

Now that rather laughable contention -- the repeal of one part of the law must mean that the other parts are inapplicable as well -- indicates that a number of Galveston area attorneys are incompetent and need to be disbarred for incompetence. But the legal inability of city officials to challenge Hoskins' candidacy is disturbing, because it meant that a clearly ineligible candidate was permitted to run for office despite his having publicly stated the basis for his ineligibility in campaign speeches and a newspaper column.

Now here is where the Chronicle turns stupid, having conceded that Hoskins broke the law with his false affidavit and that the city attorney was correct in seeking his removal from office.

That's why Hoskins' inaccurate affidavit, and the D.A.'s post-facto removal campaign, both are frustrating for citizens outside Galveston Island. Texas could use as many examples as possible of successful drug rehabilitation; Hoskins seems to be one.

Indeed -- so successfully rehabilitated that he decided to file a false affidavit and seek political office despite knowing that the statute in question CLEARLY declared him ineligible. I wonder what additional acts of malfeasance we would find if we looked into Hoskins' life more closely.

And then the Chronicle goes even further off track.

Even more helpful would be a public reminder that a conviction does not permanently disable young people's ability to exercise their full potential as citizens.

Oh, really? I guess that all those disabilities in federal, state, and local statutes are mere figments of our imagination -- clearly there are limits, including permanent ones, on the exercise of ones' "full potential" as a citizen following a felony conviction.

And it gets worse.

Galveston law implicitly accepts these goals. It includes no ordinance forbidding ex-felons from holding office. Texas law shouldn't either. After serving time, all nonviolent citizens should have the opportunity to rejoin the mainstream. For most, that includes regular employment. For those few who are inclined, it should also include the chance to hold public office.

Actually, Galveston law is silent on the matter because state law is clear on the matter -- convicted felons cannot hold public office. Under the logic of this paragraph, Galveston doesn't think treason is all that big a deal, having left the definition of that offense to the US Constitution rather than adopting its own statutory language on the matter.

But I will raise a question for the editors of the Houston Chronicle -- do you really advocate allowing convicted felons (or at least, as you qualify it, "nonviolent citizens") to regain full citizenship rights after serving their sentences? Does this by any chance include the full and unfettered exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, with all the associated rights implied by that part of the US Constitution?

I'm willing to allow them to do both -- are you? Or do you place the citizenship right of holding public office above the fundamental human right of possessing and using the means to protect oneself and one's family from aggression?

Posted by: Greg at 07:59 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.

November 20, 2006

Romney -- Let The People Vote!

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is seeking to let the people of Massachusetts exercise a right under their state constitution -- the right to vote to amend the state constitution.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said on Sunday that he would ask the stateÂ’s highest court to order a question banning same-sex marriage onto the ballot if legislators did not address the issue.
Mr. Romney, a Republican, said he would file a request this week for a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote on the issue on Jan. 2, the final day of the session.
The governor, an opponent of same-sex marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of same-sex-marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps. Supporters of same-sex marriage staged a protest across the street.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex marriages were legal. Since then, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have married in the state.
More than 170,000 people have signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Mr. Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused this month to take up the question during a joint session. They voted instead to recess until Jan. 2, all but killing the measure.
Â“A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nationÂ’s founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people,Â” Mr. Romney said. Â“The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution.Â”

By refusing to do its duty and vote, the Massachusetts legislature has decided that the will of the people -- and the dictates of the Massachusetts Constitution -- don't matter when it comes to the issue of overturning the decision of a rogue court that favored a favorite liberal constituency.

Supporters of homosexual marriage make the following specious argument.

Â“One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest,Â” said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a group that supports same-sex marriage. Â“It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon.Â”

Actually, Mr. Solomon, that is a fundamental misstatement of the nature of the Constitution -- both state and federal. Perhaps the most basic tenet of constitutionalism is that the people limit government through the use of constitutions -- and that they have the right (to crib from Jefferson) to alter or abolish the governments they establish under them. In failing to take a vote the Massachusetts legislature is exceeding its authority under the state constitution -- forbidding the people as a whole their right to alter that document.

Bravo for governor Romney for his courageous stand in favor of the right of the people to be heard.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This now-common refrain, "Let the people vote," ignores the fact that the citizens of Massachusetts already have the right to vote on gay marriages. Under the current law, if a person in Massachusetts wants a gay marriage, they can go to the courthouse and get one (provided they can find a spouse.) If a person in Massachusetts _doesn't_ want a gay marriage, then they can make sure not to enter into one.

Right now, the system is a perfect compromise. Every voice can be heard, and every couple can choose the marriage that is right for them. If Romney has his way, instead of "voting" on their own marriages, people would be voting on other people's marriages...what kind of messed-up system is that?

Posted by: Phil at Wed Nov 29 22:00:56 2006 (Cf6z9)

2 That argument doesn't fly -- it is like arguing that people "vote on bank robbery" by choosing whether or not to go down and rip off the local office of Bank of America or Citibank.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Nov 29 22:42:39 2006 (j/sa1)

3 You are absolutely right, but the "bank robbers"--the people who insist on the right to "vote" on _other people's_ marriages--in this case don't realize that they are criminals.

That's what you meant, right? "Bank robbers" are the ones who think they have the right to destroy other people's lives through their actions, while "non-bank robbers" go about their own business.

Posted by: Phil at Thu Nov 30 06:18:20 2006 (Cf6z9)

4 If gay marriage is imposed upon a society without the consent of the governed, and the governed are denied the opportunity to fix the activist decision of over-reaching judges who act as black-robed dictators, then the only solution left is violent revolution against a government that no longer has legitimacy.

Because after all, state-recognition of gay marriage places an affirmative burden upon every citizen of the state -- meaning that gay marriage impacts each and every citizen of the state. And since the "gay marriage advocates insist upon taking benefits from the state and private businesses without the consent of the people, then it is they who are the true "bank robbers" in RWR's analogy.

Posted by: Jacob at Thu Nov 30 07:44:23 2006 (Cz0G3)

5 This "affirmative burden" of which you speak--perhaps you are talking about all the hospital employees who will now be obligated to permit people to visit their partners? Such an empath you are, to identify with their plight.

When courts deemed interracial marriage to be outside the purview of state governments to prevent; would violent revolution have been appropriate then, too? Certainly, those marriages also impacted each and every citizen in every state.

Posted by: Phil at Tue Dec 12 05:52:56 2006 (DFugo)

6 No, that is not what I believe Jacob refers to -- and that you leap to such an argument is a sign of your intellectual dishonesty.

What I refer to is the private business owner who will now be required to subsidize that relationship as a marriage, contrary to his/her religious beliefs, to give one example.

And the interracial marriage bans were an affront to the definition of marriage, not an essential element of it. To try to claim otherwise is logically absurd.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 12 13:09:44 2006 (jTO/9)

7 The definition of marriage I refer to, of course, is one man and one woman.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 12 22:44:51 2006 (XGP6n)

8 Hey Rhymes With Right,
It looks like you are answering a question that I asked in my last post, but the post has not appeared yet in the comments.

That said, what you provided is not a definition. You're clarifying one aspect of what you're talking about, but I couldn't take the phrase "one man and one woman" and subsitute it into a sentence containing the word "marriage." Marriage requires a contract of some sort between those two people.

For example, I couldn't say, "My brother and his fiancee entered into one man and one woman." This might seem like linguistic fussiness, but you are the one who introduced the notion of "definitions" to the conversation.

Even if we did parse out a definition, it's important to recognize that marriage is socially constructed, and the nature of marriage has changed continually throughout the thousands of years people have been married.

In the U.S., we have improved the institution of marriage in several key ways. For example, we require participants in a marriage to be consenting adults in almost every state. We also allow both interfaith marriages and interracial marriages, a notion which would have been verboten in various cultures throughout the centuries. Perhaps most importantly, we re-defined marriage to be a system of partnership instead of a system of ownership where women are chattel.

That said, there is no reason we should not continue to strengthen civil marriage by welcoming consenting adult same-sex couples in every state, not just in Massachusetts. It would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, since, as I said, if you don't want to enter into a same sex marriage, you wouldn't have to.

Posted by: Phil at Wed Dec 13 08:09:37 2006 (DFugo)

9 I was -- and don't know where your old post went to.

And I was simply replying in shorthand. You, knowing that, decided to be a pompous ass.

After all, by your own admission it was clear that I was cutting straight (no pun intended) to the place where we disagree.

But when it comes down to it, we have an even more basic disagreement. You see marriage as merely a social construct -- I see it as having a basis in nature, with society merely codifying that natural construct.

Ultimately, marriage is a contracted relationship between one man and one woman, based upon the structure found in nature designed to encourage reproduction and the raising of children.

Unfortunately, some societies have tried to clutter up that natural institution with man-made constructs like racism, religious bigotry, and the concept of chattel. It is a good thing that we have worked to strip away the unnecessary (and unnatural) accretions.

But what you are talking about is the removal of a fundamental part of the institution of marriage.

And by the way, Phil -- your argument works just fine when it comes to repealing all anti-discrimination laws as they apply to private individuals, institutions, and businesses. After all, if you don't want to discriminate against blacks, you wouldn't have to.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 13 13:04:32 2006 (TXzYv)

10 Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a pompous ass, or only the ones who try to carefully delineate the terms you're discussing?

I can understand the logic behind the notion that marriage is based on nature and designed to encourage reproduction and raising of children. But how do you justify discriminating against some infertile couples and not others?

By your logic, my argument works fine when applied to any law, anywhere. ("Don't want murder? Then don't commit one!") I'd say the difference between the way we're applying the argument is that my interpretation permits the greatest number of options for citizens. If same-sex marriage is illegal, then same-sex couples have zero options to get married, and mixed-sex couples can easily marry. Under current Massachusetts law, both sets of couples have similar rights. This increases the option for same-sex couples to marry by 100%, but does not reduce the right for mixed-sex couples to marry at all.

If antidiscrimination laws were optional, then nothing in the system exists to ensure any rights for minority customers. So, for example, a muslim's options for food and lodging in a city could be reduced from 100% to 50%, but they could also be reduced to 0%.

For me, the analogy works-- having options is akin to "voting" in some ways. And while I understand religions objections are important to the people who hold them, our laws must uphold the rights of people to have control over their own behaviors, but not necessarily to have control over the behaviors of others.

So, for example, if I have a religious opposition to the eating of meat, I can choose not to eat meat. I can open up a grocery store that doesn't sell meat. But I can't open up a store that doesn't sell to meat-eaters. I can't, for example, verify that my customers won't use my onions to season their beef stews. At some point, it's important to allow others the agency to live their own lives as they see fit.

Posted by: Phil at Wed Dec 13 15:49:53 2006 (Mghyo)

11 Actually, I reserve the term for those who act like a pompous ass. You knew what i was doing, but you decided to play a little semantic game in an attempt to make yourself look good and belittle me -- hence my use of the term.

As for my justification in regards to infertile couples, the answer is simple -- we recognize those relationships that conform to that natural model, regardless of whether or not reproduction actually does take place.

And I'm not going to get into the discussion of the latter part of your post, as it becomes an entirely different, off-topic discussion (though one we can engage in at another point in time).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 13 23:03:28 2006 (C2wRX)

12 Well, I would apologize for hurting your feelings, but I know that would make me sound like an even more pompous ass.

More importantly, I'd like to clarify that I don't find the subject of determining a very specific "definition of marriage" to be trivial or semantic. That phrase--"the definition of marriage"--is thrown around by same-sex marriage opponents as if there has been a single, agreed-upon definition since the dawn of time, and that simply isn't the case.

Many people's definition involves not a "natural joining" or a "socially contracted joining" as we have discussed, but a "sacred joining" or a "holy joining."

All of which is to say: no, I really didn't know what you were doing.

(Regarding the off-topic paragraph: I was responding to the religious objections mentioned in the Dec. 12, 7:09pm post.)

Posted by: Phil at Thu Dec 14 06:44:02 2006 (DFugo)

13 Actually, you would have sounded like a decent guy -- which is not to accept the notion that my feelings were hurt.

I accept your explanation -- and acknowledge where the other discussion was coming from. I just didn't want to try to have a two-pronged discussion going on the comment thread.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 14 14:26:43 2006 (sFf0B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 18, 2006

What The Democrat "Brain Trust" Thinks About America

Given the celebrity driven nature of Democrat politics these days, perhaps you should consider the profound ideas coming out of their leading political philosophers.

Bill Maher:

How about this: You can own any gun you want, as long as it works on technology developed before 1787. This is what conservatives call "original intent," you can look it up. By candlelight. If Robert Blake wants to allegedly kill another wife, he has to use a musket. Or burn her at the stake, but who has the time?
And how about getting rid of the Electoral College? We don't have to protect the farmer in his sparse state anymore; let the votes count from where the people are. And besides, the farmer is now a huge corporation called Monsanto.
And most of all, let's take a little re-look-see at what you can be impeached for: starting unnecessary wars, yes; having sex, no. Which leads me, OK, one more request for our Constitutional Convention: Get rid of the 22 d Amendment that says you can't run for president more than twice. That was just hatin'. If a guy can win the popular vote, he should be able to run, or that's not democracy -- and there's somebody you might call Mr. Popular named Bill Clinton, and he should be able to run for president in 2008. It'd be worth it, just to see him debate Hillary.

Well, there is one decent idea there -- repealing the 22nd Amendment. But as for the rest, he lacks any semblance of a clue. After all, the entire point of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizenry has sufficient firepower to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical. Maher would ensure that the people are effectively disarmed should such a situation ever arise. And, of course, he would never support other "original intent" reversions to 1787 -- like churches endorsing candidates for office or property ownership requirements for voting, not to mention criminal penalties for sodomy or public profanity.

Garrison Keillor:

Let's start at the beginning and redraw the map. First of all, is there a reason for Wyoming to exist as a state? I have often wondered about this. Why give two Senate seats to a half-million dime-store cowboys while California gets two seats for 34 million people? (Wyoming has roughly the population of Sacramento.) It's OK if Wyoming sends somebody with brains and an independent streak, but when they send a couple of Republican hacks, then it makes no sense.
The idea behind the Senate was to create a sheltered body of wise counselors who, because they don't have to shill for money perpetually, can rise above the petty tumult and think noble thoughts and do the right thing in a pinch. Can you think of a time when Wyoming's senators have done this? No, you can't. So let's bite the bullet and make Wyoming a federal protectorate and appoint an overseer. This would be a good assignment for Halliburton. It's done a heck of a job in Iraq, and let's give it Wyoming and, while we're at it, Alaska. A wonderful postcard place, but what have its congressmen done other than grub for federal largesse for Alaska? Change the name to Denali and put Halliburton in charge of it.
While we're at it, let's admit that Utah, Texas and Vermont have never been completely comfortable as part of the United States. They've tried to fit in, but it just isn't working, so let's allow them to pull out and find their own paths. You could attach Nevada to Utah and make a lovely little desert nation out of that, and let Vermont join Canada, and make Texas a republic. Add Oklahoma to it. They really are part of the same thing. This leaves us with 43 states, which we could reduce to 40 by joining Rhode Island and New Hampshire and making Idaho part of Montana and combining North and South Dakota into one state called West Minnesota. It's called consolidation, folks. It goes on all the time in corporate America and also in local school districts, so let's make it work for America.

Now yeah, that would require eliminating participation in democratic government for the people of one state, the violation of constitutional provisions protecting the territorial integrity of states, and a wholesale redefinition of who would serve in the Senate (an idea that isn't half bad and comes later in the article -- maybe their should be ex officio seats for for former presidents and vice presidents). But he admits that his goal is to disenfranchise Republicans by throwing them out of the country and reducing the number of Red States, so what we are seeing is nothing less than a proposal for a coup.

Michael Moore:

Has no ideas. True, he did publish a piece -- but it appears to be plagiarized from this liberal blogger. Proof positive that Moore is not only a liar but also a thief -- and an ungroomed, uncouth one at that. Don Surber rebuts the piece very effectively.

Posted by: Greg at 07:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 863 words, total size 6 kb.

November 15, 2006

Lott Back -- What Were They Thinking!

Even if one accepts (as I do) that Trent Lott was simply paying a courtly compliment to an elderly colleague when he made his poorly received statement regarding Strom Thurmond, rehabilitating the man back into a leadership role simply seems like a bad idea.

Four years after racially impolitic remarks cost him the Senate's top post, Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.) rejoined Congress's leadership ranks yesterday when his Republican colleagues turned to the veteran insider and skilled vote-counter to help them plot their return to majority status.
By a 25 to 24 secret-ballot vote, Lott defeated Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) for the position of minority whip, the party's second-highest post. As expected, GOP senators elected Mitch McConnell (Ky.) as Senate minority leader for the new Congress that will convene in January. But his victory was tempered by Lott's come-from-behind win over Alexander, who was seen as McConnell's and the Bush administration's preferred choice for whip.

An assistant whip might have been acceptable, but certainly not the second-highest GOP slot in the Senate. It just looks bad at a time when we need more new faces in leadership.

But then again, considering the news in the post below this one, perhaps it isn't such a big deal -- if a Kluxer like Robert Byrd can be elevated to a position three heartbeats from the presidency, then certainly we can forgive an awkward statement made to an old man on his birthday.

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

I can't understand why anyone in the Council for Conservative Citizens still admires this guy, if indeed they do, because he put distance between himself and their just cause as soon as he got a feather of pressure after being a willful speaker and attendee at many functions.

At any rate he's an establishment crony and his support of Bush's failed war seals the deal.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Nov 16 07:40:57 2006 (DZbll)

2 Oh, that's right, KKKen, after Jews, you hate the blacks best!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 16 16:36:01 2006 (WS1RO)

The haters are the forced integrationists who wish to destroy seperate racial cultural-imperatives, the flowering of variegated folkways that make the earth interesting.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Nov 17 06:57:52 2006 (7GYBH)

4 Thanks for confirming your position for us, you disgusting racist buffoon -- legal, social and political equality are anathema to you.

Go crawl back under your rock, you fucking white supremacist bastard!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Nov 17 13:09:07 2006 (k8VCl)

Note the resort to crude epithets contrasted with sophisticated ideology,which is the natural response to truth.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Nov 18 07:24:12 2006 (DZbll)

6 No, I'm simply done wasting my time crafting reasonable arguments against a low-life racist scumbag like you, KKKen. Why don't you see if you can get a job as associate pastor at Fred Phelps' Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Bigots?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Nov 18 07:41:14 2006 (0xIfv)

Phelps has explicitly disavowed politics related to uniting the founding ethnic core.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sun Nov 19 13:39:06 2006 (rXpxz)

8 Yeah, KKKen, Phelps hates everybody.

You simply hate everybody who isn't a pseudo-Christian white supremacist -- and jihadi terrorists, who you label as "soldiers for Christ".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 02:43:53 2006 (Q0Cmy)

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/11/20/streets-of-hate/

Groggy's self-exculpatory rhetoric for supporting these hateful,violent Zionist self-avowed anti-Christs at work above...

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Mon Nov 20 07:36:03 2006 (DZbll)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dump Boehner -- We Need A Clean Sweep In The House

Jawa Report offers this analysis of what is wrong with John Boehner's position on the issue -- and implicitly supplies a good reason for getting him out of leadership.

* * *

According to Human Events:

10. U.S.-Taiwan Military Ties - Nay

9. United Nations Funding Cap - Nay

8. Religious Freedom for Churches - Nay

7. End Foreign-Language Ballot Mandate - Nay

6. Eliminate Federal Mandate for English Language Assistance - Nay

5. Government Spending Cuts (1%) - Nay

4. Illegal Immigration Residency Extension - Yea

3. Border Security Measures - Nay

2. No Child Left Behind - Yea

1. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - Yea

Issue summaries here.

Vote for Pence and Shadegg -- Dump Boehner and Blunt.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Three Heartbeats From The Oval Office

Courtesy of the "Party of Civil Rights".

Robert Byrd -- the only Klansman serving in the US Senate -- was named President Pro Tempore of the Senate today.

Indeed, I believe every member of the Klueless Klux Klan to serve in the US Senate has been a Democrat. That ought to make you think.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-04.htm

Senator Byrd should be admired for this speech alone! Prescient, and way ahead of Bush in true patriotism.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Nov 16 07:46:23 2006 (DZbll)

2 Well, KKKen, the man did express your ideology best some sixty years ago in a letter to the organization you both adore.

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 16 16:41:28 2006 (WS1RO)

And forcibly integrated America, with its wiggers who imitate black jailbird subculture, the popularity of that subculture itself and among blacks (the Mills Brothers suit-and-tie harmony being a good contrast of qualititative black culture in the bad old era of segregation)...are among the facts which show Byrd was right then also.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Nov 17 07:02:35 2006 (7GYBH)

4 Yeah, KKKen -- them mud people are coming for your innocent white children. Better get out your shot gun, white robes, strong roope, and flammible cross.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Nov 17 13:10:32 2006 (k8VCl)

Yes, the black on white violent crime rate is appaling and much increased from the bad old era of segregation.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Nov 18 07:25:31 2006 (DZbll)

6 Thanks for revealing yourself as the racist bastard you are, KKKen.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Nov 18 07:39:17 2006 (0xIfv)

No credit to you for echoing the Marxist ideology that genetics has no bearing on intellect or behaviour and far left politics which made honest inquiry into the subject "hateful."

In the 1950s and early 1960s almost all self-identified conservatives opposed all "civil rights" legislation...in those comparatively crime-free times....

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sun Nov 19 13:42:17 2006 (rXpxz)

8 So. KKKen, you want to go back to the days when the black folks "knew their place". Is that your solution to the nation's crime problem?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 02:42:27 2006 (Q0Cmy)

9 Too late to go back, Groggy.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Mon Nov 20 07:37:06 2006 (DZbll)

10 Please quit posting material from pro-terroist websites on my blog, KKKEn. So long as the Palestinians support terrorism, they merit whatever death and destruction are visited upon them by Israel in the pursuit of the terrorists that the Arabs welcome in their midst.

I feel no more regret over their deaths than I do over the deaths of German, Italian, and Japanese civilians who died in Allied attacks during WWII.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 13:59:49 2006 (Pwb8Z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Pelosi Vows To Ignore Constitution (BUMPED)

After all, the US Constitution defines what entities get representation in the House and Senate. Pelosi wants to change that by statute.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker of the House of Representatives, supports District voting rights and is a co-sponsor of legislation that would give Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) a full vote in the House, a spokeswoman said yesterday.
The statement from Pelosi's office clarified her position after heated discussion on Washington Post Radio about her position on the issue. On Thursday, Pelosi said she would change House rules on the first day of the new Democratic-controlled session in January so that Norton could vote on proposed changes but not final approval of legislation on the House floor. That would be a temporary measure, Norton said.
"She wants D.C. to have full voting rights in the House," said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi (D-Calif.). "She doesn't co-sponsor many pieces of legislation."

The District of Columbia is not a state. It is therefore ineligible to have a voting representative in Congress --period.

Indeed, there are only three legitimate avenues available to accomplish that end.

The first is to admit the District of Columbia as a state -- which would upset the Founders' desire to not have the nation's capital in any state or other jurisdiction outside of control of the Federal government. In addition, since the District is territory ceded by the state of Maryland for purposes of establishing a capital city, that state would need to grant permission for any such move.

The second would be to amend the Constitution to permit such representation without statehood -- something that I do not see as being possible politically.

The third would be to allow the District of Columbia to be counted as a part of Maryland for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for residents of the District of Columbia to vote in Maryland's Senatorial and Congressional elections.

But the solution proposed at this time is unacceptable from a Constitutional standpoint -- and Pelosi's championing of it bodes ill for the level of respect to be given the Constitution over the next two years.

UPDATE -- 11/15/2006: Here is the contrary argument from the District's Mayor-elect. I still say it takes a Constitutional amendment.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 5 kb.

Murtha: I Am Not A Crook

That is what his statement comes down to -- and is about as believable.

Actually, that isn't quite accurate. What he really seems to have said is that having ethical leadership in Congress isn't nearly as important as surrendering in a war that we are winning.

In his first interview since reportedly calling a Democratic bill on lobbying and ethics "total crap," Rep. John Murtha told "Hardball" host Chris Matthews he meant it was "crap" to deal with ethics problems when there are more serious issues facing the nation such as the war in Iraq.
"It is total crap that we have to deal with an issue like this when weÂ’ve got a war going on and we got all these other issues," Murtha said.

And this is the guy who Pelosi wants in leadership as she allegedly seeks to "clean up Congress." It says everything that needs to be said about Democrat ethics reform.

And by the way -- has any member of the Democrat leadership gone down to Louisiana to campaign against William "$90K in the freezer" Jefferson? If they have, it sure hasn't mate the press -- which makes me reasonably certain that they haven't done it. That is the even bigger sign that all the ethics talk is just that -- talk.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

November 14, 2006

A Lap Dog, Not An Attack Dog

This is going to be just swell -- preemptive surrender on matters political.

Sen. Mel Martinez, who will become the new general chairman of the Republican Party after it lost control of Congress, said on Tuesday he would not be an "attack dog" in the 2008 White House race.
..."One of the things that I made clear as I discussed this job role with the president is I was not going to be an attack dog, and I don't intend to, and I wasn't asked to be one," he told reporters at the White House.

We need a Newt Gingrich in this role -- we are getting a Bob Michel.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

November 13, 2006

Support For Murtha Seen As Undercutting Pelosi's Anti-Corruption Pledge

Even the liberals are questioning how Nancy Pelosi can claim to be a reformer while backing this corrupt bastard for the number two position in the Donk Caucus.

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha's bid for House majority leader set off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill, with critics charging that she is undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who they say has repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) directly intervened in the heated contest between Murtha (D-Pa.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) on Sunday by circulating a letter to Democratic lawmakers. The letter voiced her support for Murtha and put her prestige on the line in a closely fought leadership battle. Some Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups say they are baffled that Pelosi would go out of her way to back Murtha's candidacy after pledging to make the new 110th Congress the most ethical and corruption-free in history.
Murtha, a longtime senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has battled accusations over the years that he has traded federal spending for campaign contributions, that he has abused his post as ranking party member on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, and that he has stood in the way of ethics investigations. Those charges come on top of Murtha's involvement 26 years ago in the FBI's Abscam bribery sting.
"Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Democratic-leaning group. "It is shocking to me that someone with [Murtha's] ethics problems could be number two in the House leadership."
"People have known about these things for months," said one Democratic House member who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to anger the presumed incoming speaker. "I am sure they are going to become much more important in the next few days."

I love it when they eat their own.

And Murtha's spokesperson says "Just ignore the man behind the curtain!"

Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman for Murtha, declined to discuss ethics issues, saying: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward."

In other words, "Ignore the fact that my boss has a history of corruption that stinks like the NYC Sewer system -- we need to cut-and-run from Iraq at a speed that only John Murtha can reach!"

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

Giuliani Prepares Presidential Bid

Like this comes as a surprise to anyone.

The man once dubbed ''America's mayor'' has taken the first step toward becoming America's next president.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican moderate who achieved near-mythic popularity for his handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, filed papers Friday in New York to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee Inc. A copy of the document was obtained by The Associated Press.
Creating an exploratory committee does not make Giuliani a declared candidate, but it does mean he intends to travel the country gauging support and preparing for a White House bid.
''Mayor Giuliani has not made a decision yet,'' Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said in a statement Monday night. ''With the filing of this document, we have taken the necessary legal steps so an organization can be put in place and money can be raised to explore a possible presidential run in 2008.''

We love him. We admir him. But are GOP primary voters willing to put aside differences with Rudy on key issues in order to nominate him? He is so centrist as to go over the line into liberal on a number of issues -- abortion and gay rights among them -- that I think many of them won't be able to hold their nose and vote for him. But he is McCain without the baggage of campaign finance reform -- and his efforts in the days and weeks following 9/11 are undeniably the stuff of legend -- and the great story of our time.

But I'm still backing Mitt.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Mel Martinez For RNC Chair?

Does this mean Karl Rove is getting his way again?

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a close White House ally and a Cuban American, has agreed to become the next general chairman of the Republican National Committee, GOP officials said. The appointment comes in the wake of an election that yielded shrinking GOP support from Hispanic voters.
Martinez, a first-term senator, will remain in office and serve as the party's chief spokesman and fundraiser heading into the 2008 elections. Mike Duncan, the RNC's current general counsel and a former party treasurer, will manage day-to-day operations and be elected chairman in January, Republican aides said.

* * *
The selection of Martinez was a setback for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who last week lost a Senate race and who has expressed interest in the job. GOP officials said it was not coincidental that both Steele and Martinez are minorities who have shown an ability to broaden the party's appeal. Republicans captured 10 percent of the African American vote last week, identical to the 2004 number.
It also does not hurt that Martinez is familiar with Florida, the electoral prize that has been a main arena in recent presidential elections. Martinez won election there in 2004, after resigning as secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make the run.
Martinez earned some national fame in 2000 when, as a top U.S. official, he strenuously argued before Congress and TV cameras that a Cuban boy named Elian Gonzalez should not be forced to return to Cuba. Five years later, he was again on the national stage, this time unintentionally, when a top aide of his was outed as the author of a memo detailing a political strategy for intervening to keep Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman, alive.
The only Hispanic Republican in the Senate, Martinez, 60, is expected to focus mostly on speaking out for GOP candidates, raising money and pushing the party to broaden its reach. Duncan will be the nuts-and-bolts leader. The dual-leadership model is fairly common for modern party committees. It allows high-profile party officials to lend their experience to the committee without being consumed by managing a large organization.

The GOP base -- myself included -- is unhappy with this announcement.

From Malkin.

Oh, well. Michael Steele has been passed up for Sen. Mel Martinez. Yes, a squish on border security is now the RNC chair. Has the GOP learned anything?

From RedState.

Oh, this is simply priceless. With Ken Mehlman retiring, we need a new RNC Chair.
We could have had a promising up-and-comer with a great life story, fantastic political skills, and odds-on-sharps like you wouldn't believe.
We could have had a dirty machine politico, who may make us all cringe a little at what he's willing to countenance, but who is used to the odd knifefight with a K-Bar and a rusty razor, and who could help us work our way back into the majority.
We could have had a lobotomized sea lion, who would at least know to bark to get some kind of fish on command.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next best thing (by a little) to making Kevin Phillips the new RNC Chair: Bonehead Martinez. Yes, that's right, Bonehead, who with a five-point Bush win in trending-Red Florida at his back, barely managed to beat one of the more anodyne, bland Democrats to run for the Senate outside of Massachusetts; Bonehead, who managed to take a dicey political situation in the Terri Schiavo affair and make himself into a Google search result; Bonehead, who if asked to eat eggs over easy and shave at the same time, would end up with shiny whites and yolk smeared in fork-tine streaks across his face; Bonehead is going to be the RNC Chair.
And if gets better! He's going to multitask!
This was brought to you today by the same morons who griped all last week about do-nothing leadership in the House, only to ... wait for it ... prepare to vote in the same losers!
I'm proud to be a Republican today.

Even the more circumspect Captain Ed is underwhelmed.

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed over at BizzyBlog.

Dear GOP,
As a member of the base you appear to be abandoning, allow me to make two points:
- The current apparent pick is a sitting Senator, and no matter how worthy he may be as a person, putting someone who actually is voting on laws and resolutions (in charge) is inappropriate bordering on irrational.
- Michael Steele ran such a stellar campaign to get as far as he did in the Maryland Senate race. He is a passionate and outstanding spokesperson that who the party could rally around. Frankly, selecting anyone else would be foolish.
I am surely supported by millions of other Republicans BEGGING you to PLEASE select Michael Steele.

There's a poll over at HotAir.

Sorry -- I just don't think we need to have a part time party chair. If Martinez is staying in the Senate (and I think he would be a fool not to do so), then he will have to delegate much of the day-to-day activity to staffers. But the GOP needs full-time nurturing after the debacle that occurred a week ago, with a full-time public face who will not conxstantly be triangulating between his role as a senator, a supporter of the administration, and a party-builder.

And in addition, Michael Steele needs to stay out of the "black slot" in the Cabinet.

UPDATE: The President has announced the Martinez appointment -- before the RNC members even vote on the matter. Seems to me that he is counting on an acclamation. Why don't we start contacting the men and women of the RNC from our states and tell them Mel Martinez is not acceptable -- and demand Michael Steele. If you think it can't happen, just remember the words "Harriet Miers".

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 7 kb.

November 12, 2006

Pelosi Backs Murtha

So much for moderation and reaching out to the moderate/conservative voters who elected the Blue Dogs.

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) yesterday as the next House majority leader, thereby stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland's Steny H. Hoyer.
The unexpected move signaled the sizable value Pelosi gives to personal loyalty and personality preferences. Hoyer competed with her in 2001 for the post of House minority whip, while Murtha managed her winning campaign. Pelosi has also all but decided she will not name the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair that panel next year, a decision pregnant with personal animus.
Pelosi had been outspoken about her frustration with Murtha's declaration that he would challenge Hoyer, currently the House minority whip, for the majority leader post long before Democrats had secured the majority. Many believed she would remain on the sidelines, just as Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) did earlier this year when three Republicans vied for the post of House majority leader.
But in her first real decision as the incoming speaker, Pelosi said she was swayed by Murtha's early stance for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Her letter of endorsement yesterday made clear that she sees Iraq as the central issue of the next Congress and that she believes a decorated Marine combat veteran at the helm of the House caucus would provide Democrats ammunition in their fight against congressional Republicans and President Bush on the issue.
"I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power," she wrote. "Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to lead on these vital issues."

Seems to me that they really are Surrendercrats.

And the decision on Rep. Harman means that the new chair of the Intelligence Committee will be Alcee Hastings -- whose impeachment and removal from his federal judgeship on bribery charges seems not to be an obstacle in Pelosi's eyes, even though she voted for it. So much for fighting the culture of corruption.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

Are Democrat Gains In Texas Permanent?

I somehow doubt it Â– though we will see changes in the areas of strength for both.

Though red-eyed and exhausted from staying up most of Election Night, Amber Moon was ebullient over tasting the first victories of her career in Democratic politics.
The 27-year-old University of Houston graduate began working for Democrats in 2002 and now is the state party's official spokeswoman. The last time Democrats had a major victory in Texas, Moon was 14.
Though they were small in comparison with the gains Democrats made nationally, the changes were noticeable: Democrats swept county races in Dallas and Hays. They narrowed the Republican margin in Harris County. They picked up five seats in the state House on Tuesday, plus one more earlier this year.
They captured the U.S. House seat once held by Republican strongman Tom DeLay, and U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, is facing a runoff.
"We were very excited about the victories we have," Moon said. "People definitely sense a wind of change, and it's not just a national mood trickling down."
But the big question is whether these gains are a fluke of this one election cycle.
The statewide Republican vote this year was the lowest since 1998. And the top vote-getter of the Democrats' 2006 ticket still received fewer votes than the best-performing loser of the party's 2002 ticket.
Plus, the Democrats still face a Republican Party that is far better financed.

And therein lies the story. The vote for the statewide ticket was down because of a four-way gubernatorial race,and many people not voting down-ballot. Had it been a straight-up race between Chris Bell and Rick Perry, Perry would have handed Bell his head by a margin of at least 20 percentage points Â– and the other statewide races would have been even more strongly Republican than they were this year. The CD22 race would have turned out different if there had been a Republican on the ballot (Dems won a court fight to prevent that) and the Bonilla race is a runoff because of the redistricting decision this summer and the resultant free-for-all with multiple candidates. Bonilla will likely hold his seat, and CD22 will be Republican again in two years.

But there are changes. Dallas County continued its trend towards the Democrats, with a sweep of local races. Harris County judicial races went for the GOP, but by smaller margins which were probably the result of the drop in straight-party voting this year. And the shift of GOP voters to suburban counties from the urban core in Dallas and Harris are likely to make both Democrat strongholds with a majority of minority voters Â– but with shrinking populations. In the mean time, the suburban counties are growing and growing Republican.

And then there is the Hispanic vote Â– and the question of how it ultimately breaks here in Texas. If Republicans can get anywhere near a 50% share, we are likely to remain the majority party. And there is evidence of such a trend.

Carney said Hispanics cannot be counted on as Democratic voters when the new immigrant population begins voting. He said Republicans are reaching out to those potential voters.
He said that is why a decade ago a quarter of the Hispanic voters cast Republican ballots and now it is about 35 percent.
Perry won heavily Hispanic South Texas with 35 percent of the vote.

So what will happen here in Texas? My guess is that we will remain a conservative Republican state, but that races might get more competitive Â– particularly if the Blue Dogs begin to have significant and long-term influence in the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 06:24 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

November 11, 2006

An Interesting Exclusion

The Washington post publishes this piece on race, gender, and presidential politics today -- Is America too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?

The 2006 elections were for the technocrats and the operatives, pitting the Democratic tacticians against the Karl Rove machine. But the next election is already beginning to look quite different: 2008 may be one for the novelists.
Viewers of the election returns late on Tuesday, after all, got an early start on the iconography of the next presidential race. The cable networks' cameras cut between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanking her supporters for an overwhelming victory in the New York Senate race, her husband standing pointedly behind, and a smiling Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, giving cautious, professorial analysis to the television viewers. Nobody noted the significance, but it stared us all in the face: The two presumed leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are a woman and an African American.
Their candidacies -- coming after elections resulting in the presumed first female speaker of the House and the second black governor since Reconstruction -- suggest that the next elections may play in ways that are more cultural and symbolic than tactical and political. Are Americans ready to put a black man or a woman in charge of the country? And does the hefty symbolism that Obama and Clinton would bring help one of them more than the other -- in other words, is the country more racist or more sexist?

Of course, this commentary makes some incredible assumptions -- assumptions that need to be challenged.

Does the author, Rolling Stone national affairs correspondent Benjamin Wallace-Wells really believe that a vote against Obama is a vote against blacks? That a vote against Clinton is a vote against women? Is it really his contention that ideas, policies, and ideology don't matter -- that candidates are and should be judges by the color of their skin or the genitalia between their legs, not the content of their character or (just as importantly) the content of their policy statements?

If that is the case, what does Wallace-Wells make of the defeats of Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, and Lynn Swann on election day? Are the voters of Marryland, Ohio, and pennsylvania racists who for having rejected these highly qualified African American Republicans? Or does the presumption of bias only apply to votes against Democrat candidates like Obama, Clinton or (as happened Tuesday in Tennessee) Harold Ford?

And I cannot help but notice that Wallace-Wells gives dismissively short shrift to the possibility of a Secretary of State Condoleezza as a presidential candidate, despite the fact that she currently sits just four heartbeats from the Oval Office. Too bad he doesn't consider the implications of the reservoir of support that exists for Rice among conservative Republicans -- including this conservative white man -- if she would even hint that she were interested in making a presidential run. Nor does he consider that Rice is the name most often heard as a potential Vice Presidential pick in 2008 even if she doesn't seek the nod for the top spot.

Could it be that he, like most left-wingers, believe that membership in the GOP revokes the membership cards of the offender in the black race and the female sex?

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 602 words, total size 5 kb.

Dems to Fix AMT

Even though I don't come anywhere near where it would kick in, I'm pleased to see this development -- but have some questions.

Democratic leaders this week vowed to make the alternative minimum tax a centerpiece of next year's budget debate, saying the levy threatens to unfairly increase tax bills for millions of middle-class families by the end of the decade.
The complex and expensive tax was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits and other shelters to avoid paying the Internal Revenue Service. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand to more than 30 million taxpayers in 2010 from 3.8 million mostly well-off households in 2006.
Fixing the AMT has long been a top priority for Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in line to head the Senate Finance Committee. Last year, Baucus co-authored a bill to repeal the tax with Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), the presumptive chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, this week put fixing the AMT at the top of his agenda, calling it far more urgent than dealing with President Bush's request to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in 2010.
And yesterday, House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to keep his leadership post, said Democrats will make "fixing the AMT . . . a priority of tax policy next year."

But hold it -- doesn't this mean you are giving tax cut to "wealthy" Americans? Isn't cutting taxes for such folks a blow to the poor? And aren't such cuts irresponsible in a time of war and "skyrocketing" budget deficits? And didn't you folks just campaign against tax cuts, and for repealing (or allowing to expire) the ones implemented by the Bush administration? Why would you do this?

The focus on the AMT is hardly surprising, given that victims of the tax have been concentrated in high-cost urban areas such as Washington, New York and San Francisco -- places that tend to vote Democratic. Rangel, Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumptive House speaker, all represent states hit hard by the AMT, which is sometimes called the "blue-state tax." To map states with the highest concentrations of AMT taxpayers is to draw bull's-eyes over California and the Northeastern seaboard.

Oh, I see -- you want to fix a tax that hits the Democrat base. This isn't good tax policy, fairness, or anything else -- it is tinkering with the tax structure to reward your political base, rather than cutting taxes for all Americans like the Bush plan did. And your decision to forgo over $1 trillion over the next decade seems fiscally irresponsible for a party that ran on a platform of reducing budget deficits or getting GOP agreement or other tax increases.

And the utter hypocrisy of this complaint from the top Democrat staffer for the House Ways & Means Committee is so brazen as to almost be beyond belief.

"The real story on the AMT is how it takes back the Bush tax cuts," Buckley said. "For people who are married with children or live in states with income taxes, the tax cuts are temporary unless you fix the AMT."

But wait -- I thought you were the folks who complained that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible and that people were wrongly being permitted to keep ~~their own~~ the government's money. Why on earth would you object to some Americans not getting them when you have committed yourself to taking those cuts away from all Americans?

Oh, by the way -- who originally supported the Alternative Minimum Tax and insisted that most tax breaks and deductions be taken from those who pay it? I believe it was the Democrats, who insisted that too many folks were not "paying their fair share" when they followed the rules that Congress applied to everyone. It was originally passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 1969, and restructured to its current form by a Democrat Congress in 1978, when it was signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. And efforts at repeal or reform have been blocked by Democrats, who object to wider tax cuts and changes sought by Republicans -- including the Bush tax cut mentioned above.

If this is going to be the sort of stuff tried by the Democrats for the next two years, i expect that we Republicans will have a lot of fun during that time -- and big celebrations in November 2008.

MORE AT Blog From on High, Moderate Voice, Sandwich Repair Kit, Blue Jersey, Massachusetts Liberal, Althouse, Eschaton, Holy Coast, Public Sphere, Hillbilly White Trash

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 8 kb.

November 10, 2006

McCain To Organize Presidential Run -- This Republican Says "NO!"

Sorry, but I would rather see eight years of Hillary Clinton than four of John McCain in the White House.

His party may have taken "a thumpin'," in the words of President Bush, but ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign though he has yet to make the final, official decision.
Sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.

A final decision will come after Christmas.

But there are a few problems.

Moreover, McCain has yet to resolve the problems he's had with the Republican Party's conservative base.
"He has a problem with pro-lifers on judges, he Â… became very hostile to the Second Amendment community and supportive of gun control. He has a problem with the economic conservatives because he's been bad on taxes for six years now," said longtime critic Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, which includes individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes.
"Conservatives who care about the tax issue are very concerned that he opposed Bush's tax cuts," Norquist said.

Count me among the disaffected.

I cannot imagine supporting any ticket with John McCain on it, short of a joint apparition of Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan telling me to give him my vote.

I reject him because of the sell-out of President Bush's judicial nominees as a part of the Gang of Fourteen, which he led.

I reject him because he tried to keep veterans who served with John Kerry from speaking out about his Vietnam service.

I reject him because he counts the dishonorable Richard Armitage among his close advisors.

I reject his contempt for the First Amendment -- as demonstrated by his campaign finance "reform" legislation.

I reaffirm my statement in 2005 in which I joined with Patterico in his statement of opposition to John McCain.

The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.

I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.

That is my solemn pledge to you.

Anybody But McCain In 2008!

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 5 kb.

November 09, 2006

Mehlman Out At RNC -- Steele In?

After great work at the head of the RNC, Ken Mehlman has stepped down as head of the GOP.

And his replacement? If all goes as expected (and, for my part, hoped), outgoing Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele will be the new head of the Republican National Committee.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose party just lost both chambers of Congress, will leave his position in January, and the post as party chief has been offered to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.
"It is true," Mr. Mehlman told The Washington Times when asked about reports last night that he would resign. "It's something I decided over the summer. No one told me I needed to. In fact, folks wanted me to stay."
Mr. Mehlman said he "told the White House over the summer it was my decision" to leave the RNC post, "win, lose or draw."
Also last night, Republican officials told The Times that Mr. Steele, who lost his bid for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, has been sought out to succeed Mr. Mehlman as national party chairman. Those Republican officials said Mr. Steele had not made a decision whether to take the post, as of last night.
Other Republican Party officials said some Republican National Committee (RNC) members, including state party chairmen, have mounted a move to have Mr. Steele succeed Mr. Mehlman.

Word is that Karl Rove would prefer that Steele be made Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, but I oppose that. It is the traditional "black" Cabinet job, and I don't want to see us go back tot he days where serious black leaders within the GOP are shunted that direction by default. Besides, Steele showed what a fighter he is, and we need such a personality at the helm of the national party in the wake of this week's defeats.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notes this interesting comment from Howard Dean -- and gives us a history flashback.

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Let The People Vote

The first step in getting gay marriage was to force it on the people through the courts.

The second step is preventing the people from having their say on the matter.

And that is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts, where a parliamentary tactic was used to prevent the people from having a say on the issue.

In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.
On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.
Â“For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended,Â” said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. Â“What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, Â‘Thank you, weÂ’re glad itÂ’s over, we think it has been discussed enough.Â’ Â”
The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

If Mr. Rushing really believed that a majority want this matter to be over, he and his colleagues would have sent the measure on to the people, where they could have voted it down. Could it be that they left-leaning legislators know that the people will vote to uphold tradition and what to prevent that at any cost? Given that poll numbers show that a gay marriage ban would likely be adopted by teh electorate even in liberal massachusetts, i think the answer is obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I don't have enough experience reading your blogs to know yet whether you are for or against same sex marriages, and while I can't quite tell from your post which side you're on- the safe bet would likely be that you're against it.

I'm just curious... (if you are in fact, in opposition of allowing a gay couple the right to wed) ...why would you have an opinion about something that doesn't affect you?

"tradition" seems like an odd excuse to stick one's nose where it doesn't belong. How about a compromise to prove that conservatives actually give a damn about 'the sanctity of marriage' ?
....gays agree to not have any right to wed, and anyone whom gets married relinquishes any right to divorce or annulment.

Surely divorce is a graver defilement of the sanctity of marriage, than the sex of those involved (after all, gender can be changed with a simple operation.)

So is that not a fair compromise? People who desperately need to defend the word "marriage" preserve it's arbitrary 'traditions" get to do so... what do you think?

Posted by: Rachel at Wed Nov 15 13:02:13 2006 (2FzDa)

2 Hey, I'm all for tightening up the laws on divorce in this country. No fault divorce laws have been an absolute disaster, and have hurt omen and children. But then again, since i am not a woman and don't have kids, why chould i have an opinion on that, since it doesn't effect me.

And as for the silly argument that gay marriage does not effect me, realize that the creation of gay marriage does impact me in a number of ways -- in terms of imposing potential increased tax burdens for benefits to the couples now permitted to marry, legal obligations towards them in terms of being required to recognize said marriages as a business or property owner, etc. It also impacts what i would be required to affirmatively teach as a public school teacher. And given certain court rulings on tax exemption, the next step would be a likely move to revoke tax-exempt status for churches that do not marry homosexuals for their opposition to public policy. So you see, there are a number of ways in which I am impacted -- not to mention that as an American citizen, I have a right to have an opinion on any matter of public policy and to express it as part of the process of forming such policies.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Nov 15 23:36:12 2006 (nczYf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 08, 2006

Rumsfeld Out, Gates In At Defense

He tried to quit a couple of years ago, but the President refused his resignation. now Donald Rumsfeld becomes the first to leave the first member of the Bush Cabinet following the debacle in the mid-term elections.

With a wry smile, Donald H. Rumsfeld gently alluded to the controversies of his tenure as defense secretary, perhaps the most consequential since that of Robert S. McNamara during the Vietnam War.
Thanking the president for the opportunity to serve, Rumsfeld said in a brief Oval Office session yesterday afternoon that the experience brought to mind the words of Winston Churchill -- "something to the effect," he quipped, "that I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof."
It was a rare melancholy moment for the alpha male and onetime Princeton wrestler who ran roughshod over the military brass, sparred bitterly with the media and mounted fierce rear-guard battles against the State Department during a six-year run that saw him become, first, an unlikely television celebrity and then the face of an unpopular war.
Though Bush affectionately patted Rumsfeld on the shoulder as he ushered him out of the Oval Office, there was little sugarcoating the reality that the defense chief, 74, was being offered as a sacrificial lamb amid the repudiation of Bush and his Iraq policy that the American electorate delivered on Tuesday.
Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, had actually recommended this course of action to Bush two years ago. The fact that the defense chief lasted so long in the job was essentially a reflection of the fact that, in firing Rumsfeld, "you are basically admitting you made some serious mistakes in the conduct of the war," observed former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta.

Bush has made a solid move by naming former CIA director Robert Gates to fill the vacant cabinet position. Let's hope that the new Democrat majority in the Senate chooses to act responsibly and not play politics with the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

A Little Personal Satisfaction

Farhan Shamsi couldn't be troubled to condemn terrorism during his campaign, but he could take the time to condemn this blogger for condemning terrorism and otherwise questioning evil committed in the name of Islam.

Voters in Fort Bend County couldn't be troubled to vote for Shamsi.

Republican Ken Cannata maintained a sizeable lead in his victorious campaign for Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace, taking 21,745 votes, or 69.6%, to Democrat Farhan ShamsiÂ’s 9,499, or 30.4%.

That sort of warms my heart. Maybe he'll have the time to answer my questions now.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Lampson Watch -- The First Broken Promise?

The new Democrat majority in Congress presents the first opportunity for Nick Lampson to keep or break a promise he made to the voters of CD22.

During the campaign, many of us in the GOP pointed out that a vote for Lampson was a vote to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. His supporters responded that Lampson had said he would not support her selection.

Question -- When will the newly-elected Nick Lampson declare his opposition to the selection of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Will he vote against her on the floor of the House on the first day of the new Congress in January? Or will his first action as the "representative" of CD22 be to break faith with the people of the district by voting for her?

I suspect that Lampson Watch will become a regular feature of this blog.

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Good News, Bad News In CD22

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs won election to the US House of Representatives in yesterday's special election with around 62% of the vote. Unfortunately, this only makes her my Congresswoman until January, when Democrat Nick Lampson takes over for the full term, having won a race in which Shelley's name was not allowed on the ballot. The final outcome of that race was around 52%-42%, with Sekula-Gibbs' write-in campaign doing quite well in a race where only the Democrat and the Libertarian appeared on the ballot.

Some observations.

1) Shelley's victor came in a race in which Lampson didn't compete -- because he knew he could not win and did not wish to expose the weakness of his support in CD22. That is part of why the Democrats fought so desperately to keep any GOP candidate off the general election ballot. But if you can barely scrape by with half the vote when you are the only major party candidate on the ballot, how much of a mandate can you really claim? I'd suggest that the answer is NONE -- and that Lampson begins his term in office as a lame duck.

2) Why did Shelley Sekula-Gibbs lose the general election? Because of the difficulty associated with casting a write-in vote. As an election judge, I spoke with at least a dozen folks (mostly elderly) who thought they had to cast two different ballots to vote for the special election and the general election -- and unintentionally cast their ballot before seeking to move on to cast any votes in the general election. I've heard similar stories from other precincts in the area. Others thought they could vote for Sekula-Gibbs by casting a straight-ticket GOP vote. They couldn't -- and came back later wanting to know if they could "fix" their error. And I have heard horror stories from the early ballot board of folks who sent in their ballots not marked "just so" -- Lampson's folks fought tooth and nail to keep them out, despite the clear intent of the voter. I suspect the same thing is going on now with any write-in vote that did not spell the name exactly right -- and we do not know exactly how many that would be. In other words, it is likely that a majority of voters in CD22 intended to vote for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs in the general election, but failed to do so because of confusion with the process of doing so.

3) Shelley's victory in the special election makes her the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination in 2008. I know that those of us who supported her during the nomination this spring very happy. I don't know if we have any local office-holders willing to give up a safe seat to challenge her for this position -- and David Wallace lacks credibility after his behavior back in August. I have no doubt that CD22 will be safely back in Republican hands two years from now -- and am pretty confident that Shelley Sekula-Gibbs will be returned to Washington for a full term at that time. After all -- being the face of hope for the party when all seems lost is what made ultimately made Ronald Reagan President of the United States.

By the way, let's attribute the loss of this at to the man who deserves the blame -- Tom DeLay. If, as is often claimed by the Democrats, DeLay knew he was not going to run in the general election as early as January, he should never have filed for office. His decision to drop out after getting an atta-boy for the GOP primary voters was selfish and led, I believe, to the Lampson victory and the larger GOP meltdown nationwide.

MORE ON THE CD22 RACE AT Texas Safety Forum.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

November 07, 2006

Polls Are Closed -- I Hope

Unless a huge line is straggling out the door of the library, the polls are closed in my little corner of Texas.

Here's hoping that I can get everything shut down and delivered to the county pretty quick -- I want to get to the celebration for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs!

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Polls Are Open

Polls here in Texas just opened at 7:00 AM. You have 12 hours to get out and cast your vote.

I expect a heavy turnout, so don't wait until the last minute to come to the polls -- PLEASE!

By the way, in my precinct I've had a 12% early voting/absentee rate this year.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

November 04, 2006

Vote Twice For Shelley!

I spent part of the morning (while my wife was out with friends) working preparing a last-minute mailing to go out to local Republicans on behalf of our local congressional candidate, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs -- and stopped to participate in a block walk in a friend's precinct along with Shelley while driving up to get supplies for the polling place.

The Washington Post covers the race today.

National Republican luminaries, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, have stumped through this congressional district recently, praising the conservative credentials of candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.
What Sekula-Gibbs has been doing is much more basic: She is trying to get voters to understand that she's running.
Congressional District 22, encompassing parts of four suburban counties south of Houston, used to be a slam-dunk for Republicans. Then its representative -- Tom DeLay, who was the House majority leader -- ran into ethics and legal troubles.
Under an ethics investigation and indicted on state money-laundering and conspiracy charges, the 12-term congressman handily won the March GOP primary but then announced his resignation from Congress and his official move to Virginia. DeLay assumed Texas Republican officials would replace him with a viable candidate -- but that was when the race got complicated.
One lawsuit and several federal court decisions later, DeLay officially withdrew as the nominee in late August. Sekula-Gibbs, a Houston City Council member, subsequently emerged as the GOP choice, but under Texas election law it was too late to put her name on the ballot. Voters instead will get a ballot with a blank space next to "Republican" for District 22. But Sekula-Gibbs will be listed as the GOP nominee for the special election -- also to be held on Tuesday -- to fill the remainder of DeLay's term, which will officially end in January.
Sekula-Gibbs, 53, has tried to simplify the story: "Vote Twice for Shelley," goes her campaign jingle, to the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel." "Write In" and "Vote Twice," say her blue-and-yellow campaign signs.
"That's probably the number one issue to get across," Sekula-Gibbs told GOP activists called together for a Friday breakfast to ask them to promote her write-in candidacy in the final 72 hours before Election Day. "We think 92 percent of voters know there is a write-in," she said of the Republican electorate. "We're in the final quarter of the game, and we cannot take anything for granted."

Shelley is surging in the polls and supporters are enthusiastic. Indeed, she is more energetic, enthusiastic and excited this close to the end of a campaign than any candidate I have ever worked with. I believe that we have a winner.

Remember -- on November 7, 2006, vote twice for Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs for Congress in CD22. Or vote this week during the remaining days of early voting.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

325kb generated in CPU 0.0718, elapsed 0.3152 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.2657 seconds, 486 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

November 30, 2006

November 27, 2006

November 25, 2006

November 20, 2006

November 18, 2006

November 15, 2006

November 14, 2006

November 13, 2006

November 12, 2006

November 11, 2006

November 10, 2006

November 09, 2006

November 08, 2006

November 07, 2006

November 04, 2006

Search Thingy

Categories

GOP Bloggers Blogroll

Live Liberty And Property Blogroll

101st Fighting Keyboardists

Texas Connection BlogRoll

Republican Attack Squad

Web Links

Counters and Stuff

Archives

Recent Comments

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Administrative Stuff

About Me

Support This Site

Advertising Disclosure

Munuvians