IÂ’ve not written about the issue of planted questions because it didnÂ’t matter. IÂ’ve always assumed that campaigns planted softball questions. But given the denials from the Clinton camp, this strikes me as an actual scandal.

The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was simple: She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, " 'I don't think that's a good idea, because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans.' "

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. "It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on my word."

Now the Clintonoids are going to have to clarify this. Either there are pre-cleared and scripted questions, or there aren’t. Either Hillary is prompted to call on these plants, or she isn’t. And the problem is not one of planting the questions – the problem is one of the apparent dishonesty that followed. Once again we have to ask – can Hillary (and her staff) be trusted.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

This is really a no-brainer for anyone who studies political science.

Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential nominating battle — say Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards are more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to say what they believe, rather than what they think voters want to hear, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Polls. But they also view Mrs. Clinton as the best prepared and most electable Democrat in the field, the polls found.

Republican voters in those two states say that Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, shares their values and views on immigration, a red-hot issue for Republicans in Iowa especially. But they are divided over whether Mr. Romney or Rudolph W. Giuliani, who Republican voters say does not share their values, would be the party’s strongest general-election candidate — and electability looms as a crucial factor for Republican voters in those states.

These are some of the findings in twin polls conducted by the New York Times and CBS News in the two states, which will begin the nominating process in less than two months. The polls found that the electorates in the two states had different perceptions of the candidates and concerns about issues, while suggesting that the outcome was far from settled in either place.

Political parties exist for one purpose -- to elect candidates to office in order to implement public policy along a general framework supported by its members. That means, in order to be successful, a party needs to select candidates with the ability to win elections, not the most ideologically pure candidates.

I've endorsed Mitt Romney. I have stayed with Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney offers an agenda I support. That said, I will wholeheartedly embrace Rudy Giuliani, despite my previously expressed doubts, if he is the nominee. After all, I want the process to produce a candidate who can win the Presidency more than I want the perfect candidate.

Indeed, if you want an example of where that difference has been most striking in recent years, look at the Connecticut Senate race in 2006. Yes, Ned Lamont offered a vision closer to that of the majority of primary voters. But when the chips were down, was he electable? No -- as evidenced by the fact he was crushed by Joe Lieberman, who he had defeated in the primary. What did the ideologically pure folks who nominated Lamont gain by their purity?

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Never let it be said that the Democrats are prepared to victory on the field of battle ahead of victory at the polls.

Bowing to the most extreme elements of the Democrat coalition, Senate Majority Leader Extremist Follower Harry Reid has announced that he will not allow the Senate to approve any money to ensure victory following our military's recent successes in Iraq.

Instead, he wants a commitment to a surrender date and an immediate move to withdraw troops.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.

But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.

What this amounts to is a demand by the Democrats for the setting of a timetable for US military defeat despite the steady advances that have occurred over the last year. The Democrats need their terrorist allies to win in Iraq if they are to win in November, 2008 at the polls in America. A military victory by the United States could, and likely would, harm the party's electoral prospects.

When can we begin to call this strategy treason?

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

David Broder notes that the election of future president Bobby Jindal as governor of the state of Louisiana is part of a trend in statehouses across the South.

With Jindal's impressive victory, Republicans have established a phalanx of successful conservative governors across the Southeast who share a pragmatic streak that voters seem to like. They are the mirror image of the band of pragmatic liberal governors the Democrats have elected in states ranging from New Hampshire to Arizona, but concentrated in the Midwest — Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma.

Next door to Louisiana in Mississippi, Haley Barbour, a former Washington lobbyist and chairman of the Republican National Committee, is about to win easy re-election to a second term.

In Alabama and Georgia, two more Republicans, Bob Riley and Sonny Perdue, both former businessmen, are in their second terms as governor. And in Florida, Charlie Crist, another Republican, has proved to be even more popular in his first year in office than Jeb Bush.

As a Republican, this gives me reason for optimism.

This trend means that there is a new generation of leadership developing -- these governors and their staffers -- who will be in a position to win election to Senate seats and appear on national tickets for a generation. And if the sort of trends demonstrated in Jindal's election are, in fact, a long-term trend, it means that the GOP message still resonates. It will be the new faces -- young faces like Jindal, in particular -- who will continue to spread the Republican message to an ever more receptive electorate. So while the GOP may have stumbled recently, and may even lose in 2008, the future is bright.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 PM | Comments (195) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

Are the Democrats really on the side of the American people? This tax bill makes it clear that the answer is "NO!"

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is planning for a trillion-dollar tax hike in 2009.

The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation took a look at Rangel's soak-the-rich tax increase and discovered that as early as 2011, 94 million families earning as little as $20,000 a year will see a tax increase.

Only 800,000 will see a tax reduction.

By my calculation, that means that nearly 120 families will see a tax increase for every family that sees a tax decrease. And the bill is hardly “revenue neutral”, given that it claims to reduce tax receipts by $50.6 billion while increasing taxes by $78.3 billion. That is an extra $27.3 billion cash grab by Rangel and the Democrats – unless, of course, they are admitting that the tax increase will slow the economy and reduce tax receipts by more than the $50.3 billion, essentially validating the supply-side model that has been demonstrated time and again by the economic growth spurred by tax cuts.

In other words, RangelÂ’s bill is bad for Americans and bad for America. It must be defeated.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Why on earth is Howard Dean commenting on this issue this way?

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean came out for inclusive team prayers in public schools while speaking Sunday to a gathering of thousands of Jewish leaders, according to a leading Jewish news agency.

In another statement likely to stir debate among the evangelical Christians his party is urgently trying to court, Dean also asserted “there are no bars to heaven for anybody,” according to the report by JTA, a 90-year-old non-profit organization which calls itself “the global news service of the Jewish people.”

So, is Howard Dean attempting to impose a theological litmus test on Americans? And if he is, will he seek to impose it on his party first, where anti-Semitism among Democrat activists like those on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground has repeatedly flaired over teh last few years.

Unfortunately, portions of Dean's remarks were so blatantly partisan that his claims to oppose "theocracy" (read that "Christians publicly expressing their faith") amounts to intolerant bigotry on his part.

"This country is not a theocracy," Dean said, according to JTA. "There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."

Now let's look at this.

1) This country is not a theocracy. I don't know of a single Republican who argues that it is. I do know many Republicans who support full participation by all Americans, including religious believers, in the public policy process -- which includes the right of religious believers to see their policy preferences enacted on the same basis as everybody else's.

2) There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Yes, Howard, there are. The GOP is inclusive, and the Democrats are exclusive, of people of all faiths and ethnic groups. The GOP believes in the advancement of the individual, while the Democrats believe int eh advancement of the group. The GOP believes that America is fundamentally good, and the Democrats don't.

3) The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; Gee, so does the GOP, Howard.

4) that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; Sounds rather theocratic and exclusive to me, Howard -- the declaration of an official party theology. Does that mean that anyone who deviates from your theology is not welcome in the Democrat Party? And I'm curious -- does that "open heaven" include Islamist suicide bombers and the guys who crashed four planes on 9/11?

5) that we are not a one-religion nation; Funny, i don't know of anyone in the GOP who thinks that this country ought to be a one religion nation -- at least not by force or government edict. On the other hand, I do know plenty of folks -- members of many different religions -- who believe that it would be great for God to act in the hearts of every American (and every person on earth) and bring them to follow the tenets of one particular faith.

6) and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field. I'm going to assume that Dean misspoke here, and that he isn't imposing a rule that forbids cringing during prayer. Rather, I assume what he is wanting to do is impose a rule that forbids Christians from praying publicly in a Christian fashion -- and that he is stating this in his capacity as the head of the supposedly inclusive Democrat Party. Funny, isn't it, that his version of "inclusion" involves restricting the religious practices and language of the majority? And funny, isn't it, that Howard Dean fails to recognize the right of every American to NOT participate in prayer -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. -- that is offensive to them.

Once again, folks, Howard Dean and the Democrats practice he "politics of inclusion" by demonizing and excluding Christians who hold to the historical Christian faith and who don't follow the latest liberal theological (and political) trends. Too bad that in claiming to oppose "theocracy" Howard Dean seeks to impose a theological orthodoxy on America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

Senator Obama thinks he doesn't pay enough taxes.

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

Well, Senator, put your money where your mouth is. Cut the check for what you think you should be paying right now.

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

This way you can not only pay that "little bit more" that you believe you should be paying, but you can show us exactly what that "little bit more" will be. After all, if you are under-taxed now, you ought to do the moral and ethical thing and pay those taxes TODAY, even if it is not legally required.

The same goes for every other under-taxed liberal -- prove your point by paying up now.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Some news stories are unintentionally funny. Maye it is the choice of words, or perhaps the unusual circumstances related to the story. Take this line from an AP story.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger underwent surgery Saturday to remove a metal plate and cables from his leg, a spokesman said.

Anyone want to bet that the reporter and editor had a great laugh as that went out over the AP wire? I know I couldn't stop laughing as I read it. Imagine the fun that Leno and Letterman could have with this one sentence if the Writer's Guild weren't out on strike.

So instead, you can feel free to insert your own Terminator joke here.

Posted by: Greg at 06:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

How, I wonder, do you successfully repudiate your mother for her expressions of bigotry on the campaign trail.

John McCain's 95-year-old mother, in a swipe at her son's rival Mitt Romney, said Friday that Mormons were to blame for the scandal that rocked the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Roberta McCain laid out why her son, John, deserves to win the Republican presidential nomination. But in evaluating McCain's primary rivals, she criticized Romney's Mormon faith and his time in Salt Lake City.

"As far as the Salt Lake City thing, he's a Mormon and the Mormons of Salt Lake City had caused that scandal. And to clean that up, again, it's not a subject," Roberta McCain said.

John McCain quickly stepped in: "The views of my mothers are not necessarily the views of mine."

"Well, that's my view and you asked me," Roberta answered.

Frankly, McCain really didn't go far enough to distance himself from those expressions of bigotry. What's more, I don't know how he can successfully do so, especially after trying to spin the comments in a way that was not anti-Mormon.

I wonder -- has anyone asked her opinion of Jews lately?

UPDATE Here's Mommy!

Posted by: Greg at 07:18 AM | Comments (261) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Among the many reasons that I hate Ron Paul's presidential candidacy is the fact that it has resulted in the demise of Fort Bend County's only significant GOP political blog, Texas Safety Forum as its owner works for the Paul campaign. That's too bad, because we could really use Chris' insights into the current mess in the Fort Bend County GOP.

What am I talking about? The resignation of all of the party's officers. This decapitation of the Fort Bend Republicans, a violation of the fiduciary duty of these officers, may mean that there can be NO Republican candidates at all for any office in the overwhelmingly Republican county!

In a surprise announcement before an audience of elected Republican officials on Thursday, Fort Bend County GOP Chairman Gary Gillen said he and a slate of top party officers have quit.

Citing untenable political differences with what he termed “a number of fringe elements in the party,” Gillen said he, party Treasurer Richard McCarter, Secretary Nancy Porter and Parliamentarian Dick Hudgins have resigned effective immediately.

“We have a problem in Fort Bend County that I’d like to bring to your attention,” Gillen told an audience at a luncheon meeting of the West Fort Bend Republican Women, at Katy’s Falcon Point Country Club. “We’re facing nother less than a hostile takeover” of the county Republican Party.

Gillen did not identify members of a group he said gradually drove him to Thursday’s decision, but at one point in an interview after his announcement said, “if the executive committee of the party are not interested in helping all of our candidates equally, I am not interested in working with them.”

He said continuing friction with his political opponents has taken a toll on his family.

“I’m tired of seeing that hurt look in my wife’s eyes,” he added.

The problem, of course, is that Gillen came into the office of chairman as the result of a divisive primary in which he received only a minority of the votes in a three-way race. Not only that, he immediately found himself in conflict with a powerful faction of Executive Committee, made up of precinct chairs who had been elected by majorities in their own precincts and who were much more in contact with the desires of the GOP base in Fort Bend County. As the precinct chairs sought to exert their authority over the business of the party, Gillen chose not to work with them. Not only did he seek to impose the results of a rigged survey regarding Tom DeLay's successor on the party, he also made sought to divert Fort bend GOP funding into the coffers of a private PAC that he set up to eliminate accountability to the Executive Committee. And despite regularly being out-voted by the precinct chairs on policy matters, argued that the problem was the actions of an "extreme fringe group" among the precinct chairs, despite the fact that this faction included both religious conservatives and moderates. More recently, there have been issues over the mailing of the party newsletter and accusations of election law violations by Gillen.

This situation leaves the Fort Bend GOP, and the Republican Party of Texas, with a serious problem.

Another shoe dropped for local Republican Party officials on Friday, when they learned that the Fort Bend County GOP has been procedurally frozen in place by the sudden resignations of its chairman and top officers.

County GOP Chairman Gary Gillen stunned political officials and activists Thursday when he announced that he and party Treasurer Richard McCarter, Secretary Nancy Porter and Parliamentarian Dick Hudgins had resigned over continuing political differences with what Gillen called “fringe elements” within the party.

Then on Friday, members of the local GOP Executive Committee learned that they are at least temporarily unable to appoint even an interim chairman to replace Gillen.

According to the Texas Election Code, if the county party chairman’s position becomes vacant, the party secretary is to call a meeting “for the purpose of filling it.” But with no party secretary either, it’s up to the Texas Republican Party chair, “on written request of a member of the county executive committee,” to call a meeting to fill the county chairman vacancy.

Unfortunately for the party, no written resignations have been received and Porter won't take any phone calls -- so there is no way to determine if she has, in fact, resigned. It is therefore impossible for the state party to call a meeting, because it is not clear that the office is vacant.

And until the position of Party Chair has been filled, there can be no filings for county offices. After all, petitions for the primary ballot for such offices must be filed with the party chairman, starting in less than a month. No chairman, no filing for office, no Republican candidates in a county that has been a brilliant scarlet for years. In effect, the guy who claims he wants to help all candidates equally has acted to screw them all (and every Republican in the county) equally by creating a situation in which Republican voices cannot be heard at all.

And a couple of questions to ask about the decision by Gillen and his appointees to resign.

1) How successful were Gillen's efforts to raise funds for a reelection campaign -- and to pay of debts from the very expensive 2006 race?

2) What other candidates were on the horizon to challenge Gillen -- and which mainstream Republicans were supporting these other potential candidates?

Democrat political blogs are having a field day with this one.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Grizzly Groundswell, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, CommonSenseAmerica, Gone Hollywood, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 10 kb.

It could be that her "licenses for illegals" gaffe may cost her significantly in some states.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-commanding lead in New Hampshire has been slashed - a sign that the simmering driver's-license controversy may have bled into the critical first-primary state, a new poll shows.

Clinton leads top Democratic rival Barack Obama by only 10 percentage points - 34 to 24 - in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, her smallest edge of the season. John Edwards comes in third, at 15 percent.

A month ago, Clinton had a 23-point lead in the same survey.

Last week, before Clinton stumbled in a Democratic presidential debate over Gov. Spitzer's plan to let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, she led by 16 percent.

The survey also revealed that 66 percent of Democrats are against letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, with only 19 percent supporting the idea, an indication that Clinton's positive - but severely hedged - stance won't sell well in the Granite State.

And by the way -- her Iowa lead is down to 3 points.

The only problem is that there seems to be only a single Democrat in the race who is right on illegal immigration -- and even Chris Dodd strays far too far into the amnesty camp to be acceptable to the average American on the issue. It seems that it would be impossible for the rest of the Democrats to attack Hillary without it being noticed that they are all pro-amnesty, which would hurt them with middle America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Fifteen years ago, this was an important endorsement. A decade ago, it was one that might have made a difference. But let's be honest -- does anyone really care what Pat Robertson says anymore.

Televangelist Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.

"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said during a news conference with Giuliani in Washington.

The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with conservative GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade evangelical conservatives like Robertson to overlook their differences on those issues.

Evangelicals have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite of Christian conservatives who dropped out of the race last month, endorsed fellow Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.

It isn't that I don't have a certain amount of respect for Robertson -- I do. Rather, it is a question of how relevant he is to the process today. Twenty years ago he was a candidate for the presidency. His star has fallen since then, or rather it has been eclipsed by other leaders on the evangelical right. I just don't know that he is the sort of heavyweight that James Dobson would have to be considered. Indeed, it will only be something for those who hate the religious right, like homosexualist blogger and columnist Andrew Sullivan, to froth about.

Oh, and as for the Brownback endorsement of McCain, I consider it about as relevant as an endorsement from Tommy Thompson, another failed presidential candidate who could not even make it into 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

Always an appropriate response.

And this parody, sung to the tune of "It's A Small World (After All) -- the most annoying song in Disney history -- is just as annoying as the original when it gets stuck in your head. Love the parenthetical comments, too.

ItÂ’s a world of tinfoil, a world of hats.
Dennis Kucinich is completely bats.
Let us not be afraid
As we drink our Kool-Aid.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

ThereÂ’s the Internet and here is our plan:
EvÂ’ry online poll we will gently jam.
Ron Paul is our hero.
HeÂ’s like H. Ross Perot.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

[How do you turn this thing off?]

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

[Oh great. IÂ’m in a Do loop.]

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

[Enough already.]

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Paul world after all.
ItÂ’s a Ron Paul world.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

First conspiracy theorists.

Then Nazis and other racists.

Now anti-Catholics for Ron Paul?

Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick.

On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day — approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter — through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing.

Now let's remember what the history of Guy Fawkes Day has always been -- the reveling in anti-Catholicism. Given the sort of hate-mongers already attracted to Paul's campaign, is this really a coincidence?

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Looks like you are grasping at straws here. I am a Catholic and I gave to Ron Paul yesterday. It was inspired more by the movie V for Vendetta and people throwing out the corrupt politicians. The donation had everything to do with Ron Paul and nothing to do with Guy.

Posted by: Sean at Tue Nov 6 01:05:53 2007 (0I0sm)

2 I agree with Sean. I like what Paul has to say..I don't agree with him on everything but I agree with him on a lot more than I do the RINOs and the Christian right wingers. Paul seems to understand that this country was built on freedom and an opportunity to succeed and not as the Christian right wing would have you believe..Christian moral principles. I am still supporting Thompson and Tancredo but if neither gets the nomination and Paul runs on a third party ticket he has my vote..and if he manages to get the GOP nomination..which I doubt..then he for sure has my vote.

Posted by: GUYK at Wed Nov 7 08:15:29 2007 (uyoGg)

3 crkscswj 4711cpxmhvim 8090

Posted by: Odsijigw at Sat Feb 7 06:10:31 2009 (h+XLd)

4 observing, scjdkjuf, :[, jjuwskjx, 28743, qlhhncxs, )),

Posted by: Cjlwdsok at Wed Oct 7 08:11:33 2009 (SOYZ+)

5 peptic, lhaxrnxy, 7573, pgjrfpqz, 402, npmcdnwo, %)),

Posted by: Ymdqrkdf at Wed Oct 7 10:56:07 2009 (bsQ3M)

6 Prisoner Of A Morbid Cradle Mp3

Posted by: Trusme Mp3 at Mon Oct 12 06:05:09 2009 (PpFFE)

7 Keep Tthe Faith Baby feat. KD Lang, siuvcwlv, 8864, usvyhfzv, wjloww, nfrrwctr, 9362,

Posted by: Fuqjhiiq at Mon Oct 12 12:41:33 2009 (ianfZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I live in Seabrook, Texas, a town that picked up the nickname of "Recall City" after a couple of pitched battles involving the recall of public officials who gave aid and comfort to the Port of Houston Authority in their effort to build a container and cruis ship facility on the outskirts of the city. Every Port supporter lost their recall election, but the Port still moved on with its project despite the opposition of every single municipality impacted by the development.

Now the city has decided to enter into an agreement with the Port Authority, given that the facility has already been built. I wonder how long until the recall petitions start circulating.

City of Seabrook officials have decided to end years of bickering over the construction of the Bayport container and cruise terminal and are joining forces to resolve their differences with the Port of Houston Authority.

The two entities on Monday signed an agreement to put aside long-standing legal issues about noise, industrial encroachment and Pine Gully, a popular site for nature buffs. The agreement calls for berms and other barriers to separate Bayport from the southeast Harris County community and includes establishing an industrial district.

For years, Seabrook residents have opposed the creation of the Bayport container terminal, which opened in February, claiming the planned growth surrounding Bayport threatens their way of life near Galveston Bay. Among the main complaints are noise and pollution.

Supporters of Bayport say the terminal will bring jobs to the area that already is home to chemical plants.

Seabrook Mayor Robin Riley called Monday's agreement, unanimously approved by the City Council and given the OK by port commissioners, as a win-win for both the city and the port.

"It has been a very long and arduous process through the years in making it happen," Riley said during the signing agreement at the Port of Houston Authority headquarters. ''I think the citizens of Seabrook will be very pleased."

The port and Seabrook will begin a 60-day public process to get the agreed upon items in motion. After that period — Jan. 22 — when projects are approved by both entities, Seabrook has agreed to drop its lawsuits against the port dealing with the acquisition of two American Acryl properties that are needed to continue development of container and cruise terminals at Bayport.

The city also will agree not to oppose, or assist in opposing, actions by the port to acquire property north of the berm for development projects.

In other words, the city council just voted against what is and has consistently been the majority position of the citizens of Seabrook and the surrounding area.

And they did so on the eve of the vote to expand and improve parks and conservation areas taht border on the new industrial zone. Sounds great for recreation, kids, and wildlife in those areas -- as well as those of us who live within two miles of the port facility.

Robin Riley.

Kim Morrell.

Dee Wright.

Paul Dunphey.

Pete Braccio.

Tom Diegelman.

Gary Renola.

Coming soon to a recall ballot near you?

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

They are gearing up for a challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. And if that law is struck down, gay marriage is de facto legalized nationwide, with every state required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

The Boston-based legal advocacy group that helped make gay marriage a fact of life in Massachusetts is girding for a fight to expand the rights of same-sex married couples.

For more than a year, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders has quietly surveyed the nearly 10,000 same-sex couples who have wed in Massachusetts to see whether they want federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.

GLAD also ran ads in two publications last month asking same-sex couples to contact the group if they want to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery as military veterans with their spouses or if they unsuccessfully sought to care for a sick spouse under the federal law that lets workers take unpaid medical leaves.

Carissa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the group that won the landmark 2003 state Supreme Judicial Court case legalizing gay marriage, said GLAD is taking aim at the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The statute says no state need recognize gay marriages from another state and denies hundreds of federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

The problem is that if you get a federal court ruling striking down the federal DOMA, all the state constitutional amendments passed over the last several years will be irrelevant. A single ruling will overturn the repeated and forceful expression of the will of the American people on the issue. As I have been pointing out for a couple of years, the only way to deal with the issue of judicially-imposed gay marriage is for a federal marriage amendment to pass.

As I see it, there are two options available.

Option 1 would be a complete gay marriage ban, one that would not only stop a federal court from creating a right to gay marriage under the Constitution, but which would also undo in a single swoop the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Indeed, it could be argued that the effect of the amendment would be to dissolve the gay marriages that already exist.

Option 2 is less ambitious. It would, in effect, write the language of the federal DOMA into the Constitution. The impact would be to retain the current status quo, where no state can be forced to recognize gay marriage and no forbidden to do so. In effect, it would be the nothing more than a restatement of the principle of federalism.

The question is, of course, whether either such amendment would ever be permitted to make its way out of Congress and into the hands of the states, most of which would likely pass it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

One hint – it isn't the GOP.

Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

The next rung of House leadership shows the same pattern. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer's district is home to the booming suburban communities between Washington, DC, and Annapolis. It boasts almost 19,000 wealthy households and a median income topping $62,000. Mr Hoyer's counterpart, minority whip Roy Blunt, hails from a rural Missouri district that has only 5,200 wealthy households and whose median income is only $33,000.

Income disparity - to use the class warrior's favourite term - is greatest among the districts of lawmakers that lead each party's campaign arm. Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen chairs the Democratic congressional campaign committee. With more than 36,000 prosperous households and a median income of nearly $70,000, his suburban Washington district even out-sparkles Ms Pelosi's. In contrast, fewer than 5,000 such wealthy households are found in the largely rural district of his Republican counterpart, Tom Cole from Oklahoma. The median income there is only $35,500.

Of course, this has also played out for years in terms of the size of campaign donations. The average donor to the Democrats gives a much larger donation than the average donor to the Republican Party. At one time, I believe the difference was something like 500% or more. So forget the meme that the GOP represents the rich and the Donks represent the poor and middle class – the numbers don't lie.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

No, you know they won't -- because he is one of their own.

Proving, once again, the utter bankruptcy of the American Left in terms of principle. After all, this candidate's religious appeals are as blatant, if not more so, than those of many conservative politicians.

A wealthy evangelical Christian, John Arthur Eaves Jr., is running a campaign for governor that is rife with what Jesus might do.

He talks about banishing "the money changers" from state politics and about a health-care proposal focusing on the "least among us" -- just as Jesus would -- and the cornerstone of his stump speech is familiar to anyone who knows the bit in Matthew 6:24 about "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."

"The most important question in this campaign," he said at a typical campaign stop here last week, "is 'Who do you serve?' "

He is running against Republican incumbent Haley Barbour, he answers, because he wants "to serve my creator."

The 41-year-old plaintiff attorney is waging what might be the most overtly Christian-inspired statewide race in a long time. But what is most startling to Bible Belt voters here, where faith-based appeals most often come from the religious right, is that Eaves is a Democrat.

So I'm waiting.

Where are the denunciations of this guy by the nutroots at Daily Kos, HuffPo, and Democratic Underground? When will the anti-religious venom be spat at Eaves by the folks from FireDogLake and other liberal bloggers? Where are the ACLU, ADL, and other church-state separationists screeching about intolerance and theocracy? Will the usual suspects Or will they endorse him because of the party label he wears?

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

And if she is, does this mean that the GOP may be able to pick up a California Senate seat?

For the second time in recent months, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) on Friday confirmed that she will break ranks with a majority of her Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, in this case to confirm President Bush's nominee for attorney general.

Feinstein, along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), announced that she will support Michael B. Mukasey's nomination, virtually assuring his confirmation despite the nominee's controversial refusal to declare an interrogation technique called waterboarding to be an illegal form of torture.

The decision to back Bush's nominee sparked immediate outrage among the liberal anti-war "Netroots" community, many of whom had been pushing aggressively for the undecided Democrats on Judiciary to oppose Mukasey. Within minutes of the Schumer-Feinstein announcements, timed to be released at the same moment, the liberal blog Talking Points Memo blasted the news on its home page, while Democrats.com urged readers to refuse to give money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is chaired by Schumer.

Schumer's wavering on the issue was much debated and discussed over the past week, as his indecision was featured in profiles in The Washington Post, New York Times and insider publications like Roll Call and The Hill. Feinstein's role was just as pivotal and received nowhere near as much attention, but some think that will change.

Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted short-term headaches for Schumer but long-term issues with the anti-war liberals for Feinstein, because it's her second major break from Democrats in the past three months. "The next Joe Lieberman for them is going to be Feinstein," Ornstein told Capitol Briefing, referring to Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, who has been effectively chased from the party for his strong support for the Iraq war.

As much as i disagree with Feinstein, and despite questions I have raised about her over the years, I do have a grudging respect for the woman. Thirty years ago she was thrust into the mayor's office in the wake of a tragedy and held together a city after it took a double-whammy -- the mass suicide of the followers of Jim Jones (most of whom were from the San Francisco area) and the assassination of the city's mayor and a respected member of the city council by a deranged former city official. It was, prior to Rudy Giuliani's response to 9/11, the most notable performance of any American mayor in time of crisis. Frankly, I've always been surprised that Dianne Feinstein never made it onto a national ticket. She would have been a formidable candidate.

But if the nutroots turn on Feinstein like they did on Lieberman, what does this mean for the chances of the GOP? Will she be knocked off by a candidate propelled to the nomination by the outrage of activists -- but then prove too weak to win a general election? Will she win the nomination, but be so bloodied that the GOP can take the seat if a strong candidate -- perhaps the Governator -- goes up against her? In other words, do the principled actions of Dianne Feinstein -- actions that would likely earn her a place in JFK's Profiles in Courage were he writing today -- constitute the basis for her political destruction?

Of course, Feinstein has a great deal of breathing room. She was just reelected in 2006 -- meaning that the first opportunity for her to be challenged electorally will not come until 2012. Will the outrage last -- especially if the intervening 2008 election allows her to become a strong supporter of a Democrat President over the next 4 years. And let's not forget that Senator Feinstein will be 79 in 2012, and so there is an obvious question about her intentions regarding reelection.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Midnight Sun, , , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Wake Up America, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 8 kb.

After all, when the best you can do in scandal mongering is turn up dirt from the public record on a friend/adviser that is probably a good indication that there is no dirt on the candidate.

Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson has been crisscrossing the country since early this summer on a private jet lent to him by a businessman and close adviser who has a criminal record for drug dealing.

Thompson selected the businessman, Philip Martin, to raise seed money for his White House bid. Martin is one of four campaign co-chairmen and the head of a group called the "first day founders." Campaign aides jokingly began to refer to Martin, who has been friends with Thompson since the early 1990s, as the head of "Thompson's Airforce."

Yes, Martin engaged in some criminal behavior a quarter century ago -- and has completed his sentence. (Contrast this with Norman Hsu) And yes, Martin has had some involvement with business lawsuits -- something hardly unheard of in today's litigious business climate. But despite this, there just doesn't seem to be much to this story.

Probably the most telling aspect of this story is this little admission by the reporters -- one that makes it clear that this is a hit-piece, not a news article.

Martin could not be reached in the past week, and lawyers for him in Tennessee and Florida declined to comment on the criminal cases. [Thompson campaign deputy communications director Karen] Hanretty said she forwarded detailed questions from The Washington Post to Martin yesterday afternoon.

So let's see.

The reporter couldn't reach the subject of the story.

The lawyers followed the rules on lawyer-client confidentiality.

The questions only reached Martin in the last 24 hours before the story was run.

Am i the only one who views the publication of the story at this time to be moving with unseemly haste -- especially given that we are months away from the first primary and a full year away from the actual election? Or would waiting for the responses to the question have somehow compromised the story? I think we know the answer.

It seems to me that there is less to this story than meets the eye -- and is an effective admission by the Washington Post that Fred Thompson is dirt-free.

UPDATE: Captain Ed makes this observation.

In any other context, the Post would run this story as a demonstration of the success of Martin's probation. He cleaned up his act at age 25, began building small businesses on his way to a small fortune, and ended up participating in the political process. Nothing in Mosk's article gives any indication that Martin has committed any crimes since 1983, despite his attempt to use a couple of lawsuits at the end -- lawsuits which look rather routine for a man engaging in diverse, legal enterprises.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Midnight Sun, , , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Wake Up America, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 7 kb.

I was never a big fan of the federal Motor Voter Act. But where I really came to despise it was in a county office in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where I applied for my marriage license not long after it took effect. Having just given my address as being in Illinois, and having presented an Illinois drivers license, I was still asked to register to vote. When I objected, I was informed that I could put down any address in the county, and IÂ’d be registered and could vote until they struck me from the list -- if they ever did.

Needless to say, I declined. But I wonder how many took her up on the offer, even if they were not eligible to vote.

Now John Fund points out the danger to our voting system brought by this law and the practice of giving licenses to illegals.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in \[a\] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.

Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

Friends, IÂ’m the election judge in my precinct. IÂ’d like to think that every voter who is registered in my precinct is legally registered. I fear they are not. IÂ’d at least like to believe that they are all American citizens, but wonder if the state of the law permits me to make that assumption. And in a state like Texas, positively boiling over with illegals, that could one day be the difference between our elections being decided by American citizens or having foreigners dictate our leaders for us.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Midnight Sun, , , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Wake Up America, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 6 kb.

Here’s a unique argument – I fled from justice and was gone so long that I now have a right to escape justice completely!

Attorneys for Norman Hsu are prepared to argue in a Redwood City courtroom Friday that the disgraced Democratic fundraiser's 1992 grand theft conviction should be dismissed because prosecutors didn't try hard enough to find him after he skipped out on sentencing 15 years ago.

Hsu failed to show up for sentencing in 1992 after pleading no contest to a $1 million fraud scheme in San Mateo County. He fled to Asia, where he lived for several years, and eventually returned to the United States.

Since 2003, he has lived a public life despite his fugitive status, hosting major fundraisers in California and New York and raising $2 million in political campaign contributions, including more than $850,000 for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Photos of him with candidates were an Internet search away. His address was listed on the Federal Election Commission Web site, Hsu's attorney James Brosnahan wrote in papers filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.

"Mr. Hsu lived an open and public life, and the government made no apparent efforts to arrest him," Brosnahan wrote. "The case must be dismissed because the delay in sentencing violates Mr. Hsu's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial."
Brosnahan also argues Hsu should be allowed to withdraw his no-contest plea to a single count of grand theft because he has a right to be sentenced by the same judge who accepted the plea in 1992. That judge has since retired.

Sorry, Norman – the delay was entirely of your making. You waived your rights by running away. Your attempt to dodge responsibility for your crimes is pathetic – but typical of liberals.

Maybe you can buy a pardon in 2009. I hear the Clintons sell them cheap.

UPDATE: New strategy for Hsu -- delay hearings until after Hillary has the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Support for terrorism, a rogue nuclear program, and threats of a genocidal war against Israel would be no obstacle to diplomatic engagement -- and diplomatic relations -- in a Barack Obama administration.

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that IranÂ’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administrationÂ’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

Did you catch that, folks -- Iran's misdeeds are all Bush's fault. never mind that they stretch back nearly three decades to the failure of another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Indeed, the policies he wants to overturn span every administration since Mahmoud the Mad was a "student" helping to take our diplomatic personnel hostage in Teheran in 1979. One has to wonder if this move would be supported by other Democrats -- after all, dhimmitude is in fashion in the party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, shouldn't the people of South Carolina have a right to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice?

The momentum of the Colbert presidential campaign hit a cul-de-sac today when the South Carolina Democratic Party decided he wasnÂ’t a serious candidate and turned down his application to get on the ballot.

South Carolina is the only state where Stephen Colbert, the comedian and a native South Carolinian, has sought to get on the ballot. He did not try getting on the Republican ballot because that costs $35,000.

Mr. Colbert met the Democratic filing deadline of noon today to send in some paperwork and a check for $2,500.

But the partyÂ’s executive council just voted 13-3 not to certify him.

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the state party, told us that the council “really agonized over this because they really like him, they love his show and everyone thinks it’s wonderful that he cares about us.”

But, she said, they decided he did not meet two basic requirements: that the person be generally acknowledge or recognized by the media as a viable nationwide candidate; and be actively campaigning for the South Carolina primary.

You mean to tell me that Colbert is a less viable candidate than Dennis Kucinich, Than Mike Gravel? Than Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd or Joe Biden? I smell a lawsuit in the offing -- because the biggest obstacle to the democratic process in the South Carolina Democrat primary appears to be the state's Democrat party officials.

After all, don't forget this recent poll.

Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm, recently completed a national poll of 1,000 likely 2008 voters that included Colbert's name in both the GOP and Democratic primaries. (He has announced his plans to run in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.) In the field from Oct. 18-21, the survey has a 5 percent margin of error.

In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent. Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).

That does make yesterday's action look decidedly wrong-headed -- and designed to spare the party embarrassment, not to weed out candidates with no chance.

Here's hoping Colbert sues.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Midnight Sun, , , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Wake Up America, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 7 kb.

And he is exactly right on this point.

"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."

You can debate the wisdom of going to war in Iraq.

You can debate the policies and strategies in place today -- though they appear to be working.

But you cannot debate the reality of the war, or the importance of prosecuting it to a successful end.

Unless, of course, you have some other agenda that does not include American victory -- such as one's own political advancement.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.