but down here in CD22, our reaction was "who is Tom Campbell?"

But then what do I know? I'm only a GOP precinct chair in the district.

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, who lost his leadership post because of his ties to a disgraced lobbyist and faces felony charges in his home state, now has another worry: an unprecedented four-way primary for the seat he's held comfortably for 22 years.

While two of DeLay's challengers aren't considered to have much credibility _ one is making his fourth attempt to unseat DeLay and the other has lived overseas much of her adult life _ lawyer Tom Campbell of Sugar Land holds an impressive Republican resume.

Campbell worked on the presidential campaigns of Bob Dole and the elder George Bush, whose administration appointed him general counsel to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A former Harris County Republican Party official runs Campbell's campaign.

Well, that depends upon how you define "former Harris County Republican party Official" and how seriously you take that designation. Besides, that "former official" is better known for being the wife of former DeLay business partner who has been a thorn in Delay's side for years.

I think Fort Bend County GOP Chair puts it best.

"Tom Campbell at least has Republican credentials," Fort Bend County GOP chairman Eric Thode said. "Having said that, it doesn't translate into one iota of support or money. He is 100 percent absolutely unknown in this county."

And not well-known in Harris County circles, either.

What we have here, my friends, is nothing but a puff piece on a minor candidate with a slightly ,ore impressive than usual resume.

EARLIER COVERAGE

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

The Democrat campaign of slander and calumny against Judge Samuel Alito in confirmation hearings. Of particular note, though, was a discussion of the notion that certain cases constitute "settled law" and that their holdings should never be reexamined or overturn by future courts.

The drama of the hearings' third day nearly overshadowed the significance of the position Alito staked out on the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade . Senators also branched into new territory: Alito's record from 15 years on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on cases involving religion, immigrants seeking to prevent deportation, and criminals' rights.

Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.

Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.

But when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."

Alito's position is one which seems disingenuous to some, but is probably among the most intellectually honest and rational positions that one could stake out on the issue. It is that no decision is beyond reexamination, though precedent is entitled to respect.

It is, after all, the role of the courts to apply the law and the Constitution in the particular cases before them. That process involves, among other things, looking at prior precedents and holdings and engaging in analogy, either likening one case to another or disinguishing them from one another. Old decisions are looked at in a new light cast by new facts. And sometimes an older principle is seen as not being workable in light of other principles or developments in law and society. At such times, it is necessary and proper to overturn a prior precedent, even if it is a venerable one.

In 1954, for example, Brown v. Board of Education was handed down by a unanimous Supreme Court. It overruled the holding in Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that government-imposed regimes of "separate but equal" treatment of individuals based upon race were acceptable and constitutional. For six decades, courts had struggled with the application of the Plessy precedent, analogizing and distinguishing in cases decided afterwards. Doing so showed that the Plessy decision was essentially unworkable and ithat the results were inconsistent with the Constitution, and so the Supreme Court struck down the older decision in the seminal civil rights decision of the twentieth century. As we look back, it is clear that this was a wise and courageous decision on the part of the Warren Court.

Which brings me back to Roe. Spme thirty years ago, the Burger Court expanded the notion of privacy to include the right of a woman to take the life of her unborn child with no restrictions in the first trimester and with gradually increasing restrictions later on in pregnancy. The reasoning was so fractured that no one opinion could garner five votes. Indeed, later cases have both expanded that right to limit permissible restrictions and limited that right by upholding others. Subsequent decisions have relied on Roe, while others have shown its flaws and weaknesses. One decison even argues that the correctness of the decision is irrelevant simply because the precedent is precedent and has been relied upon in subsequent cases.

But that begs teh question. What if the facts of a case and an examination of outcomes lead a justice to conclude that Roe is, in whole or in part, unworkable or wrong? Must that justice ignore that conclusion because of precedent. Or should that justice attempt to forge a new consensus around the conclusion he has reached? I would argue the latter, just as was done in the Brown.

And I ould argue that is true in the case of any precedent, inot just Roe. Even teh grandaddy of them all -- Marbury v. Madison. Precedent should not be jettisoned lightly or for transient political reasons. But it is proper.

After all, the reexamination of principles and opinions is a healthy process for an individual. It is no less so for society as a whole. And sometimes such reexamination leads to bright shining moments in the lives of individuals and or nations.

Interesting comments on the hearings at Jawa Report. Related reflections at Blogs for Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 5 kb.

There is no question that the Abramoff scandal is important. But is it as important as the press would make it? And what about other scandals that should be on the radar but are not?

This scandal is big -- no questions about that. But by what measure is this story so huge and historic? How does it compare to the House Bank scandal of 1992, which resulted in a number of congressional careers ended? How does Abramoff compare to the related mess at the House Post Office, which led to the eventual conviction of House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski?

There was no glee in the newsrooms then, when it was Democrats.

When Speaker Jim Wright was forced out in 1989 for dozens upon dozens of ethical violations? "Mindless cannibalism," Wright called it, and they agreed. When Majority Whip Tony Coelho scooted away behind Wright, the media mourned America's loss.

How does Casino-gate, or whatever we're going to call this one, compare to the Asian fundraising scandal of 1996? No one mentioned that, either. Investor's Business Daily published a very informative graphic showing that 22 foreign figures and Democrat activists plugging away for Clinton-Gore and Democratic candidates were convicted by the federal probe of that scandal. (And that figure does not include the people that fled the country rather than testify.) How is the Abramoff plea already bigger than that?

As expected, Democrats and their gaggle of supportive bloggers are claiming it's outrageous for anyone to suggest that Jack Abramoff could be connected to Democrats. They argue that because Abramoff was Republican and the majority of his funding went to Republicans, the discussion should end there. After all, the GOP is the Party of Corruption, is it not?

But the coverage of another fundraising scandal has been much more subdued -- indeed, the press has been absolutely comatose. That is the Hillary Clinton fundraising scandal, which resulted in an FEC fine.

How was Hillary's Hollywood-party fine covered? On Jan. 6, The Washington Post just carried the 325-word AP dispatch inside the paper. The New York Times gave it little more than 100 words on page B-4 in a "Metro Briefs" section. It was buried even further still as story number six in that column. Nothing emerged on ABC. Or CBS. Or NBC. Or NPR. (CNN mentioned it briefly on "American Morning," right before its brief item on the "Bubble Gum Bandit.") USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News? Nothing.

Dave Pierre at Newsbusters.org had some fun exploring the bias by omission at the Los Angeles Times. This paper had no Hillary story, but on Jan. 6, it did carry 2,315 words in two articles on NBC's liberal "Book of Daniel" premiere, 1,431 words on liberal Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, 182 words on Pat Robertson's bizarre Ariel Sharon remarks, and another 1,477 words (starting on Page One) on the decline in the popularity of tennis. Pierre was especially wincing over this factoid: The offending Hillary fundraiser was held in Hollywood, smack-dab on the paper's stomping grounds.

But let it not be said that the Los Angeles Times doesn't cover corruption. The day before, the front page carried a big, long Abramoff story with a tiny mention of Hillary Clinton's Abramoff connection.

So it seems that the MSM does not want to gve this important story any coverage -- even when it happens in their own backyard.

But then again, it is just one more corrupt Democrat. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary.

Posted by: Greg at 02:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

is justice denied.

And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to delay justice for Congressman Tom DeLay, despite state and federal constitutional guarantees of a right to a speedy trial.

AUSTIN, Texas -- The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the requests with no written order two days after he announced he was stepping down as House majority leader. DeLay had been forced to temporarily relinquish the Republican leadership post after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.

DeLay, who denies wrongdoing, had been trying to rush to trial in Texas in hopes of clearing his name and regaining the position.

One has to wonder, though, if DeLay's resignation from that leadership position on Saturday might have led the court to find the vindication of the congressman's rights to be less compelling.

DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said his client's announcement might have prompted the court's action.

"I'm sure the events of the weekend have something to do with it," DeGuerin said. "There's not the time crunch there was."

Now that DeLay is no longer trying to reclaim the leadership post before Congress convenes Jan. 31, his trial is likely to be postponed for weeks, if not months.

However, DeGuerin said that DeLay, facing re-election opponents in the March primary and, if he wins that, the November general election, would prefer to be tried before the primary.

"We'd like to have it resolved by then," he said.

Dut given the dilatory pace of the Ronnie Earle-led investigation, I doubt that there will be a trial by March. After all, he has been sending out subpoena's to groups that criticize him, as well as to anyone even tangentially connected to the Abramoff case, seeking additional charges against the former majority leader. A short trial date would necessarily force Earle to stop searching for a real crime and start focusing on the charges he grand jury-shopped for last fall.

So for now, no one knows when there will be a trial -- or if it will at all conform to constitutional notions of "speed".

Barring outright dismissal of the charges by that court, however, a trial could be postponed until later this year because of the lawyers' schedules and several outstanding pretrial fights, including whether the defendants would be tried in Travis County or some other Texas community.

Asked when he thought DeLay might actually be tried, DeGuerin said, "I've stopped guessing."

A DeLay spokesman blamed Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle for fighting DeLay's attempt to receive a quick trial.

"Ronnie Earle has gamed the justice system in Texas in a way that has kept Mr. DeLay's eventual exoneration in a holding pattern," Kevin Madden said. "He will eventually be cleared, but it's a terrible thing that Ronnie Earle has sought to deny that full exoneration for as long as possible."

Earle declined to comment.

In the appellate briefs, Earle said DeLay was asking for special treatment by demanding that his trial be in January.

I guess Earle doesn't find the constitutional rights of defendant's to be particularly compelling -- especially when he is granting access to movie crews to document the case, using his case as a partisan fundraising gambit, and restructuring the lcongressional leadership of the other party.

And then there is this.

The state is appealing the dismissal of a related indictment against DeLay accusing him of conspiracy to violate the state's election laws. Earle said the state has a right to have its appeal heard before prosecutors decide upon which charge to try DeLay.

What is this -- was the indictment merely a tactic to avoid the statute of limitations? Is Earle conceding that he does not really have a case against DeLay, merely charges that lack sufficient credibility to go to trial in a timely fashion? Especially since the remaining charges carry heavier sentences than the otiginal charge brought, which was dismissed for not being on the books at the time of the alleged offense. This is beginning to look like another case of Earle's -- the one against Kay Bailey Hutchison over a decade ago, which was dismissed with prejudice because the prosecution could not proceed when the trial was scheduled due to lack of substantive evidence.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
DeLay Withdraws From Leadership Position
More Opportunistic Subpoenas From Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 7 kb.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-Oldsmobile) is about to corrupt the youth of America with an inaccurate book about American government. How do I know it is inaccurate? Teddy is the author.

Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.

"I am very excited about the opportunity to create a book for young readers and their families that will deepen their understanding of how our American government works," Kennedy said in a statement Monday issued by Scholastic.

According to Scholastic, Kennedy's book "not only takes readers through a full day in the Senator's life, but also explains how a bill becomes a law." Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, was inspired to write the book from his work with a Washington-based reading program, "Everybody Wins!"
Kennedy's net proceeds will be donated to charity.

No doubt to some charity caring for trust-fund babies with cirrhosis of the liver.

And we wonÂ’t even get into the horribly inappropriate name for the books canine hero. In light of his abandonment of Mary Jo after driving off the Chappaquidick Bridge, I would have hoped that he had more decency than to name his dog Splash.

But then again, he is a Kennedy, so why should we expect decency?

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Too bad we can't just revoke their passports and let them stay in a country with a leader they clearly prefer.

The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday and attended his television and radio broadcast on Sunday.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people Â… support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.

Yeah, Harry, The US is such an oppressive state that you will be permitted to fly home, take a limo to your mansion, and appear on all the talk shows wearing your Rolex and Gucci clothes to tell us that we live in a dictatorship.

If a dissident from Venezuela (or Cuba, the other left-wing dictatorship you love so dearly) were to go abroad and make such statements, tehy would face arrest if allowed to return to their homeland .

Somight I suggest that you, Danny, and Cornel get your effin' heads out of your effin' @sses and realize that the fact that the government doesn't conform to your socialist policies does not make the President of the United States a terrorist or a dictator.

And by the way -- I hope one of you idiots (or a close loved one) is a victim of the NEXT attack by real terrorists. Maybe then you'll understand what a terrorist really is.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Six24 Blog Aggregator, Wikistan, Sensible Mom, RightWinged, Flynn Files, Independent Sources, FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, Macmind, Martin's Musings, Preaching Politics, The Violence Worker, The Lunch Counter, 4thelittle guy, Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

After sympathetically describing the plight of a battered woman who legally owned a gun but who was facing legal charges, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Joan Ryan proves that she just does not understand the real issue of government violation of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Rebecca knows she made a big mistake in leaving her purse with a loaded gun at a public place. Her lapse was a potentially dangerous one; it should not be minimized. But how do we balance her mistake against the danger she faces every day from a violent man who left her crushed and fearful, whose beatings and threats drove her into hiding?

The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal.

Actually, Joan, your entire piece prior to this point proves that laws banning the concealed carrying of firearms are wrong from any moral or ethical perspective -- unless one believes that victims have an obligation to place themselves at the complete mercy of those who seek to commit acts of violence against them.

The solution is obvious to those who are not blinded by anti-gun ideology -- free people should not be prohibitted from possessing the means to defend themselves from predators.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

In response to a growing discontent with the ongoing legal saga in Texas and his alleged connections to the Abramoff scandal, Congressman Tom DeLay has removed himself from the position of House Majority Leader.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) today abandoned his bid to remain House majority leader, bowing to pressure from a growing number of fellow House Republicans who wanted a permanent leadership change because of his indictment on campaign finance charges.

DeLay had stepped aside on a temporary basis after his indictment by a politically-motivated partisan hack prosecutor in Texas for breaking a law that was not on the books at the time of the alleged crime.

Congressman DeLay sent the following two letters to explain his decision.

The first went to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am writing to inform you of my decision to permanently step aside as majority leader, and of my belief that the best interests of the conference would be served by the election of a new leader as soon as possible.

The job of majority leader and the mandate of the Republican majority are too important to be hamstrung, even for a few months, by personal distractions.

I will continue to serve my constituents and seek re-election to a 12th term representing Texas' 22nd district while I work to clear my name of the baseless charges leveled against me. I will also be reclaiming my seat on the Appropriations Committee when the second session of the 109th Congress convenes later this month.

Sincerely,

Tom DeLay

The second was to his fellow Republicans in the House.

Dear Colleague,

Today, I have asked Speaker Hastert to convene our conference for the purpose of electing a new majority leader, the position I have been honored to fill these past three years through the trust and confidence of our colleagues.

During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land. I am fully confident time will bear this out.

However, we live in serious times and the United States House of Representatives must be focused on the job of protecting our nation and meeting the daily challenges facing the American people. History has proven that when House Republicans are united and focused, success follows.

While we wage these important battles, I cannot allow our adversaries to divide and distract our attention. I will continue to stand up for the issues I care so deeply about and work with you all on these priorities. I am constantly thankful for the support of my constituents in recent days as well as over the years they have allowed me to serve them. I will continue to work every day to fulfill their trust, and yours.

Regards,

Tom DeLay

Please note -- these are not the words of a quitter. Rather, they are the words of a man who is willing to place higher principles above his own ego and self-interest.

The President concurs in the decision -- though I think the cynical tone of the article does not accurately reflect the words of the White House.

After repeatedly maintaining that President Bush continued to support DeLay, the White House pivoted abruptly on Saturday, issuing a statement that endorsed DeLay's move. "We respect Congressman DeLay's decision to put the interests of the American people, the House of Representatives and the Republican Party first," said Erin Healy, a spokeswoman for Bush.

As you might imagine, the moonbats are appropriately batty of er this move.

Personally, I view this as the right move for the the GOP, for the House, and for the country. The leadership questions that existed while Tom DeLay was "on leave" from his leadership position while under indictment (something Democrats do require of their leaders, for all they protested a GOP attempt to change this internal causus rule) hrmed the ability of the president and the GOP majority to move forward on the business of the American people.

Thank you, Congressman DeLay.

GREAT COVERAGE FROM Chris Elam at Safety for Dummies, the foremost political blog of Fort Bend County.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
More Opportunistic Subpoenas From Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 7 kb.

Job #1 for the Texas legislature in 2007 needs to be taking the authority to investigate public corruption out of the local prosecutor's office in Austin and placing it with the state Attorney General where it belongs.

Look at what Ronnie Earle is up to now.

The Texas prosecutor who secured an indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on money-laundering charges broadened the scope of his inquiry into election spending yesterday, demanding documents related to funds that passed through a nonprofit organization, the U.S. Family Network.

The group, which was founded in 1996 by DeLay's then-chief of staff, Edwin A. Buckham, received $500,000 in 1999 from the National Republican Congressional Committee and used some of the money to finance radio ads attacking Democrats. The Federal Election Commission fined the party in 2004 for its role in the funding.

The prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, sent subpoenas yesterday to Buckham; the group's former president, Christopher Geeslin; the NRCC; and the treasurer of DeLay's leadership political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority.

The subpoenas asked for all documents related to the $500,000 contribution, including any correspondence involving DeLay or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe public officials and other crimes this week. The Washington Post reported Saturday that the largest donors to the U.S. Family Network were all associated with Abramoff. They contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the group before it folded in 2001.

Earle, an elected district attorney in Travis County, Tex., did not reveal in the subpoenas why he believes he has jurisdiction over the campaign spending. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the NRCC, told the Associated Press, "I'm going to call Roswell and warn them that Ronnie Earle is on the witch hunt for the Martians they have there," referring to the New Mexico city famous for an alleged UFO landing.

And that is precisely the problem with his actionsin this case -- Ronnie Earle is making it up as he goes along, just as he did with his original charges brought as part of his five days of grand jury shopping.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has this to say.

DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, called Thursday's subpoenas "more opportunism" by Earle.

"He's just following the news," said DeGuerin. "What does it have to do with whether money that came to candidates in Texas was corporate or individually donated?"

Its all part of Earle's strategy to destroy Tom DeLay by any means available. I suspect the next step will be to demand that the trial be delayed until he gets the records and has time to thoroughly examine them -- right to a speedy trial be damned.

And remember -- this is the same prosecutor who subpoenaed membership and donation lists from groups that engaged in constitutionally protected political speech criticizing his conduct in the DeLay case. Ronnie Earle is simply a power-drunk partisan hack.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 6 kb.

After spending over a half-million dollars on a remodeling project for her aides during a budget crisis, now Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco is complaining that the federal government is not giving her and her state enough money.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco complained on Thursday that Louisiana is not getting its fair share of hurricane aid from the federal government.

Blanco said that Louisiana suffered 70 percent of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina but that it is not getting an equivalent amount in aid.

"We are all American citizens, we cannot allow ourselves to be treated like second-class citizens," the governor said during an update on rebuilding to the New Orleans city council.

Sam Jones, Blanco's deputy director of community programs, pointed out that Louisiana got only $6.2 billion out of $11.5 billion in Community Development Block Grants that were recently approved by Congress and President Bush.

By my math, that is 54% of the funds going to Louisiana. But since Gov. Blank-stare and her clleagues in Louisiana have done 90% of the complaining, I think that everything averages out just fine.

She also shows why the future federal response to disasters should be "Hope you have insurance -- y'all are on your own."

Posted by: Greg at 06:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

The other day, while talking about Carole Keeton StrayhornÂ’s defection, I commented on a possible runoff election for governor.

I was wrong to have done so. While so many other offices require a majority to win, that office does not. The Chronicle points this out in an editorial today

The truth is that no one knows how Strayhorn's candidacy will shape the race. Strayhorn's entry means that any candidate with a plurality will win the election; no runoff is needed.

I acknowledge my mistake – and wonder how wild and woolly a ride we are going to have between now and November.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, its not like a $700,000 understatement of contributions from one event is a big deal, is it?

A fund-raising committee for Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign has agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty and to concede that reports it made to the federal government understated by more than $700,000 donations to a California celebrity gala held to benefit her Senate bid.

The agreement between the committee, New York Senate 2000, and the Federal Election Commission ends the campaign finance regulation agency's inquiry into a complaint filed in 2001 by an entrepreneur who financed the fund-raising concert, Peter Paul.

"The civil payment assessed to New York Senate 2000 resolves the question of underreported in-kind contributions, and there will be no further action on this matter," an attorney for the fundraising committee, Marc Elias, said.

The conciliation agreement, ap proved at a Federal Election Commission meeting last month, has not yet been made public. However, three sources with knowledge of the terms outlined the deal to The New York Sun.

Under the agreement, the committee will amend its public reports to show that Paul's in-kind gifts to the fund-raising concert were understated by $721,895. The committee and its treasurer, Andrew Grossman, agreed that there was probable cause to believe that the filings violated federal campaign finance law. However, the committee claimed that it relied on "reasonable processes" to verify the data it filed.

And to think we kept hearing that there was noting to the Peter Paul scandal.

Not that we're going to hear a word from the MSM about the misconduct -- or from the leadership of the Democrats -- about campaign corruption.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

What will this mean?

One of the most controversial figures on the world stage, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, has suffered a massive stroke and is undergoing surgery to deal with a cerebral hemorrhage.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a "significant" stroke with "massive bleeding" in his brain late Wednesday night, according to an official at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem and Sharon's authority has been transferred to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Sharon was rushed to the hospital shortly before 11 P.M. Wednesday night after complaining of chest pains, less than three weeks after suffering a mild stroke and the day before he had been set to undergo a heart procedure.

In a brief statement outside the Jerusalem hospital Wednesday night, Dr. Shlomo Mor-Yosef said Sharon had suffered "a significant stroke," adding that he was "under anesthetic and receiving breathing assistance."

A few minutes later, Mor-Yosef emerged to say that initial tests showed Sharon had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, or bleeding inside his brain. Addressing reporters in English, Mor-Yosef said Sharon had "massive bleeding and was being transferred to an operating theater."

Channel 2 television said Sharon was suffering from paralysis in his lower body. Analysts on local television stations speculated that his life could be in danger.

According to one senior doctor, who based his diagnosis on the information released by Sharon's doctors, the prime minister's chances to return to full functioning are not high.

The doctor said that in many similar cases, a cerebral hemorrhage means the patient's life is under significant threat.

Let us offer prayers for his recovery.

This article looks at the political implications.

Others commenting include GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, All Things Beautiful,. The Political Pitbull and Allison Kaplan Sommer of An Unsealed Room

UPDATE: When you see this headline, you know that things look really bleak.

Sharon Reportedly Alive After Surgery

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive, life-threatening stroke Wednesday and underwent lengthy surgery to drain blood from his brain after falling ill at his ranch. Powers were transferred to his deputy, Ehud Olmert.

Israeli TV stations reported that Sharon was alive after an operation that lasted more than six hours. At daybreak, Army Radio reported that Sharon was undergoing a CT scan to determine if the bleeding in his brain had been stopped.

An ambulance brought Sharon to the Jerusalem hospital only hours before the hard-charging, overweight, 77-year-old Israeli leader had been scheduled to undergo a procedure to seal a hole in his heart that contributed to a mild stroke on Dec. 18.

Israel Radio quoted an unidentified Israeli health official as saying that Sharon's prospects of a full recovery were slim.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess that when ACORN calls for justice for workers and the poor, they donÂ’t mean to include their own employees.

According to a Dec. 25 report in the Boston Globe, the Democratic Party is joining forces with the activist group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to place initiatives on state ballots this fall to raise the minimum wage. The idea is to energize the poor to vote for Democratic candidates, as well as the initiative.

ACORN's involvement in this campaign is amusing because a few years ago the group sued the state of California in order to be exempted from its minimum wage requirement, which was higher than the federal government's. In its appellate brief, ACORN acknowledged that the more it had to pay each worker, the fewer such workers it would be able to hire. Of course, the same thing is true for businesses, as well -- something minimum wage advocates refuse to admit.

Furthermore, ACORN argued that paying its workers less than the minimum wage aided its organizing efforts. Said the brief, "A person paid limited sums of money will be in a better position to empathize with and relate to the low and moderate membership and constituency of ACORN." Somehow I doubt that a business catering to those with low incomes would get any sympathy from ACORN if it made the same argument.

Indeed, ACORN has a history of denying its workers rights that it demands from corporations. For example, its "People's Platform" says that all workers have the right to organize. Yet, when its own workers have tried to do so, ACORN strenuously fought them.

In 2001, all of the workers in ACORN's Seattle office signed cards stating a desire to join the Industrial Workers of the World, a labor union with a long history of radicalism. ACORN's management refused to recognize the union and locked out the workers. Eventually, ACORN relented and paid a $20,000 settlement. Afterward, an IWW organizer said, "This underscores further the doublespeak that causes their workers to unionize or resign in disgust, and it shows that (ACORN's leaders) have learned nothing about workers' rights."

That same year, ACORN intimidated and fired workers in its Dallas office for threatening to organize. In 2003, the National Labor Relations Board found that it had violated the law. Said the NLRB, "By interrogating employees about their union activities, by informing employees that other employees have been discharged because of the union, by threatening employees that selecting the union to represent them will be futile and by threatening employees with discharge, respondent has violated section 8(a) of the act."

But then again, we shouldnÂ’t be surprised. Liberals are best known for being generous with the money and property of other people, not their own.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Chris Elam of Safety for Dummies is chasing down news that former congressman Steve Stockman has declared as an independent in the 22nd Congressional District, so that voters have a solid conservative with name recognition in the event that Tom DeLay leaves the House of Representatives for one reason or another.

Props to Burnt Orange Report for breaking this unnoticed bit of news!

Posted by: Greg at 04:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Now Ronnie Earle is filing paperwork to oppose Tom DeLay's expedited appeal.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is trying to bully his way through the court system to further his own political ambitions, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in court documents that the Republican is "attempting to leapfrog" over the usual court procedures by asking the state's highest criminal court to dismiss all charges against him or to order a trial right away.

DeLay was forced to step aside as majority leader after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.

He has been pressing the state's highest criminal court to address the charges quickly because he wants to regain his post before his colleagues call for new leadership elections later this month.

The case has been on hold while prosecutors appeal a judge's dismissal of some of the charges.

Uh, excuse me. Where does Ronnie Earle, the politically motivated partisan prosecutor with a history of going after political opponents, have any business criticizing anyone for being a bully who is using the courts to further their own political ambitions? That is the life story of Ronnie Earle summed up in one phrase!

And Dick DeGuerin is spot-on in his analysis of why the case needs to be expedited.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said the case affects voters in DeLay's Houston-area congressional district and Republican members of Congress who elected DeLay as majority leader.

"A county prosecutor has thrown a monkey wrench into the functioning of the United States Congress, and that's something that needs to be resolved," DeGuerin said.

Filing for the primary ended yesterday. Ronnie Earle is trying to keep a cloud over DeLay through March -- and though November, if possible -- in an effort to orchestrate the defeat of a political enemy.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
Anotther Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 4 kb.

Let no opportunity pass by to throw some more dirt -- that seems to be Ronnie Earle's motto. Now he wants to investigate the Abramoff matter -- with a special focus on his favorite target, Congressman Tom DeLay.

The prosecutor in the Texas money laundering case against Rep. Tom DeLay issued subpoenas today looking for links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and fundraising by the former majority leader.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued the subpoenas in Austin the same day that Abramoff pleaded guilty in Washington to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.

What does he want?

In the Texas case, Earle sought records from Abramoff's former employers, legal firms Greenberg Traurig LLP and Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, LLP. He also subpoenaed records from a lawyer for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a former Abramoff client, and from a representative for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, a California tribe.

DeLay's attorney knows the score on this one.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said Earle "goes where the fish bite."

"Ronnie Earle is an opportunist," DeGuerin said. "He issues subpoenas to try to make a connection between his case and the latest scandal, whatever it happens to be. The Abramoff thing is the latest he's doing. It has nothing to do with the case in Texas. Nothing. Zip."

Wanna bet he tries to use this new demand for evidence as a reason to abridge DeLay's constitutional right to a speedy trial?

PREVIOUS POSTS:
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 02:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 4 kb.

I was never a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers, but I always admired the skill and class of Lynn Swann, the team's all-everything wide receiver during its glory days. He is now going to enter a new field -- politics.

A big day awaits Lynn Swann on Wednesday.

Swann planned to open a three-day state tour at a rally in Pittsburgh.

Swann, a wide receiver for the Steelers, was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2001.

Aides declined to confirm the purpose of the tour, but Swann's political committee -- Team 88, named after his football jersey number -- has been raising money for 11 months. Swann has billed himself as a prospective candidate while courting GOP activists across the state.

"It might be easy to assume" the subject of Swann's announcement, acknowledged his campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Walters, who also referred to the upcoming flyover as an "announcement tour."

The 53-year-old Swann will be the last of the Republican hopefuls to make his candidacy official. Already declared are former Lieutenant Governor Bill Scranton, state Senator Jeffrey Piccola and retired business advocate Jim Panyard.

Good luck, Lynn.

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like he has lost his nerve – and his patriotism.

Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.

A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.

"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.

"Exactly right," said Murtha.

Sort of speaks for itself, donÂ’t you think?

OTHER VOICES: Blogs for Bush, Macmind, A Blog for All, Irish Pennants, Confessions of a Pilgrim, 4thelittleguy, Publius Rendezvous">Publius Rendezvous, Pardon My English, Donklephant, Peat Blog, Tammy Bruce, Conservative Outpost.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 2 kb.

What is being hidden in the Barrett Report, the fruit of the special prosecutororial investigation of Henry Cisneros that has gone on for a decade?

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com.

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

"As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett, who didn't want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments," he said.

As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.

There must be something in there that is embarrassing to someone in the Barrett Report. After all, there are certainly enough motions to redact information being filed.

In October, after voicing concerns that the report had yet to be released, Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Dorgan introduced an amendment to the judiciary appropriations bill that would have released all portions of the report, with deletions only for "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy."

But the language worked out in the subsequent House-Senate conference and in the final bill gave much more discretion to the court to redact individuals' names, which critics contend, ensures that much of Section Five and the most serious charges would be left out of the final report.

Barrett said he is disappointed, but not surprised, at the developments. At least 146 motions have been filed by lawyers connected to the individuals cited in the report, which is reportedly 450 pages long with 2,600 footnotes, delaying its release.

Grassley, in his October remarks regarding the need for the report's imminent release, blamed "foot-dragging" by the lawyers for the individuals named in the report.

"It is the lawyers of the individuals named in the report who have been engaged in one sole pursuit: to foot-drag every inch of the way, filing every motion they can to delay, delay, delay," he said.

Strange, isn’t it, that no one is leaking THIS report, and that the press is not making an issue of the veil of secrecy around this information? It couldn’t be that the fact that this investigation deals with the Clinton Administration – and that Hillary! Is running for president – that causes the deafening silence on the issue?

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

What is being hidden in the Barrett Report, the fruit of the special prosecutororial investigation of Henry Cisneros that has gone on for a decade?

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com.

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

"As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett, who didn't want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments," he said.

As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.

There must be something in there that is embarrassing to someone in the Barrett Report. After all, there are certainly enough motions to redact information being filed.

In October, after voicing concerns that the report had yet to be released, Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Dorgan introduced an amendment to the judiciary appropriations bill that would have released all portions of the report, with deletions only for "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy."

But the language worked out in the subsequent House-Senate conference and in the final bill gave much more discretion to the court to redact individuals' names, which critics contend, ensures that much of Section Five and the most serious charges would be left out of the final report.

Barrett said he is disappointed, but not surprised, at the developments. At least 146 motions have been filed by lawyers connected to the individuals cited in the report, which is reportedly 450 pages long with 2,600 footnotes, delaying its release.

Grassley, in his October remarks regarding the need for the report's imminent release, blamed "foot-dragging" by the lawyers for the individuals named in the report.

"It is the lawyers of the individuals named in the report who have been engaged in one sole pursuit: to foot-drag every inch of the way, filing every motion they can to delay, delay, delay," he said.

Strange, isn’t it, that no one is leaking THIS report, and that the press is not making an issue of the veil of secrecy around this information? It couldn’t be that the fact that this investigation deals with the Clinton Administration – and that Hillary! Is running for president – that causes the deafening silence on the issue?

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

Roddy Stinson argues that Kinky FriedmanÂ’s 21% showing does not prove any such thing.

The only "serious" point that can be made about candidate Kinky is that he has become the poster child for the crippled Texas Democratic Party.

The most significant number in the Zogby poll wasn't Perry's 42 percent, but the measly 25 percent garnered by the Democrats' leading candidate, Chris Bell.

Whom did other Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents select?

Here's a clue:

Four years ago, in the state's top three races — governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. senator — the Democratic candidates received, respectively, 40 percent, 46 percent and 43 percent of the votes cast.

If you take 46 percent (the number of voters willing to vote Democratic in at least one statewide race) and subtract 25 percent (Bell's support), you get 21 percent ... Friedman's poll number.

Coincidence?

Hardly.

While Journal-Constitution writer Galloway and other reporters and pundits imply that Friedman's popularity signifies Texans' discontent with Republican rule in general and Gov. Rick Perry in particular, the opposite — discontent with the Texas Democratic Party — is closer to the truth.

The question is, will the addition of Carole Keeton McClellan Rylnader Strayhorn [YOUR LAST NAME HERE] to the race as an independent rather than a GOP primary contender take voters from Friedman and Bell – or from Perry. And will her presence bring about a runoff?

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

As expected, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR LAST NAME HERE] has quit the GOP and is running for governor as an independent.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn ended speculation today by announcing she will run for governor against Gov. Rick Perry as an independent.

"It's time to shake Austin up," Strayhorn, who is now serving as a Republican officeholder, told reporters today, the filing deadline for the 2006 elections.

"Governor Perry may be doing the best he can, but after five years, we have learned he is not the strong leader we need to put Texas above politics," she added.

Satirist Kinky Friedman already has announced as an independent candidate for governor.

The major candidates in the Democratic primary are Chris Bell of Houston, a former congressman, and Bob Gammage, a former Houston congressman and Texas Supreme Court justice who now lives in Llano.

Strayhorn, who was first elected comptroller in 1998 as a Republican, had announced in June that she would challenge Perry for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. But last week she refused to dismiss speculation that she would run as an independent to avoid Perry's strong popularity in the GOP primary.

Let's face it -- Rick Perry has long had this thing sewn up. As a result, the only chance that Strayhorn ever had was a three-way primary that included Kay Bailey Hutchison. Kay decided to stay in the Senate, demolishing any chance that Perry would have lost in a primary dominated by the conservative wing of the party. After all, Carole has always been a moderate-to-liberal Republican, and was a Democrat not all that long ago.

I thnk that Chris Elam over at Safety for Dummies puts it best when he makes this observation.

[Y]ou were an opportunist who changed parties when the state's political landscape changed around you. You spent months and thousands of dollars running radio ads against Rick Perry, and his poll numbers went up.

You're in over your head, and you won't admit it. Now you're reduced to splitting the Kinky vote. Republicans won't touch you, and Democrats are unimpressed.

Enjoy retirement. Rick Perry sends his well wishes.

One son has left the Bush administration to work for your doomed campaign. I bet that your other son, Scott McClellan, is glad that he hasn't quit his day job as the president's Press Secretary.

And here are two pieces from Lone Star Times.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

Had we not seen so much of her incompetence during the days around Hurricane Katrina, I would be unable to believe that even the governor of Louisiana could be so self-serving, insensitive, and wasteful with government resources while her people were in need.

Some members of the governor's staff will return from the three-day holiday on Tuesday to newly renovated offices at the State Capitol.

Shortly after the two hurricanes, Gov. Kathleen Blanco decided to renovate some of her staff's offices. At the time of her decision, Blanco also was hinting at deep budget cuts to state programs and the possibility of laying off 20 percent of the state workforce.

The project cost $564,838.

Given the condition in which the hurricane left your state, including the city of new Orleans, don't you think there might be a few other ways to spend over half-a-million dollars?

The newly refurbished office space on the sixth floor of the State Capitol includes hookups and mounts for two flat screen televisions, Swedish granite countertops, walnut paneling and frosted laminated glass. The floor, which will not be accessible to the public, was redesigned to add three new offices, a conference room and file storage areas.

About 20 members of the governor's staff – who focus on constituent services, children's issues, women's policies and other functions – will work on the newly restored floor

Well, twenty staff members will use the space. It isn't like there are displaced families living in temporary shelter who could use that money. It isn't like there are homes and businesses that need reconstruction. Your aides need fancy-schmancy offices right now. Screw the victims -- Louisiana's corrupt ruling class needs Swedish marble counter tops!

But at least your aides thought about not doing the project -- and then decided to move forward anyway.

Concerned about the perception of fixing up their office space while slashing others' spending, Jimmy Clarke, Blanco's chief of staff, said Friday the governor's top aides considered not fixing the 6th floor.

But the sixth floor project was bid six days before Hurricane Katrina came ashore near Buras on Aug. 29. Clarke said he became concerned that the state could be sued successfully if the restoration project were shut down.

"We certainly would not have initiated this work post-Katrina and Rita," Clarke said. "Given all that the state faces at this time, these renovations would be a very low priority."

Somehow I suspect that there might be language in the contract -- or in state law -- that might have allowed for the project to be terminated due to the situation that existed after Katrina. So tell me -- whose brother-in-law or cousin got the job? I mean, the governor was cutting and freezing elsewhere.

Restoration work began on the sixth floor Oct. 10, two weeks after Hurricane Rita struck Cameron on Sept. 24.

The week before work began, Blanco ordered a spending and hiring freeze to rein in state government expenses.

Three days after crews started tearing out the old offices, the administration announced that the state's budget would be about $1 billion short because of damages caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That day, Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc told a legislative finance committee that the budgets supplying money for public health care and education would need cuts of 20 percent or more and that more than 18,000 state employees would have to be laid off.

I'm glad we had the priorities straight -- office upgrades for the governor's staff certainly trump the students and teachers of Louisiana, as well as those who rely on public health programs. Heck -- I bet that a dozen state employees could have kept their jobs if your staff had just walked on older carpet or kept the space configured in the older fashion. After all, it had only been about twenty years since the last remodeling job.

Now there would have been a press uproar if a Republican administration had behaved in such a disgusting manner. I know that Democrats would have howled over such screwed-up priorities and wasteful spending by a GOP governor. I can't help but notice the relative silence here.

But not to worry -- I'm sure the staff of your Republican successor will appreciate teh fruits of your wasteful spending after your sorry Democrat ass is thrown out of office.

OTHER POSTS AT: Mover Mike, Louisiana Libertarian, You Are A Sissy-Man. The Old Curmudgeon, That Gay Conservative, EU Rota.

TRACKBACK TO: bRight & Early, Uncooperative Blogger, Stuck On Stupid, Wizbang.

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 6 kb.

I guess it depends on whether the leak helps or hurts US national security -- and whether or not the Democrats can use it to bash the Bush administration. Since the security of the United States is degraded by the leak about NSA surveilance of al-Qaeda operatives AND it plays into the standard leftist Bush=Hitler talking point, its a good leak in the eyes of some Democrats. Take this one.

The investigation into leaks about a domestic spying program should determine whether the motivation was damaging security or revealing a potentially illegal activity, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.

"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait 'til the investigation occurs to decide what happened," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

On Friday, the Justice Department opened an investigation into who divulged the existence of President Bush's secret domestic spying program. The New York Times reported last month about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who appeared with Schumer on "Fox News Sunday," urged the Justice Department to "go after those who breached our national security and endangered Americans in the war on terror."

If this program was illegal, then I hope people are prosecuted -- but I don't think it was illegal. But regardless, those who leaked the information to the press for front page publication cannot be seen as acting in a legitimate fashion.The appropriate recipient of those suspicions would have been a prosecutor, a senior law enforcement official, or a member of Congres (which has oversight authority over the NSA). The New York Times has no legitimate role in making the determination of the legality of the program.

MORE AT: My Pet Jawa and Dread Pundit Bluto.

1/2/06 -- Welcome to everyone dropping by from Michelle Malkin's excellent blog. Thank's for the mention!

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.