We have heard the commercials over the last year – Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR NAME HERE] (mother of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan) calls herself “One Tough Grandma” in a series of campaign commercials she has run over the last year, attacking Gov. Rick Perry. Now she wants to run as “Grandma Strayhorn” on the November ballot as a way of boosting her independent bid for governor.

Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn won political office under her two previous married names, but in this year's race for governor, voters apparently are saying: Strayhorn who?

Strayhorn told supporters in an e-mail this week that is why she wants to solve her name identification problem by appearing on the November ballot as "Grandma" Strayhorn. She has campaigned as "One Tough Grandma" since 1998.

Born Carole Keeton, she won the Austin mayor's office as Carole McClellan. She won statewide elections for railroad commissioner and state comptroller as Carole Keeton Rylander.

But she has remarried since her last election in 1992, exchanging vows with Eddie Strayhorn and picking up a new last name in the process.

"The name change from Rylander to Strayhorn has not completely sunk in with voters (She has never run as Strayhorn)," said the fundraising e-mail.

Strayhorn has six granddaughters. "Once voters are told that Strayhorn is 'One Tough Grandma,' she jumps 10 points in every poll we have taken, and (Gov. Rick) Perry drops," the e-mail said. "No public poll has tested her nickname 'Grandma,' only Strayhorn."

The e-mail says that is why she will appear on the November ballot as Carole Keeton "Grandma" Strayhorn.

Unfortunately, there are two obstacles facing her. The first is that she may not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot – that has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State’s office. The second is that she doesn’t really meet the criteria for including the nickname.

State law allows the use of a nickname on the ballot if it is a name by which the candidate has been "commonly known for at least three years preceding the election."

"The law doesn't allow you to use a political slogan. So we weren't going to try that," said Strayhorn's campaign manager and son, Brad McClellan. "More people know her as 'grandma' than Strayhorn."

Robert Black, spokesman for Gov. James Richard Perry — aka Rick — said Strayhorn has never run on the ballot as "grandma." He called it a political slogan and a gimmick.

"She ain't my grandma," Black said. "If she was honestly looking for a moniker people would recognize she would put flip-flopper or multiple-party-switcher."

Strayhorn has not used this as a common nickname – you won’t find it in news articles or even her campaign literature. The only place you will find such a reference is in her “One Tough Grandma” ads. I’ve been involved in Texas GOP politics for a decade – I never heard her called that until folks made a derogatory reference to the ads. And it is not like the argument for my using “Greg” instead of “Gregory” on the ballot for precinct chair, or letting the Democrat R. Christopher Bell run as the more familiar Chris Bell or Richard Friedman use his longstanding professional name of Kinky Friedman. On the other hand, if you apply Strayhorn’s argument across the board, you may as well let someone run as John “The Taxpayer’s Friend” Smith.

My guess is that One Tough Grandma will only be permitted to use her legal name.

Posted by: Greg at 09:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

We have heard the commercials over the last year – Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR NAME HERE] (mother of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan) calls herself “One Tough Grandma” in a series of campaign commercials she has run over the last year, attacking Gov. Rick Perry. Now she wants to run as “Grandma Strayhorn” on the November ballot as a way of boosting her independent bid for governor.

Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn won political office under her two previous married names, but in this year's race for governor, voters apparently are saying: Strayhorn who?

Strayhorn told supporters in an e-mail this week that is why she wants to solve her name identification problem by appearing on the November ballot as "Grandma" Strayhorn. She has campaigned as "One Tough Grandma" since 1998.

Born Carole Keeton, she won the Austin mayor's office as Carole McClellan. She won statewide elections for railroad commissioner and state comptroller as Carole Keeton Rylander.

But she has remarried since her last election in 1992, exchanging vows with Eddie Strayhorn and picking up a new last name in the process.

"The name change from Rylander to Strayhorn has not completely sunk in with voters (She has never run as Strayhorn)," said the fundraising e-mail.

Strayhorn has six granddaughters. "Once voters are told that Strayhorn is 'One Tough Grandma,' she jumps 10 points in every poll we have taken, and (Gov. Rick) Perry drops," the e-mail said. "No public poll has tested her nickname 'Grandma,' only Strayhorn."

The e-mail says that is why she will appear on the November ballot as Carole Keeton "Grandma" Strayhorn.

Unfortunately, there are two obstacles facing her. The first is that she may not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot – that has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State’s office. The second is that she doesn’t really meet the criteria for including the nickname.

State law allows the use of a nickname on the ballot if it is a name by which the candidate has been "commonly known for at least three years preceding the election."

"The law doesn't allow you to use a political slogan. So we weren't going to try that," said Strayhorn's campaign manager and son, Brad McClellan. "More people know her as 'grandma' than Strayhorn."

Robert Black, spokesman for Gov. James Richard Perry — aka Rick — said Strayhorn has never run on the ballot as "grandma." He called it a political slogan and a gimmick.

"She ain't my grandma," Black said. "If she was honestly looking for a moniker people would recognize she would put flip-flopper or multiple-party-switcher."

Strayhorn has not used this as a common nickname – you won’t find it in news articles or even her campaign literature. The only place you will find such a reference is in her “One Tough Grandma” ads. I’ve been involved in Texas GOP politics for a decade – I never heard her called that until folks made a derogatory reference to the ads. And it is not like the argument for my using “Greg” instead of “Gregory” on the ballot for precinct chair, or letting the Democrat R. Christopher Bell run as the more familiar Chris Bell or Richard Friedman use his longstanding professional name of Kinky Friedman. On the other hand, if you apply Strayhorn’s argument across the board, you may as well let someone run as John “The Taxpayer’s Friend” Smith.

My guess is that One Tough Grandma will only be permitted to use her legal name.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Two days ahead of his resignation from Congress, the Texas GOP has declared Congressman Tom Delay ineligible to be on the ballot as a candidate for Congress. The reason? He is no longer a resident of Texas.

Texas Republicans took a key official step Wednesday toward replacing U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot, as the state GOP declared him ineligible to run because he has moved his official residence to Virginia.

Friday is the former House majority leader's last day in Congress.

Republican Party of Texas Chairwoman Tina Benkiser notified Republican county chairs in the 22nd Congressional District that they can begin the process for selecting a new nominee. DeLay's successor as GOP nominee will be selected by a four-member committee of precinct chairs representing each of the counties in the district — Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris.

County chairs plan to call meetings before the end of the month. Once each of the counties has selected its representative, they will meet to choose the new Republican nominee.

As one of those precinct chairs, I wonder how fast the process will play out. I have been figuring that meetings could not begin until at least Thursday of next week (it takes five days in Harris County to call an emergency meeting) -- but this date allows for a meeting as early as Monday. I'll let you know when I know.

Now I do have one little constitutional quibble here. If Delay has already established himself as a Virginia resident, shouldn't that have caused the automatic forfeiture of office? After all, a congressman does have to be a resident of the state he represents. As a practical matter it is irrelevant, as he will likely cast no votes -- and certainly none where his vote is the deciding matter. But it is an interesting intellectual question to turn over in one's mind.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, dear, the FBI threatened to pick a lock to execute a valid search warrant. Had this been one of our homes or offices, they would have kicked in the damn door.

FBI agents who raided the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last month threatened to pick the lock on the door after the acting U.S. Capitol Police chief asked them to hold off until a congressional lawyer showed up, according to a document filed in U.S. District Court.

Shortly after that, the FBI agents were let in.

The confrontation with Acting Chief Christopher M. McGaffin was cited in a brief filed by the Office of General Counsel for the House of Representatives as one of irregularities that made the search unconstitutional. Jefferson, the target of a federal bribery probe, has denied wrongdoing.

"The execution of the warrant poses a grave threat to the separation of powers principle that is the very foundation of our government's structure," the motion said.

Excuse me? Do I understand that the Capitol Police interfered with the execution of a lawfully issued search warrant? If so, why was Acting Chief Christopher M. McGaffin not taken into custody after delaying the investigation?

Now we have already established time and again that there is no privilege that grants a congressman the right to conduct criminal activity in a congressional office free from search or investigation. There is no threat to the separation of powers when a federal judge issues a warrant pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to search for evidence of a crime involving a member of Congress. Why are they even making this specious argument?

What I find particularly amusing is this part of the motion.

The motion, which recommends new protocols for congressional search warrants, suggested that the House counsel and Jefferson could have been present during the search to ensure legislative documents protected by the Speech or Debate Clause were not seized.

What? So Jefferson could have engaged in the same sort of actions he did when his home was searched -- moving and hiding relevant documents and lying to FBI agents about the documents he had in his possession? That is a non-starter.

I once had respect for the Capitol Police. However, the last couple of months make me wonder if they really are less competent and more corrupt than your average untrained, unarmed mall cops, between this and the Patrick Kennedy cover-up. Maybe Cynthia McKinney was right to bitch-slap one of them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

I can’t wait to hear this one – what “honorable explanation” can you have for taking bribes and hiding the marked bills in your freezer?

Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, said Tuesday that there is "an honorable explanation" for the damaging scenario being painted by the federal government in the federal bribery probe targeting him, and he again denied breaking any laws.

Jefferson declined to discuss specifics of the 15-month investigation that has yielded two guilty pleas amid allegations that the congressman accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. Jefferson has not been charged and would not speculate on whether he thought an indictment was coming from the northern Virginia grand jury investigating him.

In a wide-ranging interview late Tuesday in his congressional office, the site last month of an unprecedented FBI search, Jefferson said he has no intention of stepping down and reiterated his plan to seek a ninth term in November.

"When all is said and done, you will see that there is an honorable explanation for everything you are reading about," Jefferson said, remaining relaxed throughout the interview, his feet slung up on a coffee table. "I believe an impartial forum can reach and will reach that same conclusion.

If he believes that, the Democrat culture of corruption must run much deeper – especially in Louisiana – than any of us ever imagined.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator, in light of your earlier assertion, is the Pennsylvania Legislature bigoted and un-American?

By a vote of 136-61, which included significant Democratic support, the House approved a proposal that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill will likely be voted on in the Senate by the end of the month, a Senate Republican spokesman said.

A constitutional amendment requires passage in the legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approval by voters in a statewide referendum, which could come as early as spring 2007.

We are waiting, Senator, with bated breath.

And are there other issues that you believe it is unAmerican for legislators to debate, or upon which it is un-American for the people to vote?

And why is it that so many Democrats fear democracy in action?

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

And here we kept being told that the GOP was going to lose this safe seat previously held by Duke Cunningham (may he rot in jail forever). Guess not!

A former Republican congressman narrowly beat his Democratic rival early Wednesday for the right to fill the House seat once held by imprisoned Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a race closely watched as a possible early barometer of next fall's vote.

Republican Brian Bilbray emerged victorious after a costly and contentious race against Democrat Francine Busby, a local school board member who ran against Cunningham in 2004.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016 votes or 49.5 percent. Busby trailed with 51,202 votes or 45 percent. "I think that we're going back to Washington," Bilbray told a cheering crowd of supporters.

The race _ one of dozens of election contests in eight states _ was viewed by Democrats as an opportunity to capture a solidly Republican district and build momentum on their hopes to capture control of the House.

Even Francine Busby's appeal to illegal aliens to turn out to vote for her and Busby-financed ads for Minuteman-backed candidate William Griffith didn't do the Democrats any good, as busby increased her share of the vote by less than one percent from the primary.

I think that Nancy Pelosi may want to hold off on planning to "redecorate the House".

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Unless the Justice Department can track down some actual quid-pro-quo related to this, I believe that it will be one more blind alley in the continuing DeLay saga.

A registered lobbyist opened a retirement account in the late 1990s for the wife of then-House Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and contributed thousands of dollars to it while also paying her a salary to work for him from her home in Texas, according to sources, documents and DeLay's attorney, Richard Cullen.

The account represents a small portion of the income that DeLay's family received from entities at least partly controlled by lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham. But the disclosure of its origin adds to what was previously known about the benefits DeLay's family received from its association with Buckham, and it brings the total over the past seven years to about half a million dollars.

Buckham was DeLay's chief of staff before he became a lobbyist at the end of 1998, shortly before the account was opened and the flow of funds began. He has come under scrutiny from federal investigators because his lobbying firm received hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from clients of indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Buckham's financial ties to DeLay's family -- and the retirement account in particular -- have recently attracted the interest of FBI agents and others in the federal task force probing public corruption by lawmakers and lobbyists, according to a source who was questioned in the course of the government's investigation.

Looks damning, doesn't it -- until you realize that the sums in question, received over 7 years, are just about right for the amount of work done by the Congressman's wife and daughter, boh of whom did work for Buckham's company. The sums involved are not outrageous, and are probably normal payments of salary and benefits.

Even the Post makes something of a concession in this regard concerning the retirement account in question.

Cullen said the retirement account was required for Buckham's employees under Internal Revenue Service rules. But investigators are looking at Buckham's role in establishing the account and at whether the lawmaker may have performed official acts in return for any of the income arranged by Buckham, according to the source. DeLay denies any wrongdoing.

Required by the Federal Government. That puts a whole new aspect on it -- and only took them five paragraphs to get to that point. But the Justice Department is looking into it anyway. There is no actual evidence of any wrong-doing on anyone's part, and the payments are legal permitted under House ethics rules and are legal under federal law. And such payments will happen until we make it illegal for spouses and other family members of government officials to be involved in politics or government, or be employed at all.

But that said, I am counting the hours until Delay's departure from office and removal from teh balot happen -- and cannot wait for the selection of the new GOP candidate for the November ballot.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

Could you support this proposal from Dafydd of Big Lizards -- what he calls the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DMA)?

1. For federal purposes, marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

2. The Constitution of the United States of America shall not be construed to require any state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as or like a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Now let's consider what this would do -- it would not prevent any state in the union from allowing for homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships that are th functional equivalent. It also would not allow the US Constitution to be misinterpreted (a la Lawrence v. Texas) to require homosexual marriage nationwide or to allow the policy decisions of a state that permitted homosexual marriage to compel recognition of such marriages in any other state under the FUll Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, it would serve to Constitutionalize the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Since the existance of the DOMA is one of the reasons for opposing the FMA, and since many of those opposing the FMA use either federalism or the existance of the DOMA to justify their position, those two arguments become irrelevant.

Unless, of course, those are merely fig-leafs intended to cover their support for homosexual marriage.

And if it is, don't the American people have a right to know?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I've yet to see a compelling argument in favor of homosexual marriage.

And I've yet to see a good reason for opposing the marriage Amendment.

But this one, presented by the Rino-ettes from Maine, has to be among the worst.

Maine's two U.S. senators say a constitutional amendment proposed by President Bush to ban same-sex marriage is unnecessary at this time.

Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins responded to Bush's effort Monday to rally support for the proposal being debated in the Senate ahead of a test vote Wednesday in which it is all but certain to go down to defeat.

Snowe restated her belief that the issue was addressed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

"As the Defense of Marriage Act has not been overturned by the courts -- and therefore remains the law of the land -- I believe that an amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary at this time," she said.

Citing the same law, Collins said family and domestic affairs have always been regulated by the states and she saw no reason for change.

"Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize such marriages," Collins said. "Therefore, I will vote against proceeding with the constitutional amendment at this time.

That reasoning would be enough to make me laugh my ass off if it did not enrage me so.

After all, the people of Massachusetts thought they were safe -- but an out-of-control court decided that they were wrong.

One of these days, a federal judge somewhere is going to strike down the DOMA or rule that the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment has gay marriage in their penumbras -- and then the argument will not be about whether or not the amendment is necessary, but about the propriety of "rolling back civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution." You already hear that argument in Massachusetts, where it is deployed against those seeking to amend that state'sconstitution to fix what its top court has damaged.

But I'll toss this question out to the distinguished gentleladies from Maine.

Will they commit to co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment in the event that the DOMA is struck down or a federal judge rules in that the US Constitution contains a right to homosexual marriage?

Or is your argument all a sham?

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

At least that is my interpreteation of Chucky-boy's comments and voting record on anti-terrorism funding.

Sen. Charles Schumer, who has likened $7 million in federal cuts to New York's bioterrorism programs to "rubbing salt in an open wound," voted to cut those programs by 10.4 percent last year, according to Senate records.

Schumer (D-N.Y.) is pressuring Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding to recalculate a new funding formula that disproportionately reduces aid to the state. Schumer, who red-flagged the issue during a news conference Sunday, will take his case directly to Gerberding today.

The proposed cuts could effect operations at city health department labs and environmental-testing programs, although it's possible some or all of the money might be made up through other federal funding, a city official told Newsday.

In December, Schumer didn't object to a unanimous voice vote approving a huge bipartisan spending bill that included $95 million in CDC bioterrorism cuts, largely because the measure also included restorations to student loan cuts and other domestic programs.

"There was 7 billion dollars in that bill, restoring student loans, health care, necessary things - every Democrat voted for it," Schumer said yesterday.

Schumer also voted for a $123 million bioterrorism cut during a preliminary vote on the package that passed 94-3 in October. He was joined by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton both times.

Since Schumer believes that New York City is the center of the universe, he apprently didn't intend for those cuts to come out of NYC's money -- or even from New York state's funding. It was the rest of the country that was supposed to eat the entire financial hit. That does not sound reasonable to me. Of course some of the cuts would have to come from the largest recipients.

Get over it, Senator. The world does not revolve around New York -- or Uranus.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

You decide.

SUPPOSE that a member of Congress, locked in a tight re-election campaign, hired someone to murder his opponent. The homicide occurred, the congressman paid the murderer for the job, and the congressman then hid the dead body in his office. Does anyone think that it would be a problem for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant and search the congressman's office, looking for the dead body?

The principle is the same as that in the Jefferson case -- are Congressional offices sactuaries wehre membrs can hide evidence of their criminality with impunity?

The argument that there is something problematic with the execution of a search warrant in Rep. Jefferson's congressional office has absolutely no foundation in the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has noted, Capitol Hill is not a sanctuary for crime. The Constitution does not protect the offices of any member of government from a search executed in accordance with a validly obtained warrant, nor does it forbid the executive branch from obtaining a warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed.

Now I do not agree with most of the rest of the arguments made by Professor Dow -- he tries to make connections to datamining and other issues that are clearly not connected. But his analysis on this one point is clearly correct.

Anyone want to argue to the contrary?

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post has great coverage of the ongoing scandal surrounding Rep. William Jefferson (D-Highest Bidder), the poster child for Democrat ethics. It includes a great graphic outlining the degree of corruption.

On May 12, 2005, over dinner with business partner and FBI informant Lori Mody, Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) furtively scrawled the letter "c" on a sheet of paper, and next to it wrote some numbers indicating that he was demanding a much larger personal stake in an African business deal than previously agreed to.

"The 'c' is like for 'children,' " the congressman told Mody, as an FBI tape recorder rolled. "I make a deal for my children. It wouldn't be for me."

I see -- it is all for the children. Well, it takes a village in Africa wired for cable to raise a child, doesn't it? I guess that makes it all OK.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

As the date for Tom DeLay's resignation approaches, the race to replace him on the ballot is getting tight. Candidates were out in force this weekend at the Texas GOP Convention in San Antonio.

Eight of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination to replace DeLay on the general election ballot for the 22nd Congressional District worked the convention center crowds as if it were a traditional campaign. A select group of party leaders actually will pick the next candidate.

DeLay's successor won't be decided here, but candidates vying for his spot knew this was the best chance to reach out to party activists.

This isn't an ordinary campaign and candidates aren't appealing to regular voters. Instead, they are working the roughly 200 precinct chairs who make up the district and who will elect one representative from each of the district's four counties — Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston and Brazoria — to collectively choose a new GOP candidate for the general election ballot.

Those four people have yet to be chosen.

First, DeLay must provide proof to the party he is ineligible to serve. He will do so by moving his permanent residence from Texas to his Alexandria, Va., condominium.

Eight candidates made the trip to San Antonio — State Reps. Charlie Howard of Sugar Land and Robert Talton of Pasadena, state Sen. Mike Jackson of La Porte, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, lawyer Tom Campbell, former state executive committee member Tim Turner and retired Air Force major Don Richardson.

My guess is that the most likely picks for the nomination are, in no particular order, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Charlie Howard, Robert Talton, and the article fails to note appeared at the convention (and spoke to several SD caucuses), Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers. While David Wallace was seen as an early favorite, critical mis-steps on the part fo his campaign and questions about his business history have harmed him among many of us who are involved in the process of selecting a replacement for Delay. The nature of this process, however, is such that we could have a candidate arise out of nowhere once the county electors (AKA the Gang of Four) get together.

At least two of the counties have serious races to fill the elector spot, with grassroots candidates challenging SREC members for the spot. In Harris County, SREC member Kathy Haigler and Precinct Chair Steve Williams are the declared candidates candidates, while SREC member Therese Raia and Precinct Chair Pat Hebert are both seeking the spot. The issue is not a disagreement on principles or candidates. It is over the question of whether the SREC members should be the electors, given that the entire SREC will pick the candidate if the Gang of Four cannot achieve a consensus. All four of these individuals are fine individuals with strong conservative Republican credentials, but I'm personally backing the grassroots movement. Call it a question of avoiding the appearance of "politics as usual". I'm told by multiple sources that Randy Weber is the most likely choice to be the Brazoria County elector. I've heard nothing definitive on the Galveston County slot.

My expectation is that the process will have run its course and a new congressional candidate will have been selected no later than June 30 -- and I suspect several days earlier than that.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

I couldn't help but be struck by the list of potential committee chairs in the House of Representatives if the Democrats win the House this fall.

It is generally a list of liberal hacks who will work to drag the government well to the left of the American people. I suspect one term with the House of Representatives run by these extremists will be enough to bring the House back into the GOP fold.

But one or two names in particular jumped out at me as exempifying the Democrat Culture of Corruption.

. . . here is Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, in line for the top spot on the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi on the
Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida at the Intelligence Committee.

Please note the two in bold face type. Each of these men has some serious ethical clouds hanging over him.

Conyers has been accused by former aides of misusing his office by turning them into baby sitters for his children. He is the prime sponsor of a resolution that seeks to investigate grounds for possible impeachment of Bush over the war in Iraq.

It is actually much worse than it sounds -- it isn't a case of "watch my kids while they hang out in my office on a day off of school." It is "you will stay here until I come back and get my kids -- whenever that is." Or even, in a couple of cases, "I'm going out of town and I'll be back in a few days -- you will take care of my kids until then."

Yowsuh, Massa Conyers -- we all know that congressional staffers are intended to be a taxpayer-funded nanny service for over-privileged office holders and their spoiled children.

And since the article mentions Conyers has been on an impeachment kick, let's look at Rep. Alcee Hastings over at the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, a charismatic former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for fabricating evidence that secured his acquittal in 1983 on bribery charges.

Impeached and removed from a federal judgeship -- when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate. So there is no question about Hastings being corrupt -- the Democrats have already affirmed that themselves.

Absolutely incredible.

Captain Ed has some interesting insights on this issue as well.

Posted by: Greg at 03:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Let me begin with a truly shocking true story.

Nearly a decade ago, I had a 18-year-old high school senior inform me that her current (THIRD!) pregnancy was the fault of the state of Texas. After all, she had wanted her tubes tied following the birth of her second child (at age 16)-- but Medicaid wouldn't cover it for a female under 21 unless she had three children. It wasn't like she was going to quit having sex with her boyfriend (they lived together at his parent's house, along with their child and her child by another guy, born when she was 14) -- so it was clearly the state's fault.

I couldn't help but think of this young woman when I read this opinion piece from the Washington Post by the anonymous "Dana L.".

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.

The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy -- but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. As we're both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren't planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception. I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn't result in a pregnancy.

The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend -- and the end of the 72-hour window -- was approaching.

But I needed to meet my kids' school bus and, as I was pretty much out of options -- short of soliciting random Virginia doctors out of the phone book -- I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best. After all, I'm 42. Isn't it likely my eggs are overripe, anyway? I thought so, especially since my best friend from college has been experiencing agonizing infertility problems at this age.

Weeks later, the two drugstore pregnancy tests I took told a different story. Positive. I couldn't believe it.

Got that. Dana was not responsible enough to use her birth control and was too busy to to bother looking for another doctor or -- lest we put too fine a point on it -- go slumming at the ER, so she made a choice to take risk a pregnancy. So the resulting pregnancy was the fault of. . . the Bush administration!

We then get all the ranting about right-wingers, religion seeping into American politics and government and the difficulty in procuring a feticide. This highly-educated professional woman (she's a lawyer) who made a number of choices that resulted in a pregnancy, like my former student, simply refuses to take responsibility for those choices. She has to find someone else to blame so that she can be the victim in the story.

A decade ago, I responded to my student by telling her that unless she could truthfully claim that a team of Texas Rangers kicked open her door and held her in place while then-Gov george W. Bush personally impregnated her, it was not the state of Texas fault that she was pregnant.

I offer the same response to Dana L. -- unless you can claim that the Secret Service held you down while President George W. Bush personally impregnated you, it is not the Bush administration's fault that you got pregnant and needed to have your unborn child killed.

And remember, Dana, Plan B in your case still would have been an abortion -- so don't kid yourself about what you were seeking.

You just wanted it to be earlier, neater, and easier on your conscience -- the ultimate rejection of responsibility.

UPDATE: I've gotten a couple of emails wanting to know what happened to my former student. About six weeks after our conversation, she delivered a healthy baby boy -- her third child delivered at expense of the taxpayers of the state of texas. And true to its policies, Medicaid paid for her tubes to be immediately tied. I'll let you decide if that was a net loss or net gain for the taxpayers.

Others writing on this piece include Maryland Conservatarian, appletree, Creature of Mad Enthusiasms, Villainous Company, jonquil, Suburban Guerrilla, The Reality-Based Community, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Passionate American, Blue Star Chronicle, 7 Deadly Sins (twice), Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang!

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 7 kb.

Looks like we will get another load of information about the offenses of William Jefferson (D-$90K Next To The Lime Sherbet).

A federal appeals court judge has ruled that The Times-Picayune should have access to legal paperwork that led to the Aug. 3 raid by federal authorities on the New Orleans home of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, along with his car and the office of his campaign treasurer, Jack Swetland.

The Justice Department has already released similar paperwork laying out its justification for the recent raid of Jefferson's congressional office as part of the same federal inquiry.

Jefferson has not been charged in the case and has denied wrongdoing. Two of his associates have already pleaded guilty to federal charges, acknowledging they were involved in a scheme in which Jefferson sought bribes in exchange for helping an American telecommunications firm do business in Africa.

The Times-Picayune sued last month to make public the materials related to the New Orleans raids -- including the search warrants as well as the affidavits, applications, returns and inventories filed in connection with the warrants -- which had been sealed by court order.

A similar case is pending in a Maryland court regarding materials filed in support of a raid on the Nigerian vice president's house in Potomac. A federal judge has ruled that the materials should be unsealed, but the order was stayed to give Jefferson time to appeal.

Federal investigators have not opposed any of the requests to make the materials public. But Jefferson has objected in each case, saying that unsealing the materials would violate his privacy and deny him the right to a fair trial if he is indicted.

On Friday, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge W. Eugene Davis agreed with the newspaper's position in regard to the materials supporting the local raids, saying that the public's right to know details of the case outweighs Jefferson's interests.

Davis noted that a "substantially identical" affidavit had already been unsealed in Washington, and that details of the federal probe "have been widely reported in the press." In addition, he noted that Jefferson "is a public servant and his conduct in the performance of his official duties is a matter of great public interest."

No doubt we will hear more ranting about the unfairness of subjecting Jefferson to the same laws and procedures as ordinary citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 08:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

This suppression of political speech is something only a fascist, Leftist, or John McCain could love.

Captain's Quarters has been tracking a Canadian campaign finance scandal involving John Volpe, who is seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party.

The Liberals just can't seem to shake their reputation for financing shenanigans, and now it looks like they've decided to enhance it by attempting to silence Volpe's critics. A satirical website, youthforvolpe.ca, attempted to poke fun at Volpe's predicament by posing as a contribution website for civic-minded Canadian youngsters. Not seeing the humor, Volpe reacted by having the website shut down:

It was all the buzz in official Ottawa yesterday -- a hilarious political whodunit in this age of websites, platforms and templates.

Overnight, someone built a website spoofing Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe and his acceptance of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from children, including the 11-year-old twins of a former vice-president of a generic drug company.

By early yesterday afternoon, the Volpe team had the website pulled down. ...

Mr. Volpe's campaign had the site shut down without knowing, it seems, who put it up: "Hi Everyone," wrote Brenden Johnstone, who is with the Volpe campaign, in an e-mail to other leadership campaigns. "There has been concern about how the issue of the Volpe donations was reflecting on the leadership race.

"My Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with. . . ."

If Volpe's office thinks that pressuring the hosting service to silence his critics will "deal with" the problem, I suspect they have some naivete on the Internet. More than just showing a thin skin, Volpe and his office will likely provoke a torrent of criticism that will dwarf any consideration of questionable contributions. Does the Liberal Party really stand for government officials bullying hosting services into gagging their critics?

CQ notes that Conservative Party blogger Stephen Taylor is doing yeoman's work giving this matter the sort of coverage it deserves.

The censored site has been mirrored here and hereand here.

One has to wonder if Canada qualifies as part of the free world any longer, or if all the jokes about Soviet Kanuckistan are really true.

More coverage of this developing story can be found at Left Wing=Hate, The Daily Bayonet, The New American Citizen, Angry In The Great White North, Slashdot, Pajamas Media, Boing Boing, Little Green Footballs.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 4 kb.

Steve Radack, County Commissioner for Harris County Precinct 3, takes exception to a letter sent by Orlando Sanchez seeking support to fill the ballot vacancy caused by the death of County Treasurer Jack Cato. That normally would not trouble me -- individuals of good will can disagree on such matters.

Unfortunately, both Radack's tone and timing are terrible.

Less than two weeks after the death of County Treasurer Jack Cato, the succession process has gotten ugly.

In a letter to Republican precinct chairs, who will select a nominee to replace Cato on the fall ballot, prospect Orlando Sanchez says he developed a warm and respectful relationship with Cato while running unsuccessfully against him in the March GOP primary.

That's a lie, GOP County Commissioner Steve Radack says in a letter to the same group.

"Don't believe for a second that Sanchez respected Jack Cato," writes Radack, who delivered a eulogy at Cato's memorial service. "Further, he certainly did not have a warm relationship with Jack or his family. As a matter of fact, what Sanchez did was conduct a negative campaign against Jack that was outrageously cruel and unnecessary."

I seem to recall that during the campaign, which ended only three months ago, that Sanchez ran on a platform of bringing in new blood and new vision at the County Treasurer's office, and adopting a more activist stance akin to that of County Assessor/Collector Paul Bettencourt. While there was criticism of style, there was no criticism of Cato personally. Yet Radack, for all intents and purposes, blames Sanchez for Cato's death by making insinuations about the way in which "Sanchez's negative attacks physically affected Jack." Such a statement is beneath contempt.

It seems that what really has Radack's frilly lace panties in a wad is the fact that Sanchez was so disrespectful as to have dared to challenge Cato at all, once all the GOP elected officials in the county decided to endorse each other for reelection. You know -- how dare the people be given a choice?

And more sadly, this arrogant attitude of the elected aristocracy seems to have spilled over into the Cato family, at least as exemplified by the comments of Cato's son, John.

John Cato said he was put off by the substance and timing of Sanchez's letter. He said he disagreed with Sanchez's characterization of his relationship with his father as warm and respectful.

"I don't think it's respectful for a fellow Republican to wage a campaign against an incumbent Republican who had the support of every Republican county official," he said.

In other words, once Jack Cato was elected County Treasurer he was entitled to hold that seat unchallenged forever. Sorry, John, that isn't how it works in countries where there are elections. I'm sure your father knew that. Don't disrespect his memory by implying that he might have believed otherwise.

And while it might be true that all the Republican county government officials endorsed Jack Cato for reelection, that was not true of the the GOP grassroots. More than 250 of the precinct chairs in Harris County endorsed Sanchez in the primary. I don't think he has lost any support there, and so Orlando Sanchez should easily become the replacement candidate on the ballot.

But then comes this insidious comment from the Radack letter (which I received in yesterday's mail), insinuating that those of us who support Orlando Sanchez are somehow "sheep" being led by one or two unnamed office holders. I find that strange, since the only office holder I've been contacted by is Radack himself, trying to shepherd me away from a candidate I've been supporting for the last five months.

One or two of our office holders believe that most precinct chairman are like sheep and they are your shepherds.

Too bad that Radack doesn't have the personal integrity to name those office holders. But then again, I'm not surprised -- this is the same Steve Radack who took $900,000 in consulting fees from Sueba USA over a seven year period when the company did business with or had business before the very Harris County Commissioner's Court on which he serves. Integrity is simply not a part of Radack's personal make up.

Angered as I was by Radack's letter, I wrote a quick email to the commissioner -- but decided to hold it pending a cooling-off period. Discovering that the letter is circulating at the state GOP convention in San Antonio, and that Radack has spoken to the press about it, I decided to send it this morning. I'll share it with you here.

Commissioner Radack:

I was most disappointed to receive your letter dated May 31, 2006 regarding Orlando Sanchez. Such a blatant act of character assassination merits nothing other than contempt in my eyes. Given your history of using public office to unethically enrich yourself personally, I view it as the equivalent of the local prostitute complaining about the sexual morality of kids these days.

I liked and respected Jack Cato and honor his many accomplishments as treasurer; however I saw his age and health as making it unlikely that he would complete his term -- a concern which has been sadly confirmed by recent events. I endorsed Orlando Sanchez in the March primary because I thought he was the best candidate to direct the office of treasurer in the future. I continue to believe that Orlando Sanchez is our best candidate for the office of county treasurer, and in light of the vacancy on the ballot have endorsed the former councilman to replace Jack Cato on the general election ballot

My endorsement was not given because I am any politician's "sheep" -- it is because not only have my concerns of this spring have been confirmed, but because I believe the office of County Treasurer can and should be made into a "bully pulpit" of the sort Paul Bettencourt has created in the Assessor/Collector's office. We certainly haven't seen much in the way of leadership out of the Commissioner's Court -- until now, when you appear in a guise that gives new meaning to the term "shepherd's crook". Needless to say, you have in no way changed my mind.

I do hope my meaning is clear to Commissioner Radack.

UPDATE: PinkDome has a different perspective

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Passionate American, Blue Star Chronicle, 7 Deadly Sins (twice), Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang!

Posted by: Greg at 03:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi was renominated for his office by New York Democrats on Tuesday. After his commencement speech at Queens College today, he may need to be concerned about going to jail, after seeming to call for the assassination of President George W. Bush.

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about "putting a bullet between the president's eyes."

Hevesi hastily called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.

The Queens College media relations office said it had videotaped the commencement but could not immediately provide a copy of the tape or a transcript.

At the press conference, a contrite Hevesi repeated what he recalled saying in the speech. The comptroller said he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president.

"I apologize to the president of the United States" as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. "I am not a person of violence."

"I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb."

Hevesi said he hadn't been in touch with the White House but he hoped his apology reached President Bush.

Hevesi also called his comments "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic."

"I do speak extemporaneously," he said. "And I've never said anything like this."

Dare I suggest that if this is the. . . uhhhh. . . caliber of candidate put forward by the Democrats, then we need to work hard to ensure they don't have a shot at winning.

H/T Michelle Malkin

MORE AT: Sister Toldjah, Strata-Sphere, It Shines For All, Plains Feeder, Political Pit Bull, NJ Blog, Darleen's Place, Urban Grounds

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 3 kb.

Here’s hoping that an ethics complaint is immediately filed against Harry Reid, whose office still won’t admit that he breached ethics restrictions by taking free boxing tickets while legislation on regulation the sport was pending before the Senate – but then vows that he won’t do it again.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid learned that what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas after all. A day after The Associated Press reported Reid accepted free ringside seats to boxing matches from a Nevada agency trying to influence him on federal boxing legislation, the senator offered his own ethics justification to a home state audience in Las Vegas.

And he vowed to keep taking such gifts.

But Reid's comments Tuesday quickly reached Washington, where several ethics experts concluded the Senate leader had misstated the Senate rules to his constituents.

Within hours of being questioned by AP about the ethics experts' assertions, Reid's office abruptly reversed course and acknowledged Wednesday night he had misspoken about the ethics rules.

The Senate leader also has decided not to take free boxing seats in the future even though he still believes it was ethical to do so in 2004 and 2005, Reid's office said.

"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Interestingly enough, it appears that prior to becoming the Democrat leader in the Senate, Reid always paid for his boxing tickets – and accepted none free until there was pending legislation on possible federal regulation of boxing. Even if one concedes that there was no actual quid pro quo or actual violation of the Senate ethics regulations, this action does breach the catch-all regulation that requires Senators not act in a manner that gives the appearance of impropriety.

And this certainly does appear improper.

And I like this comment from the spokesperson for a watchdog group.

Ellen Miller, head of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group studying the ethics and inner workings of Congress, said Reid's comments in Las Vegas should make voters suspicious.

"Any time a politician starts parsing language and telling different stories, you have to assume they may have something to be ashamed of," Miller said.

And to all you Democrats out there – would you accept such conduct or rationalizations from a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.