The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. Why, then, are some Democrat presidential candidates opposed to saying so? Could it be Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, joining 29 other Democrats and 47 Republicans as the Senate OKÂ’d the non-binding statement.

Her vote triggered a fusillade of criticism from her rivals, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who portrayed the vote as something Bush might exploit to justify an attack on Iran.

“She shouldn’t have done it, because what she’s done is given this president with his history the first step in the authority to move (militarily) on Iran,” Edwards told reporters last Friday in Boone, Iowa.

He hammered at that theme again in Tuesday night’s debate, charging that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution “looks literally like it was written by the neo-cons…. It literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted.”

Calling terrorists terrorists. A bad thing, if you are a Democrat -- because you believe that George W. Bush is worse. Nice to know whose side you are on, Senators.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

We have an election coming up next week, related to ballot propositions on the state, county, and local levels.

Looking them over, IÂ’d like to offer the following positions for your consideration.

STATE OF TEXAS

Amendment 1

Clarifies in law the legislatureÂ’s transfer of Angelo State University from Texas State University System to Texas Tech University System.

Yes – a technical correction

Amendment 2

Issues $500 million general obligation bonds for student loans

Yes – reluctantly. We need to restore tuition caps

Amendment 3

Limits the ad valorem tax on a homestead to the most recent market value or a 10 percent increase from the value of last yearÂ’s appraisal.

Yes – while it fails to go far enough in capping property taxes, that is no reason for not taking the incremental step.

Amendment 4

Authorizes up to $1 billion in bonds from the state general revenues for maintenance, repair and construction projects

Yes – too many projects have been delayed too long, and must be completed in the short term. The Battleship Texas project and the law enforcement provisions alone are reason enough to pass.

Amendment 5

Allows cities under 10,000 to vote to authorize the city to enter agreements encouraging revitalization programs by deferring ad valorem taxes

Yes

Amendment 6

Exempts ad valorem tax on one vehicle used for both professional and personal use

Yes

Amendment 7

Allows the government to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owner at the price paid by the government in acquiring the land

Yes – though it should be mandatory in those cases in which projects are cancelled.

Amendment 8

Clarifies and alters procedures related to making and using home equity loans

Yes – but this proves that there are things in the Texas Constitution that don’t need to be there

Amendment 9

Allows legislature to exempt totally disabled veteranÂ’s homesteads from ad valorem taxes and changes the method for determining the amount of a disabled veteranÂ’s exemption

Yes

Amendment 10

Eliminates the authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals

Yes – since the office is no longer in existence

Amendment 11

Requires a record vote on any final passage of a piece of legislation except local bills, and assures Internet access to those votes

Yes – a good government bill, though the local bills should not be exempt

Amendment 12

Authorizes Texas Transportation Commission to issue $5 billion in bonds for highway improvement projects

No – let’s rein-in the Trans Texas Corridor

Amendment 13

Authorizes the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders in misdemeanor family violence cases.

Yes

Amendment 14

Permits judges reaching mandatory retirement age to finish their terms

Yes – though we ought to be eliminating the retirement age completely

Amendment 15

Establishes the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizes state to issue up to $3 billion in bonds from the general revenue for research

No Recommendation – I’m still struggling with this one

Amendment 16

Allows Texas Water Development Board to issue up to $250 million in additional bonds for clean water in economically distressed areas

Yes

HARRIS COUNTY

Proposition 1

The issuance of $190,000,000 Harris County road bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 2

The issuance of $95,000,000 Harris County park bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No

Proposition 3

The issuance of $195,000,000 Harris County bonds for a central processing and adult detention center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 4

The issuance of $80,000,000 harris county bonds for a medical examiner's forensic center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof

Yes

Proposition 5

The issuance of $70,000,000 Harris County bonds for a family law center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY

Proposition

The issuance of $250,000,000 Port of Houston Authority bonds for port improvements (including related transportation facilities, security facilities and environmental enhancements) to provide economic development and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No -- and may I add HELL NO! Privatize the Port.

CITY OF SEABROOK

Proposition

In accordance with Texas law and Section 5.21 of the Charter of the City of Seabrook, Texas, shall the City Council of the City of Seabrook, Texas be authorized to issue bonds of the City in the amount of $2,500,000 maturing serially or otherwise at such times as may be fixed by the City Council not to exceed 40 years from their date or dates and bearing interest at any rate or rates, either fixed, variable or floating, according to any clearly stated formula, calculation or method not exceeding the maximum interest now or hereafter authorized by law as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance, and to levy a tax upon all taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds, and to provide a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds as they mature, for the purpose of making permanent public park improvements as follows: the Pine Gully Enhancement Project located at 502 Pine Gully, Seabrook, Texas, including acquisition of approximately 8.433 acres of property immediately north of Pine Gully Park, construction and improvement of such property, all as more specifically described in Resolution 2007-14, and all matters necessary or incidental thereto.

Yes

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

I’ve said it every time folks complain taxes are too low, or that they don’t deserve a newly implemented tax cut – they don’t need to keep that cash they feel isn’t rightfully theirs. And so I offer this suggestion to the latest “I’m not taxed enough” whiner – Warren Buffett.

The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."

An analysis of his arguments shows that he wants to treat capital gains like income and wants social security contributions to be unlimited. That this would grind the economy to a screeching halt is overlooked by Buffett, but that is neither here nor there to the billionaire.

The thing is, though, that Buffett can already overcome the horrors of being undertaxed. As columnist and blogger Don Surber points out, he can diverst himself of his excess wealth quite easily. All he has to do is cut a check and mail it in.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Put your money where your mouth is, Warren – determine what you should pay and then actually pay it. Otherwise you lack any and all moral authority to call for higher taxes for other Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

If this keeps up, there wonÂ’t be enough dead soldiers for the eventual Democrat nominee to stand on when declaring defeat in Iraq.

The number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq is headed for the lowest level in more than a year and a half and the fifth consecutive monthly decline.

Twenty-seven Americans have been killed in action in October, with one day left in the month, Pentagon records show. That would be the lowest monthly level since March 2006, when 27 servicemembers died in hostile action, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Pentagon reports.

The total number of U.S. deaths, including accidents, in October so far is 35, records show.

A new strategy, backed up by 30,000 more U.S. servicemembers, has led to a decline in violence and weakened al-Qaeda, commanders say. The U.S. military started building combat outposts and moving troops outside major bases earlier this year in an attempt to provide more security.

That strategy led to higher U.S. casualties in the spring, as the new troops moved into areas that had been insurgent sanctuaries. Combat deaths in April and May were the highest for a two-month period since the war started in March 2003, records show.

More recently, casualties have declined as security has been established. "I think we've turned the corner," Brig. Gen. John Campbell, an assistant commander for the U.S. division in Baghdad, said Tuesday in an interview from Iraq.

The Surge is working. Victory will happen, if we stick with the strategy and support the Iraqis. That means, though, that we canÂ’t elect a candidate who is counting on American defeat as a path to electoral success.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for certain Democrats to demand that a nominee for a Cabinet slot declare before confirmation something that Congress lacks the courage to legislate itself.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said late Monday that unless Michael Mukasey defines waterboarding as torture, he won't vote to confirm the attorney general nominee.

Biden said he is waiting on a response from Mukasey to a letter he and all the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee members sent last week asking the nominee to clarify answers he gave about waterboading during his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The presidential candidate indicated that he considers Mukasey's responses to lawmakers' questions at the hearing evasive at best.

"I think Judge Mukasey's comments on waterboarding were outrageous, especially given that he's seeking the job of attorney general," Biden told FOX News. "Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture, is not fit — and will not have my support — to be attorney general."

Well, Senator, I personally think that any member of the Senate who insists that waterboarding is torture but has not introduced legislation to make it unambiguously illegal under American law is not fit to be a member of the Senate – and certainly not to be President. After all, it is the province of the legislative branch to make the practice illegal under American law. Why not be man enough to take the lead, sir, so that the question is settled?

UPDATE: Again yesterday, there was more piling on from Democrats, who won't act to put their view unambiguously into law. Is it political grandstanding on their part, or simply their own moral cowardice?

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats yesterday that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is "repugnant to me," but he said he does not know whether the interrogation tactic violates U.S. laws against torture.

Mukasey's uncertainty about the method's legality has raised new questions about the success of his nomination. It seemed a sure thing just two weeks ago, as Democrats joined Republicans in predicting his easy confirmation to succeed the embattled Alberto R. Gonzales.

* * *

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary panel's chairman, reacted with blunt dissatisfaction, saying in a statement yesterday that he will continue to delay any vote on Mukasey until the nominee answers more questions from lawmakers. "I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States," he said.

But Leahy, who said last week that "my vote would depend on him answering that question," stopped short of declaring he will oppose the nomination. Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), also issued a statement criticizing Mukasey but did not say whether he would vote no.

"We asked Judge Mukasey a simple and straightforward question: Is waterboarding illegal?" Durbin said. "While this question has been answered clearly by many others . . . Judge Mukasey spent four pages responding and still didn't provide an answer."

Senator Durbin, why don't you introduce legislation to make it clear that waterboarding is illegal? Could it be that you know it is an effective tactic, one that has produced hard intelligence in the past and will in the future, intelligence that has safeguarded the American people? Could it be that you don't want your name attached to any measure that takes this effective technique off the table when American lives are at stake? What about you, Senator Leahy -- same questions.

Either act legislatively on waterboarding, Senators, or shut up about it and let the confirmation vote proceed.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 6 kb.

I agree with the New York Times here -- Congress needs to act to make it easier for those who have helped the US in Afghanistan and Iraq enter the US legally.

Congress has finally pried open AmericaÂ’s door to Iraqis and Afghans who have served this country at great risk. Congress needs to go a lot further, adding more visa slots and approving resettlement benefits that would allow these people to grab the lifeline the United States has been far too slow to offer.

Translators, interpreters and thousands of others have aided American troops and diplomats — and have become targets for militants. Under current American law, 500 Iraqis and Afghans per year who have worked for the United States armed forces for a year, may obtain special immigrant visas.

I remember 1975 very well, when I was a kid on Guam. I watched refugees stream into the temporary camps around the island as Saigon fell to the Communists, with planes landing on the runway only a mile from my house at NAS Agana. Many of these were Embassy employees and their families, or others who would be seen as collaborators by the Communists -- and countless others were left behind. We must not allow such a situation to happen ever again, where those who help us are abandoned.

There is legislation for a 10-fold increase in the number of people admitted from these countries. Congress should support it -- especially if Democrats are preparing to abandon Iraq as part of their policy of surrender and defeat in the face of victory.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

I have to agree with this bit of advice being offered to my favorite presidential candidate -- don't try to equate Mormonism and Christianity.

As Mitt Romney scours the South for endorsements from evangelical leaders, he is getting some unusual advice on how to explain his Mormon faith: Don't try to be one of us.

``I told him, you cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, `I am a Christian just like you,''' said Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, which is scheduled to hold the first primary among the Southern states. ``If he does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.''

This advice, which reflects the views of many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, makes Romney's co-religionists bristle. ``The fact that we are Christians is non-negotiable,'' said Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

What you have here is a twofold problem. On one level, you have the theological issue of how to classify Mormonism. Most Christians, and certainly most evangelicals, would struggle with classifying the LDS Church as within the pale of orthodoxy due to its distinctive theology and additional scriptural claims. There is serious room for theological discussion, but not in the context of a presidential campaign. Romney needs to dismiss the issue, regardless of the adamant claims of LDS authorities that Mormons are Christians. It just isn't relevant to Romney's needs as a candidate.

Besides, that issue isn't relevant to the presidential campaign. What Romney needs to do is focus on the shared values and policies, as well as his independence from official church control. That should be easy to do, given both the social conservative stance taken by the LDS Church and its long-standing history of recognizing the political independence of the Mormon faithful, including officeholders. But Romney needs to act soon on this issue, lest it continue to be a distraction.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 4 kb.

Those who disagree with him are not merely wrong, they are mentally ill!

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board on Tuesday. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."

Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trails far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.

So I guess the next step is for Kucinich to insist that the President of the United States be subject to forced mental health treatment until he adopts policies more to the Ohio congressman's liking. I believe that was the tactic favored in the Soviet Union for many years -- but Kucinich is so far left that he probably finds nothing wrong with that.

Of course, there are those who think that Kucinich is as lacking in intellectual and political stature as he is in physical stature -- and one look at his website makes it clear that he might well have personal expertise in mental illness. After all, he thinks he is a serious presidential candidate, which is among the most delusional beliefs I've ever heard of.

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Is it just me, or does this sound like an attempt by Barney Frank to impose an ex post facto liability burden on companies involved in subprime mortgages?

But the losses at Merrill and Countrywide show that the market economy is working as it's supposed to. Companies that made overly risky decisions are having to pay for them, and to adjust their business models accordingly. Over the long run, everyone should be better off as firms learn from the subprime mistake.

The question is whether market discipline is enough, or whether government needs to reinforce it. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is working on a comprehensive bill that would impose legal liability on the "securitizers" of mortgage debt. Mr. Frank's proposal would let borrowers sue issuers of bonds that are backed by "no doc" mortgages or other products that do not meet "minimum standards for reasonable ability to pay." To those who suggest that this would chill the mortgage-backed securities market, Mr. Frank notes that the proposed penalties are not unduly onerous. The most a borrower could sue for would be cancellation of a loan and court costs; there are "safe harbor" provisions for securitizers who generally follow sound practices or offer to settle with a borrower out of court. And Mr. Frank candidly replies that, given the recent excesses, the market could use a little chilling.

Now let's consider this. The legislation would make actions that were legal and proper at the time the occurred a form of fraud today -- and allow those who knowingly and willingly entered into contracts sue to cancel their debts. I recognize that these are civil, not criminal penalties, but doesn't this seem to be at odds with our constitutional heritage -- imposing liability where none existed before? I hold no brief for the mortgage industry, but do shudder to think of the implications of this legislation.

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, Hillary Clinton lacks the basic qualifications to be President. She has never led anything of any significance, and her best known “accomplishments” were her failed health care plan, her questionable trading in cattle futures, and her smearing of those who correctly pointed to her husbands misdeeds as being part of a “vast right wing conspiracy”.

But now she and her campaign are upset over a single word.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney said last night that electing Hillary Clinton is akin to putting an “intern” in the job - a potentially loaded statement where a Clinton presidency is concerned.
In remarks that drew immediate fire from the Clinton camp, Romney said on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” last night, “She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern.”

Frankly, Clinton may be a decent lawyer, but she has no management experience of the sort that would qualify her for the leadership of AmericaÂ’s executive branch. ThatÂ’s not to say that a single term legislator is unqualified for the office, but the junior Senator from New YorkÂ’s record is pretty sparse, and indicates no aptitude for the presidency.

Besides – if Hillary had been competent enough to do the jobk of an intern, the nation might have been spared the indignity of her husband’s impeachment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

In the last 50 years, every federal tax cut has produced increased revenue for the federal government. Repeated observation has shown that the connection exists, as surely as the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, or consumption of alcohol and intoxication. ThatÂ’s why it is almost inexplicable that certain liberal writers have been out to debunk the connection between tax cuts and increased revenue.

As the Democrats prepare to attempt one of the largest tax increases in American history, their allies in the press corps are softening the ground with a campaign against the ideological underpinnings of the Bush tax cuts. People can debate any particular tax increase or tax cut. But the left-wing side of this debate is rolling out a new argument. In publicity material for a new book, "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked By Crackpot Economics," the author, Jonathan Chait, puts it this way: "The notion that tax cuts can cause revenue to rise, though now embraced by every leading Republican politician, is rejected by even the most conservative economists."

On the Web site of the New Yorker, the magazine's financial page columnist, James Surowiecki, writes, "The supply-side argument that, in the United States, tax-rate cuts pay for themselves — that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue — has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession, and no hard empirical data to back it up." He likens it to "saying that the best way to treat sick people is to bleed them to let out the evil spirits."

Messrs. Chait and Surowiecki are playing fast and loose with the facts. The first few pages of Mr. Chait's book are packed with the names of economists who back supply side ideas — Arthur Laffer of the Laffer Curve, who has been on the faculties of Pepperdine, the Southern California, and Chicago; Robert Mundell, the 1999 Nobel Laureate who is a professor of economics at Columbia; Martin Feldstein of Harvard; Lawrence Lindsey, who was an associate professor at Harvard from 1984 to 1989; and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia.

Now the two authors are correct in their statement that not every tax cut will increase revenue. There is a point, which I do not see us as having reached yet, at which revenue will decline – otherwise a tax rate of 0% would produce infinite revenue. But to dismiss the idea that tax cuts produce more revenue as flawed is fundamentally wrong. But much like Al Gore does on the global warming issue, the two writers seek to define anyone who disagrees with them as being “outside the mainstream”, despite the fact that it is demonstrably untrue and also irrelevant. After all, truth is rarely determined by a majority vote.

The Sun then goes on to point out that the various GOP tax cuts have invariably been accompanied by increased revenues. That is empirical data, which the pro-tax Left attempts to explain away as the vagaries of the business cycle. Interestingly enough, though, the two phenomena seem to correlate so strongly that it is impossible to ignore the connection and dismiss it as mere coincidence.

But it is the conclusion that interests me the most.

Even framing the issue as primarily about government revenue, however, concedes the terms of the debate to the left-wingers — as The Great Bartley comprehended. No doubt crucial government activities need to be funded. But as the political season wears on, the candidates — and the journalists who follow them — will come into contact with more and more voters who when they think of "revenue" don't first think of the government's bottom line, but of their own household's. You don't need a Ph.D. or a seat on the faculty of an Ivy League university to know that tax cuts let individuals keep more of the money they have earned, allowing them to spend it as they see fit, rather than as some bureaucrat or lobbyist-influenced politician wants to spend it.

The right way for politicians to approach these issues is by putting the individual's wallet ahead of Washington's, an approach that puts property rights and incentives for hard work and growth ahead of government revenues. Understanding incentives has always been a key to the supply-side argument. It's good politics and good economics. While the Party's deep thinkers of today may dismiss it as hoodwinking, hijacking, crackpottery, or evil spirits, there was a time the Democrats were on the right side of the issue. Ask JFK. Our own prediction is that to the extent the tax issue drives the debate in 2008 — and we think it will be a big factor, though not the only one — the key point won't be which candidate wins the votes of the economics faculties, but which one can show voters he or she understands it's their money, and Washington should take as little as it possibly can.

Indeed, the assumption of Chait, Surowiecki and their ilk is that they begin with the assumption that your income is a government resource, and that the government should get first dibs on it. The reality, however, is different – we have a moral right to every penny of our income, though we relinquish a portion of it for NECESSARY government programs. That does not mean every idea proposed by the latest pandering politician seeking votes.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

Now I've indicated multiple times in the past that I am a Romney supporter. I've also indicated that I find his religion to be irrelevant to the issue of his fitness for office. So I agree, at least in part, with this column written by Martin Frost for FoxNews.

Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.

I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.

Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.

When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.

As a Democrat, I wouldnÂ’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But IÂ’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his partyÂ’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the worldÂ’s greatest democracy in the 21st century.

The question is, how many of those opposed to Mitt Romney are really opposed to him based upon his religion. In my experience, that number seems smaller thatn some in the media might like to make it. Pressed a little harder, most individuals who raise the Mormon issue will come back to questions about Romney's past positions on important issues, and wonder if he is really conservative enough. The religious issue simply becomes the tipping point for them, the one on which the question of shared values becomes decisive.

Now I think that such individuals are wrong -- but I don't think religious issues are necessarily irrelevant in making political choices. While I'll gladly vote for any Christian or Jew who supports my views on major issues, even I have a tipping point -- I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for an individual, for example, who was a Satanist, because our value systems would be too greatly at odds. Is that a wholly rational position, one consistent with my stated beliefs on religion and elections? Maybe not, but then I've never met anyone who was wholly consistent on the values they espouse.

There are those who will argue that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office. They are right, but they ignore what that restriction really means. That provision restricts government itself from requiring or forbidding certain beliefs or practices, but does not extend to the sanctity of the voting booth and the individual's weighing of a candidate's relative merits for office.

Now for all I find myself unable to accept Mormon religious doctrines (and I have studied them, having once been painfully smitten with a Mormon girl who would allow our relationship to progress no further unless I converted) and the historical roots of that faith, I have rarely met a Mormon whose fundamental decency I have doubted. That gives me a certain confidence that Romney's values and mine are congruent, even if not identical. It is why I can support his candidacy for president with a clear conscience, and why I can urge my fellow Americans (of whom my fellow Republicans are but one subset) to support him for the presidency in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.

From The Campaign Spot at NRO.

This Would Be Awesome: Ted Olson for Virginia Senate Seat?

IÂ’m hearing rumblings that high-ranking Republicans want to coax former Solicitor General Ted Olson to run against Mark Warner in next yearÂ’s Virginia Senate raceÂ…

And it might still leave him in contention for a future Supreme Court seat – one which is richly deserved.

Posted by: Greg at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Heck, the real news would be if she wasnÂ’t voting Republican.

Sorry, sister: Laura Bush says experience as First Lady may count, but she won't vote for Hillary Clinton just to see the first female President.
Putting party over gender pride yesterday, Bush said she wasn't at all conflicted over opposing the first woman with a real chance to break the marble ceiling.

"It doesn't matter to me - I hope it doesn't matter to other people," the First Lady said. "I hope that people will choose the candidate that they think really has the views that they want.

"I'll be supporting the Republican," Bush added on "Fox News Sunday."

Republican wife of a sitting Republican president gets asked of she is going to vote for a Democrat in the upcoming election. What do you think she would say? The question itself is asinine.

Posted by: Greg at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

I think this really sums the matter up quite nicely, since the Democrats seem to believe that we have enough extra cash around to "insure" the health of every single American and any illegal alien able to sneak across the border.

The first fallacy should be obvious to anyone. The government does not have any extra money! In fact, our government owes $9 trillion, give or take a few billion. That is what we call the national debt, but really, it is not owed by the government; it is owed by you and me. Every time some politician gets another bright idea to give away a million dollars here or $250,000 there, it comes out of your pocket. DonÂ’t just believe me; ask your pocket.

The second fallacy may be more subtle. What is being called “health insurance” by the politicians is nothing of the sort. As we have already established, insurance is a financial gamble where you put money at risk on the chance that you will reap a reward later. Notice the word “risk.” But the only one assuming any risk in the “feel-good” version of insurance being proposed by Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the gang is the American taxpayer. What they are talking about is “free health care,” not insurance. But it is only free for the sick person; instead of them paying for their own care, you and I pay for it.

* * *

Which brings us to the unstated third fallacy of the health-care debate, the one which is pivotal and sadly which is accepted as truth by the vast majority of people. It is this: If there is something that is good for me, I am entitled to it, whether I can afford it or not.

Put more simply:

1) We can't afford it.
2) It is socialism, not insurance.
3) It isn't a right.

Interestingly enough, medical care used to be affordable for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Then the government got involved in paying for it for those who couldn't? The result? Prices went up to the level that health insurance became a necessity for everyone else -- which drove costs still higher. After all, when you have to document every aspirin in triplicate and submit the paperwork to get reimbursed, that pill that costs a penny to buy does start to cost $4 to administer..

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 2 kb.

Tell me you don't find this funny.

And that it is not revealing of a great deal about the lawyer making the argument.

The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans. She represented the cannery, and she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. “Besides,” she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client’s position, “the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.”

The jury seemed to buy her argument, more or less, as it awarded only token damages. But no one was particularly happy about the case or her performance. Her former partner, Webster L. Hubbell, told one of her biographers that she was “amazingly nervous” in speaking to the jury.

Tell me, friends, doesn't that sound like precisely the sort of argument that she would make in favor of socialized medicine?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, looks like Ron Paul is going to try to expand his base beyond the internet lunatic crowd. Now he's trying to infect attract the general public with a radio and television campaign.

Hoping to defy more expectations, Rep. Ron Paul is ratcheting up his maverick Republican presidential campaign by launching TV and radio commercials in early primary states and setting an ambitious $12 million fundraising goal.

For a candidate often relegated by pundits to second- or third-tier status, Paul's ability to make a big entry into advertising wars is unusual.

With just over two months until the first primaries, experts question whether the libertarian-leaning congressman from Lake Jackson can expand his intense following to make a credible showing in these early contests.

Officials with Paul's campaign acknowledge they have an uphill battle, but say they plan to broaden his support with an advertising campaign that includes $1.1 million in television spots that begin airing Monday in New Hampshire.

Now the Paul campaign is sitting on a chunk of cash, and has apparently decided to use it to communicate his sometimes reasonable, sometimes bizarre message. That is great, because there are some positive points in his message, things that I do agree with. Unfortunately, he has become a magnet for every conspiracist, lunatic, and extremist out there, as I've pointed out more than once.

Since he'll take their endorsement and their money without comment, I wonder if any of his money will go to Stormfront Radio?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 5 kb.

Democrats seemed to be trying "to drill enough small holes in the bottom of the boat to sink the entire Iraqi enterprise, while still claiming undying support for the crew about to drown," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

But only for one special group – Arabs/Muslims. If you are a Christian, a Jew, a Hispanic, or an African-American in Michigan, the Democrat presidential candidates are not allowed to seek your vote.

Hundreds of Arab-Americans and members of the Washington political establishment will meet in Dearborn this weekend for a national conference amid concerns that while Arab-Americans are increasingly courted for votes, attempts also are made to exclude them from the public discourse.

The sessions are considered significant enough that the Democratic chairs of the party in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina extended a singular exemption from a ban on candidates campaigning in Michigan -- in a dispute over scheduling the primary -- so that candidates could attend the National Leadership Conference of the Arab American Institute, beginning today.

Can we get someone to file a complaint with the US Department of Justice over this issue? It is a clear violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, granting special political privileges to one ethnic/religious group that are not extended to other Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, the President has proposed an increase, just not the gargantuan expansion of the health insurance program for poor kids to include adults and middle class kids, too.

And Republicans in Congress have proposed an even bigger increase than the President -- but again, keeping the program for poor kids, not the children of families making $60K a year.

But that isn't enough for the NYTimes, which has the audacity to complain about the president being driven by ideology.

The House approved a revised bill to finance the children’s health insurance program yesterday by a 265-to-142 margin — a strong mandate, but still not enough to overcome another promised veto by President Bush.

If the president carries out this threat, we hope Congressional tacticians can find a way to enact this important measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the presidentÂ’s visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.

Desire to protect the tobacco industry? Where does that one come from?

And is it just me, or is the complaint by the editors of the New York Times to ideologically driven positions on policy issues somewhat akin to complaints about from a hooker about the loose sexual morality of women in contemporary society?

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

The fine conservative site RedState recently announced its decision to ban comments favoring Ron Paul by newly registered members, based upon a documented problem with the Ronulans. Whether or not this is the correct move is subject to debate, but it is hard to call teh decision illegitimate in light of the behavior of many Ron paul supporters around the internet.

Andrew Sullivan takes RedState to task over this decision.

RedState defends its decision to bar future posters from supporting Ron Paul:

Erickson thinks that they're a human political cocktail of Code Pink activists and Neo Nazis, and he doesn't expect them to vote for anyone other than Paul.

All thinks that a lot of them are those who  buy into Paul's message of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

I don't think I qualify as a Neo-Nazi or a Code Pink activist. Full Wired story here. But here's a simple message to Ron Paul supporters. You're welcome here. The Dish believes in expanding the range of debate among conservatives, not crushing it. And any cursory look at the degenerate state of American conservatism would not lead you to think your problem is too much diversity of opinion.

Really, Andrew? That's odd -- you don't allow comments at all from anyone, though you do allow trackbacks.

Tell me, sir, how your no-comment site promotes dialogue and debate. Seems to me that your comment-free zone stifles that debate. As such, I hope you don't mind if I refer to this as a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy on your part.

Others commenting on RedState's decision include OTB, Captain Ed, and David All.

UPDATE: And as proof of Andrew Sullivan's hypocrisy, guess what -- it appears that he's refused my trackback! So much for promoting open debate!

Posted by: Greg at 07:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 3 kb.

Matt, David, and the rest of the folks at LoneStarTimes.com have dug up what ought to be a big scandal -- Ron Paul is taking campaign cash from Nazis, including the owner of the biggest neo-Nazi site on the internet (and the current husband of the former Mrs. David Duke).

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron PaulÂ’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

Now LST has been raising the issue of links to Paul's website (including a fundraising widget) from Stormfront for some time now, without response from the Paul campaign. Paul has not renounced support from white supremacists like Black and Stormfront, despite his campaign being made aware of the links from the racist site. Furthermore, Paul's association with (and courting of) 9/11 Truthers, rabid anti-Zionists, and militia supporters clearly walks him to the extreme fringe of American politics -- right to the very neighborhood inhabited by the neo-Nazis.

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul supporters commenting at LST are defending the acceptance of white supremacist cash, and arguing that LST is in the wrong for revealing the connection.

Will Ron Paul do the right thing in this case? Or will he keep the cash, thereby verifying that he is the candidate of the freaks, weirdos and nutjobs of the internet?

UPDATE: Hot Air notes another donor -- this one maxed out -- to the Paul campaign. It is 9/11 Truther and militia supporter Alex Jones!

Others commenting include JammieWearingFool, American Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (73) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 4 kb.

I wonder how this happened.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) enjoyed a more than $2 million fundraising edge over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in September, continuing a year-long pattern. And although the Republican committeeÂ’s money margin over the Democratic committee is less than was typically the case before the GOP lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it remains the GOPÂ’s brightest spot in a year in which the DemocratsÂ’ U.S. Senate and House campaign units have built up big fundraising leads of their Republican counterparts.

The RNC raised $5.8 million in September, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, compared to $3.7 million for the DNC. That continued an RNC winning streak that it has sustained through every month of this year.

Overall through Sept. 30, the RNC raised $63.1 million, and began October with $16.5 million in cash on hand. The DNC raised $40.5 million and began October with $3.3 million left to spend. The DNC has $2 million in debts, while the RNC is debt-free.

Could it be that we are seeing that the people are supportive of GOP principles, but less than happy with the direction taken by some GOP incumbents who are willing to compromise away all principles in an effort to win praise for their “bipartisanship”?

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

David Crosby used to be a talented musician, before he burned out every last brain cell with all those drugs. And Congressman John Hall used to have a modicum of musical talent – not much, but enough to score a couple of light-weight pop hits along the way. But in his new position, should he really be having a fundraiser featuring Crosby, given the latter’s recent insult to the troops?

Rep. John Hall, D-Dover, is refusing to cancel a planned performance Sunday at a campaign fundraiser in Bedford by longtime friend and fellow musician David Crosby despite Crosby's recent statement that when a U.S. soldier arrives in Iraq "he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."

Crosby appeared on the program "Hardball" last week, commenting to host Chris Matthews on young Americans volunteering to serve in Iraq.

"On the one hand, you have got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it," Crosby said. "And he's being told, yes, this is the truth. And we have got to go in there to protect your mother and your sister."

Crosby added, "And he goes over and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."

Bad enough that he wonÂ’t dump the musical has-been from the fundraiser, but Hall also lacks the decency and integrity to defend our men and women in uniform by repudiating his friend and supporters slanderous comments. If you need any proof of how unfit John Hall is for office, that should do it for you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember when the Democrats had a guy stalk Senator George Allan, looking for some miscue to exploit until they found one poorly chosen word? Well, it looks like a conservative student in Michigan is doing the same thing, and the Democrats – and the educrats he works for – don’t like it one bit.

A politically conservative student armed with a video camera and a Web site is trying to force a Democratic congressional candidate out of his teaching job at Central Michigan University.

Dennis Lennox, a 23-year-old junior, has posted videos on YouTube of himself questioning assistant professor Gary Peters about campaigning for office while holding a prestigious position at the university.

Some say Lennox is persistent. Others accuse him of pandering for attention.
"What I'm doing isn't about getting media attention," said Lennox, a political science major. "I'm speaking for the hundreds of students, alumni, taxpayers and even legislators who have complained because Gary Peters won't pick between Congress and campus."

One college administrator appears to have assaulted Lennox, and there are attempts to prevent him from filming on campus, or from filming public employees. I guess the First Amendment only applies to Democrats and liberals – and that they really don’t consider turnabout to be fair play.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Ileana Hernandez is seeking the office of county commissioner in Pike County, Pennsylvania.

Someone splattered a campaign sign with paint. Someone also dumped dirty diapers in front of her campaign office..

Her response?

Hernandez, a Democrat who is the first Latino woman to run for the office, said the vandalism "could be both racist and sexist — it's Pike County."

Her opponents have criticized the both acts of vandalism. But I can’t help but think that labeling the people you hope to represent as a bunch of racists and sexists is not the best pat to high political office – especially when your victories in previous elections in the county has proven that neither race nor sex has been an obstacle to your political success.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

For a brief moment, I thought we were dealing with a rational liberal columnist.

Then I got to the fourth sentence.

Forget impeachment.

Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

* * *

Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.

Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."

I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it's really the least I can do.

One more example of how the American Left isn't that far removed from the ideology and practices of the Soviet Union.

And it leads me to conclude that Bush Derangement Syndrome is not a mental illness, but is instead a manifestation of the evil that lives in some people's souls.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 3 kb.

Looking for a job in government, one with real policy influence? Are you experienced and competent, and willing to think outside the box? Then Bobby Jindal wants you!

BATON ROUGE, La. — Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal is taking resumes from people looking for jobs at a new Web site, Louisiana Transition

"We are considering every position within the administration an open one and encouraging everyone interested to apply. We are looking for the best and brightest folks out there interested in working to bring our state a fresh start," Timmy Teepell, director of Jindal's transition team and chief of staff when Jindal takes office in January, said in a statement.

The transition team will form committees to choose the Jindal administration's cabinet members, according to Rolfe McCollister, chairman of the transition efforts.

Jindal will have a month longer than most incoming governors to handle transition because he won in Saturday's primary, not a November runoff.

Louisiana government has been a mes for years, and that was quite clearly demonstrated two years ago. If you want to be a part of the reform movement, click the link above and apply to be a part of the solution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

No electricity for you!

Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) vowed yesterday to block the renomination of a government energy board's chief until the Bush administration scales back its push for new high-voltage power lines in his state.

Casey took to the Senate floor to declare that he would put a hold on the renomination of Joseph T. Kelliher as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He denounced the boundaries of a "national interest electric transmission corridor" to promote the construction of new power lines in the Mid-Atlantic states.

The corridor, finalized earlier this month, includes most of Pennsylvania as it stretches from Virginia north to Upstate New York. It marks the first time the government has used new powers granted under an energy bill passed in 2005.

Senator, it is an unfortunate reality that your state sits right between New York and Virginia. That means, for better or for worse, that the transmission lines must cross your state as part of the national power grid. If you are that opposed to allowing it to do so, perhaps we can accommodate you by cutting off the Pennsylvania from our nations’ power supply – something that I’m sure many Pennsylvanians will object to come January when the temperatures drop into single digits. But if you want to cripple the energy distribution network, you and your state need to be taken out of it completely.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

These slip-ups are really not surprising, given that we have a presidential candidate with an unusual name that is only a single letter off from the name of our terrorist enemy.

In a slip of the tongue, Republican Mitt Romney accused Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama of urging terrorists to congregate in Iraq.

In the midst of criticizing Obama and other Democrats on foreign and economic policy Tuesday, the GOP presidential hopeful said:

"Actually, just look at what Osam — Barack Obama — said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. ... It's almost as if the Democratic contenders for president are living in fantasyland. Their idea for jihad is to retreat, and their idea for the economy is to also retreat. And in my view, both efforts are wrongheaded."

Romney apparently was referring to an audiotape aired Monday in which a speaker believed to be terrorist Osama bin Laden called for insurgents in Iraq to unite and avoid divisions. The authenticity of the tape aired on Al-Jazeera television could not be immediately confirmed.

Romney was addressing a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Spokesman Kevin Madden said: "He misspoke. He was referring to the audiotape of Osama bin Laden and misspoke. It was just a mix-up."

Now let's remember that the first major screw-up in this regard was made by Ted Kennedy, so there really is not any reason to claim partisan motivations. And remember as well that Romney had been talking about the presidential candidate when he made the switch to discussing the terrorist leader -- hence the mental slip that led to the verbal slip.

Oh, yeah -- and the fact that Obama's support for the cut-and-run-and-surrender policy of the Left does, in fact, encourage terrorists to gather in Iraq to come together to defeat America.

Posted by: Greg at 09:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

I disagree with EJ Dionne's entire column today -- right up to the conclusion that he reaches at the end which is spot on correct.

To this end, Romney should give not "the Kennedy speech" but his own account of the religious question. He needs to explain how he can fairly ask that we not hold his faith against him, even as he insists that religious people should vote for him because of the values his faith has taught him. Mormonism should not be an issue. Consistency is another matter.

Dionne is right -- Romney should not give "the Kennedy speech". After all, that speech was a cave-in to the forces of bigotry in the name of political expidiency. JFK argued that yes, everything that the bigots had said about Catholics was true, but he would be an "Uncle Pat" and not act that way.

What Romney needs to do is stand up and extol the religious diversity and pluralism of this nation -- and point to the fact that it is shared values and policy preferences that matter, even if the basis for those values are different. He should point to the fact that Mormons participate in our nation's political life on all sides of the debate, free from Church interference -- from Harry Reid on the Left to Orrin Hatch on the Right. As such, he should insist upon being judged by the policies he proposes and the character he demonstrates, not the sign in front of his house of worship.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, , Adam's Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 4 kb.

How much should we spend to combat global warming? That's the great question put forward by economist Steven E. Landsburg in Slate. He walks his readers through a whole host of assumptions that underlie a calculation of how much is enough.

The answer? It depends.

First, I'll make the extreme assumption that our environmental recklessness threatens to shave 1 percentage point off economic growth forever. Because of compounding, our disposable incomes will be reduced by 9.5 percent a decade from now and by 63 percent a century from now—perhaps because we'll spend 63 percent of our incomes relocating coastal cities. Now toss in some standard (but arguable) assumptions about risk aversion and discounting. (Note to econogeeks: I assumed a risk-aversion coefficient of 1, and I discounted future generations' welfare at an annual rate of 5 percent, partly because we might care less about them and partly because we're not sure they'll exist.) Run this through your calculator, and you'll find we should spend up to about 17 percent of our incomes on climate control—provided that our investment is effective. That's an expenditure level that I expect would satisfy Al Gore.

Change the numerical assumptions, and you'll change the numerical conclusion. Make the discount rate 1 percent instead of 5 percent, and you can justify spending up to a whopping 62 percent of our incomes on climate control; lower the discount rate to 10 percent, and you can't justify spending more than 8 percent of our incomes.

And that is based upon what Landsburg describes as an extreme view of the crisis. My read of the article? Even the most alarmist view of the level of crisis cannot justify the huge expenditures and changes proposed by Gore and the man-made global warming crowd -- especially when one looks at the historical record and sees the many beneficial impacts of the (oft discounted) natural cycle of global warming. After all, Landsburg is making extreme assumptions in his calculations, so more reasonable ones would reduce the percentage of our incomes needed to reduce climate change.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader today on the principles for a new conservatism.

In doing so, he gives voice to a position advocated by the Cold War critics of the Left and the neo-isolationists of the Buchananite Right -- and the Paulite nutjobs.

The third leg of the tripod, though, is the interesting one, because it's something that comes out of the far left. In fact, it's so far to the left that it wouldn't fit into today's Democratic party. I'd like to see an acknowledgment and rejection of some of the brutality of American foreign policy. I'd like us to explicitly own and reject what we did in places like Iran before the Shah, and in Guatemala.

The first two legs, small government and Constitutionalism, are positions strongly supported by the Right today. Unfortunately, the third leg is a return to the foreign policy of the GOP of the post-WWI era. As we learned with dismay later on, such policies are doomed to failure -- especially in a world that has become even more interconnected than it was in the first third of the twentieth century.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Matt Drudge has an incredible gift for sifting the news and finding important stories. He is lso teh recipient of a lot of early tips. In one recent case, though, was he played by the Hillary Clinton Campaign to get early, prominent coverage of a fundraising coup?

As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing red-siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, “Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge,” and, “$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report.”

Within minutes, the Drudge site had injected Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising success into the day’s political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Mr. Obama’s speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign — the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side — it was a telling assault.

Mrs. ClintonÂ’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.

As noted above, this is the same Matt Drudge that rose to prominence on his coverage of her husband's Oral Orifice Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. That makes Drudge a card-carrying member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -- but Hillary seems to be prepared to sell her soul for good coverage.

If she has one to sell.

Posted by: Greg at 09:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Future President Bobby Jindal was elected our nation's youngest governor -- and the first Indian-American to ever reach such an office. The Republican Congressman will replace the incompetent Kathleen Blanco, whose failures during Hurricane Katrina led directly to the deaths of thousands of Louisianans during and after the storm, as well as delayed the federal response to the storm by her inaction.

Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) became the nation's first Indian American governor Saturday, outpolling 11 rivals in Louisiana and drawing enough votes to avoid a runoff election next month.

With about 90 percent of the state's nearly 4,000 precincts reporting, Jindal had 53 percent of the vote. His nearest competitor, state Sen. Walter J. Boasso (D), had 18 percent.

Louisiana holds an open gubernatorial election, with candidates of all parties competing. By drawing at least 50 percent of the vote, Jindal avoided a Nov. 17 runoff race with Boasso.

"Let's give our homeland, the great state of Louisiana, a fresh start," Jindal said to a cheering crowd at his victory party, according to the Associated Press.

Jindal, 36, was making his second attempt to become Louisiana's first nonwhite governor since Reconstruction. The last one was P.B.S. Pinchback, a black Republican who served briefly between 1872 and 1873, at a time when many white voters were disenfranchised.

And who disenfranchised those non-white voters? That would be the Democrats, who were outraged by the notion of a non-white holding political power in the state. The more things change, the more they stay the same -- given the race-based smears of Democrats against Jindal during this and his previous race for governor.

Good luck with Louisiana, sir -- you have quite a task before you, overcoming Louisiana's legacy of Democrat rule, which has left it the nation's poorest, most uneducated and most unhealthy state.

I look forward to voting for you in 2012 or 2016 when you are the GOP nominee for President.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Don Surber, Stop the ACLU, GayPatriot, Blogs for Bush, Festering Swamp, Wizbang, Captain's Quarters, Jawa Report, Sister Toldjah, American Mind, Right Wing News, Right Voices

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Is It Just Me?, , Allie Is Wired, A Blog For All, The World According to Carl, The Populist, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 6 kb.

You know, I'm all for general expressions of religious faith by politicians, but I wish that Fred hadn't used one to dodge so simple a question.

People ask Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee and television and film actor, what he would do during his first 100 days in office, should he be elected president.

“I really don’t know what I would do in my first 100 days,’’ Thompson candidly and conversationally told an audience today. “It would depend on the circumstances.

“But I know what I would do in the first hour,’’ Thompson told an assembly of religious right voters assessing the Republican field of presidential candidates today. “I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what is right’’ – and with that, people stood and applauded the drawling, homespun candidate.

“I would pray for the strength to do what is right,’’ the candidate said. “May God give us all the strength and wisdom to do what is right for our country.’’

That Thompson failed to state even one policy key move for early in his presidency is troubling. Hasn't he devised some centerpiece for his campaign?

On the other hand, my darling Democrat suggests that the Thompson Administration would begin with "sex on the Presidential Seal in the Oval Office with that trophy wife of his."

I could handle that -- think of it as purifying the place after Bill and Monica.

Oh, and I have a vision of my first hour in the White House if I ever became President.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 5 kb.

After the Left lied about Rush Limbaugh and his attitude towards the troops, the broadcaster decided to go one better -- he turned it into a charity auction. The result? A $2.1 million dollar winning bid for a letter from the censorious (and mendacious) senators -- which Limbaugh will match.

Too bad none of the national media can bring themselves to truthfully report what Limbaugh actually said, instead choosing to side with the Democrats and the Soros-funded organization that began the smear against the host.

Here's the challenge that Limbaugh made, and that I join in making -- MATCH THE BID!

You folks can do it -- with 41 of you, it comes to only a bit over $50K each. MATCH THE BID!

Every one of you who signed is a millionaire. MATCH THE BID!

And while we are at it, let's talk about your billionaire sugar-daddy, George Soros. MATCH THE BID!

Or quit making it out that you are patriots who care about the country or the troops.

Posted by: Greg at 04:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, this comment is not based upon racism – it is based upon looking at the relative life expectancies within different racial groups.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday the head of the Justice Department's voting rights office should be fired for saying minorities often die before they reach old age.

A department spokesman said the Oct. 5 remarks by John Tanner had been "grossly misconstrued."

During a panel discussion on minority voters before the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles, Tanner addressed state laws that require photo identification for voting, and remarked that elderly voters disproportionately don't have the proper IDs.

"That's a shame, you know creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance," Tanner said, according to video posted on YouTube. "Of course, that also ties into the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first.

"There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country, and so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities. Just the math is such as that," Tanner said.

Good grief – that last paragraph sounds like the platform of the DNC. Now if Senator Obama wants to declare it to be racist, I’ll support Tanner’s firing immediately upon the disbanding of the Democrat Party and the resignation of every Democrat holding elected or appointed office on the same basis. You go first, sir.

Additional fine commentary at Big Lizards

Posted by: Greg at 07:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

But probably wonÂ’t.

Responding to overwhelming pressure from every civilized person on earth with any semblance of intelligence, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee today announced that it had voted to terminate its charter. Just prior to the unanimous vote, the Committee voted to rescind numerous past prizes - including the 2007 prize to itinerant comedian and performance artist Albert Gore of the United States - and award those prizes and all future prizes to the United States military.

"This about face by the Nobel Peace Committee," stated former Committee Chairman and former leader of the Norwegian Labor Party, Trygve Andreesen, "came after hundreds of millions of civilized people sent e-mails, letters, telegrams, text messages, voicemails and carrier pigeon messages demanding that we stop giving awards to Islamic martyrdom supporters like Jimmy Carter, frauds like Rigoberto Menchu and corrupt mass-murderers like Yassir Arafat."

I love the alternate recipient – the single greatest force for good over the last hundred years.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

A job he never should have had.

Mel Martinez, the public face of the Republican National Committee as its general chairman, announced he was stepping down from his post on Friday after serving only 10 months.

"I believe that our future as a party and nation is bright and I have every intention of continuing to fight for our president, our party and our candidates," the Florida senator said in a statement.

His departure was abrupt and his job will not be filled. Martinez wasn't expected to step down until a Republican presidential nominee was selected. The earliest that could occur is February.

Martinez said he was relinquishing the job to spend more time focusing on his constituents and because the RNC had achieved the objective he set when he assumed the job in January.

"It was my goal as general chairman to lead the party as it established the structure and raised the resources necessary to support our presidential candidate and ensure Republican victories next November. I believe we have accomplished those goals," Martinez said.

The decision not to replace Martinez is a sign of how little he will be missed.

That said, we need someone in the position of chairman – and I believe now, as I did ten months ago, that Michael Steele should be that man.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.