Most committee appointments should be allowed to go through without comment or controversy. However, one placing a corrupt congressman with a history of using one of the agencies he will supervise to help cover up his crimes mandates placing every member of the House of Representatives on the record.

House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on the appointment of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who is the subject of a federal bribery investigation, to a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

The decision to put Jefferson on the panel was made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and House Democrats endorsed the move at a private meeting Tuesday night, but his appointment must be confirmed by a vote on the House floor. Such an action would normally be a formality, but Republicans said yesterday that they would pursue a rarely used maneuver to force a recorded vote on the matter.

"This is a terrible mistake by the Democratic leadership, to take someone with serious ethical allegations against him and put him on one of the most sensitive and important committees in Congress," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the committee.

Remember, this is the same William Jefferson who commandeered emergency equipment and personnel to remove personal property -- including evidence in the criminal probe against him -- from his New Orleans home in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while people still needed rescuing. This appointment will give him oversight responsibilities for FEMA. While I agree that a New Orleans area official belongs on the committee, it cannot be this one.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

When you have knowledge of the sexual abuse of teens in state custody by state employees, action should be swift and decisive.

Rick Perry's actions were anything but, having waited until yesterday to move to reform the Texas Youth Commission, despite knowing of such abuse since last fall of sexual abuse dating back to 2005.

Gov. Rick Perry's staff learned last fall of a Texas Rangers investigation into allegations of sexual abuse in 2005 at a West Texas state juvenile facility, but the governor took no major action to reform the Texas Youth Commission until after the report became public last week.

On Wednesday, Perry removed the agency's board chairman, Pete Alfaro, of Baytown, and appointed Don Bethel, of Lamesa, as Alfaro's replacement.

Perry also recommended that at its meeting Tuesday, the board hire Ed Owens, the deputy executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, as the acting TYC director and set up an inspector general who answers directly to the board.

And late Wednesday, the Senate voted to ask the legislative audit committee to recommend the entire state agency be put into a conservatorship. Perry would have the final say on whether a conservatorship is adopted.

Legislative committees held hearings last year in which former TYC employees and the parents of youth offenders testified that there was widespread physical and sexual abuse of those incarcerated in the system.

But Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sens. John Whitmire, D-Houston, and Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said they didn't find out until last week about the Texas Rangers' report on the possible sexual assault of boys by TYC administrators at the West Texas State School in Pyote.

They said there appeared to be a cover-up by high-ranking TYC officials.

I'd agree with that last assessment -- and would go further, including the Governor among those involved in a cover-up. Here's hoping that the legislature acts decisively to investigate and, if appropriate, punish that apparent malfeasance.

And for those who think I'm being harsh, please realize that any teacher facing similar allegations of sexual abuse would have been out of the classroom in a matter of day and not permitted back in until cleared -- if then. Instead, TYC abusers were permitted to stay in supervisory roles and to move elsewhere in the field of education with no check upon them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m curious – when did an individual’s politics become the basis for whether or not they should be allowed in a certain business – or whether they should be allowed to operate a business in a certain area?

The millionaires who've turned to this state's left-leaning Legislature to authorize a $300 million tax subsidy for a new basketball arena have been playing right-wing politics. Two members of the new Sonics ownership group are heavyweight financiers of a national political group dedicated to banning gay marriage.

Together, co-owners Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon donated more than $1.1 million to Americans United to Preserve Marriage, a conservative Christian group that opposes gay marriage.

The group is led by Gary Bauer, an outspoken leader of conservative groups including the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.

I’m curious – should their position on homosexual marriage be the basis for denying the subsidy requested? Would a “conversion” be a legitimate basis for granting it? My answer, in both cases is “No.”

But then again, I donÂ’t think the government should be in the business of subsidizing stadiums and arenas, any more than I believe they should be in the business of building factories for companies that say they cannot afford to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (141) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to say that I agree with this analysis, even though Rudy is not my candidate.

Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he's opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life.

Meanwhile, writers on the left express disbelief at the notion that a pro-choice Republican candidate might be able to win the GOP nomination. According to the best Leftist analyst of American politics, Michael Tomasky, abortion is simply "too fundamental an issue for most Republican caucus goers and primary voters (even in California, with its likely Feb. 5 primary) to work around."

There's a perfectly simple answer to the Rudy paradox. When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he's no liberal.

* * *

We're going to hear a lot about how rude, abrasive, arrogant, high-handed, combative, isolated, difficult and aggressive Rudy Giuliani was as mayor. And yet he was the key factor in turning New York into the safe, clean, pleasant, polite, neighborly and genuinely nice place it was when we were attacked on 9/11.

His record is clear: He fought the left mercilessly, and he not only won politically, he won as far as history's proper judgment of his tenure in New York.
Is it any wonder conservative Republicans are so eager to think the very best of him?

Well-said.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Over at Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan has a great interview with Mitt Romney up at his site.

Of particular interest to me, given the quote on this site's masthead, is this little tidbit about the man who is among Romney's favorite presidents.

But I love John Adams. His book is on my desk there. The first time I read that book by David McCullough when I got to the last page I literally had tears in my eyes because I felt like I was losing a family friend.

Adams is often underrated, coming as he does between Washington and Jefferson, two giants of American history. That Romney has such high regard for him shows a high level of understanding of what it means to be a good president, and an American patriot.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

County Judge Robert Eckels wants his replacement to be an old friend -- but the grassroots who elected him want a current county-wide officeholder to fill the top spot on the Harris County Commissioner's Court.

Some Republicans are threatening to withhold future political support for County Judge Robert Eckels unless he backs a high-profile elected official as his successor rather than a relatively obscure former lawmaker.

"This decision is extremely important to whether the base will get behind Eckels if he runs for higher office," said County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill.

Although Eckels is stepping down to become a partner in the Fulbright & Jaworski law firm, he has said he eventually may seek statewide office.

Many GOP precinct chairs want Eckels and the Commissioners Court to tap a Republican official already holding countywide office, such as District Clerk Charles Bacarisse or Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, Woodfill said.

But Ed Emmett, a transportation consultant and former state representative, appears to be the consensus choice of the Republican majority on the Commissioners Court.

The body consists of Eckels and the four county commissioners — fellow Republicans Steve Radack and Jerry Eversole and Democrats Sylvia Garcia and El Franco Lee.

Eckels, who may resign as early as the next meeting March 6, said he has not decided whom to support as his successor. "This will be about who the court is comfortable with and who will provide the best leadership for the community," he said.

But Radack said Emmett appears to have the votes. "Based on a conversation I had with Eckels, I have the impression he will recommend Emmett," Radack said.

An Emmett appointment would be a bad move on the part of Eckels and his colleagues, as I've said from the beginning. The people of Harris County deserve a COunty Judge who has stood before us and received our votes for office, not a political crony who hasn't held elective office in two decades. I'd be happy with either Paul Bettencourt or Charles Bacarisse, or even Beverly Kaufman -- all tested leaders who have been shown support by the people of Harris County.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

I've not gone wading in the muck over at Kos or DemocrtICK Underground yet to see, but I suspect that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this story about a failed attempt on the life of Vice President Cheney.

A suicide bomber blew himself up this morning outside the main gate of the United States military base at Bagram, just north of Kabul, where Vice President Dick Cheney had stayed the night. The attack killed and wounded American soldiers and Afghan and Pakistani truck drivers and laborers waiting for access at the gate. The explosion happened at the first security gate of the base, far away from where Mr. Cheney was staying, and he was not injured.

There are conflicting reports on the number of casualties. An Afghan guard said he counted up to 15 dead at the scene, including three American soldiers, and 12 others wounded. But a report from the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said that four people were killed in the blast, including the suicide bomber, and NATO says only three were killed, including an American soldier and a coalition soldier.

The Associated Press reported that the Taliban claimed responsibility and said Mr. Cheney was the target of the attack.

The bomber was carrying the explosives on his body and was blown apart, the Afghan guard said.

I, for one, am glad that the Vice President is safe and sound, even as I mourn the deaths of innocents murdered by this Taliban killer.

Let this serve as a stark reminder of the nature of those we fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. And be aware that many of those opposed to the war are going to reveal their true colors in their response to this attempt on the life of the Vice President.

MORE AT Captains Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Given the problems besetting the Fletcher Administration in Kentucky, I have to applaud the decision by Lt. Gov. Steve Pence to endorse someone other than Gov. Ernie Fletcher for reelection.

Republican Lt. Gov. Steve Pence threw his support to former U.S. Rep. Anne Northup, who entered the race saying the incumbent's legal turmoil has rendered him politically vulnerable to Democrats.

"She is the better candidate for the Republican party," Pence said. "She has a real chance of winning."

Pence had already refused to run for re-election with Fletcher and publicly questioned whether the first Republican governor elected in Kentucky in more than 30 years could win in the wake of a grand jury investigation into his administration's hiring practices.

A third Republican, businessman Billy Harper, is also vying for the GOP nod. Seven Democrats are running and have sharply criticized Fletcher.

The governor was indicted last year on charges that he illegally rewarded political supporters with protected state jobs. The indictment was dismissed in a deal with prosecutors, but the special grand jury later said Fletcher had approved a "widespread and coordinated plan" to skirt state hiring laws.

Hurrah for Pence -- the situation in Kentucky stank to high heaven, and choosing to set aside personal loyalties in favor of the good of the state and the party is admirable. Well done!

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

One more attempt to silence the American people when they start to oppose the liberals.

Senate Democrats are considering placing curbs on soft-money 527 groups amid evidence that they are beginning to lose the political advantage these largely unregulated funds have given them over Republicans.

This is a move Democrats had strenuously opposed during the last Congress, when they were believed to benefit from the lionÂ’s share of 527 money, but now there is evidence that more of the money from these groups, named for a clause in the tax code, is flowing to the GOP.

Of course, that isn't the only attempt by the Dems to throttle political speech. they want to introduce public financing of congressional campaigns, too, and do more "campaign finance reform", which we know means speech limitation for the common man.

Why don't we simply go back to the system that worked so well for most of the first two centuries of the Republic -- Congress and the states staying out of the business of regulating political speech.

Posted by: Greg at 06:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the Clinton campaign is going to let no slight pass uncommented -- or unanswered.

There's more than meets the eye in that ongoing skirmish between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton's advisers are using the fuss to send a warning shot. They want the Obama campaign to know that everything it does will be closely scrutinized from now on and that Obama won't be getting any free shots against Clinton.

The donnybrook started when Hollywood mogul David Geffen said Hillary Clinton is too polarizing, that she should apologize for her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war, that her husband, Bill, has a reckless personality, and that the Clintons have a facility for lying. This prompted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson to fire off a zinger to the media.

"By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric," Wolfson said. "How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash and burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?"

Well, given that the Clintons have exemplified the politics of white-trash for years, I suppose they would recognize the politics of trash. For that matter, the biggest problem with Geffen's comments from the standpoint of the Clinton campaign is that everything he said was true of the former First Couple. After all, Bill Clinton is a well-documented liar and lecher, and Senator Clinton's lack of candor in the many investigations of her husband's corrupt administration are well-known.

Which might explain why the Clinton campaign is working so hard to prevent any discussion of Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury -- or any of his other shortcomings as president.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998 -- or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it -- taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

"In the end, voters will decide what's off-limits, but I can't imagine that the public will reward the politics of personal destruction," senior Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said Friday, when asked whether the impeachment is fair game for Clinton's opponents. Earlier in the week, Wolfson dismissed references to President Bill Clinton's conduct as "under the belt."

I just don't see how one uses Bill Clinton as one's biggest asset but avoids the liabilities that come with him. But Hillary Clinton wants to try.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right on the Right, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 7 kb.

Mitt Romney is the only major GOP candidate still married to his first wife, who he still refers to as his sweetheart on the campaign trail. There isn't even a hint of infidelity on his part -- and if there were , we would certainly have heard of it by now. So why the articles about polygamy three and four generations back in his family?

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

The article goes into intriguing historical detail about various nineteenth century ancestors and their polygamous marriages, all of which is interesting to me as a historian and a student of theology, but as an American preparing to vote in 2007 it is utterly useless and pointless.

I think there are two main reasons for this. The first, of course, is simply raw, anti-Mormon bigotry on the part of some in the media. But it goes beyond that, given that we don't see any articles about the family history of Mormons Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch. The problem is that Romney is an attractive candidate who could possibly become the next President of the United States (or at least the GOP nominee for that office), and that scares some folks in the media, as Dean Barnett points out.

TO START WITH THE OBVIOUS, MITT ROMNEY IS THE most conservative candidate in the field who has, at present, a chance of winning. The press doesnÂ’t like conservatives, or at the very least, is more hostile to conservatives than it is to liberals. The press sees everything regarding a conservative in the worst possible light; liberals are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

A second reason is that Mitt Romney doesnÂ’t look like a politician should, or at least the way the media thinks a Republican politician should. Given that Romney is constantly praised for his patrician demeanor, his impeccable manner and his smooth-as-silk politicking, I know this point is counter-intuitive, but bear with me.

The press has come to expect Republicans to fit certain molds. They are supposed to be inarticulate and not quick on their feet. The press has stereotyped every Republican presidential nominee since Ford in this way. They are also supposed to be intellectually unimaginative or downright unintelligent. Again, every Republican presidential nominee since Ford has had to live with this label. They are further required to be creatures of politics who have accomplished nothing or next to nothing outside of the political world. Lastly, all Republicans ought to have a bit of Elmer Gantry in them. They should preach about morality and piety, but they should always be obliging enough to have at least a few skeletons jangling in their closet.

Mitt Romney fails to live up to any of these stereotypes. Glib and articulate, itÂ’s hard to imagine Romney ever fearing a press conference or a debate. Intellectually, Romney graduated HarvardÂ’s Business and Law Schools with top honors. Furthermore, it seems like heÂ’s completely unfamiliar with the media dictates that Republicans should wrestle with English like itÂ’s a hostile foreign language and make themselves available for lampooning as dullards.

Even more gratingly, Mitt Romney didnÂ’t become a full-time politician until 2002. Until then, he had been a phenomenally successful businessman who had made hundreds of millions of dollars in a fiercely competitive industry while earning a reputation for honesty and intellectual probity.

Lastly, and probably most frustratingly for the media, the Romney closet is depressingly barren. When Mitt Romney talks about family values, heÂ’s able to point to his own wife of 40 years and a brood of children and grandchildren that seems too good even for a Christmas card.

In short, Mitt Romney is more formidable than a Republican presidential candidate has any right being. He is a fat target in a way that a guy like Mike Huckabee never could be, even if Huckabee hadnÂ’t lost all that weight.

In short, he really doesn't have the vulnerabilities that many GOP candidates have had over the years, and so they are casting about for anything to stop this candidacy cold.

The media, of course, will draw "appropriate boundaries" in Election 2008. We will not get media rehashing of the problems in the Clinton marriage. Obama's father and step-father and the implications of his religious upbringing are off-limits, we are told. Biden's plagiarism and racist comments, and the tendency of John Edwards to excuse religious bigotry will also be swept under the rug. But the marital history of Romney's ancestors over a century ago, as well as his religious faith, will remain fair game, because they have nothing substantive to strike at him with.

H/T Captains Quarters, Blogs for Bush, Outside the Beltway, Conservative Times, Iowa Voice

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 990 words, total size 10 kb.

Well, it could happen if the Democrats make any further efforts to undercut the troops in the field and their commander-in-chief.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President BushÂ’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

Joe Lieberman is and has been a Democrat in the best tradition of his party for many years -- a patriot who believes in a strong defense and the goodness of America. Sadly, this strain has been sadly lacking among the elected officials of that party for many years now, dating back a couple of decades. While Lieberman would certainly be on the left in the GOP, his commitment to this country would make him a welcome addition to my party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Only a week after joining her fellow Neo-Copperheads in urging the abandonment of America’s allies in Iraq, Queen Shelia has expressed her support for providing military equipment to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

A U.S. congresswoman called Wednesday for Washington to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, saying she had traveled to the South American country to repair strained political relations.
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez's December re-election with the message: "I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela."
Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.
Pledging to "personally go back and raise" the issue, she called for the U.S. Congress "to reconsider sanctions on the F-16s."
The U.S. State Department has banned arms sales to Venezuela, including parts necessary to maintain its fleet of F-16s, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its close relations with Iran and Cuba.

She said her fact-finding mission to Venezuela was part of an effort by a new Democrat-controlled Congress to show that "Venezuela has many friends in this new Congress."

To bad America doesn’t.

Now remember, though – this is the same woman who asked if the Mars Rover would take pictures of the flags left behind by the Apollo astronauts, so we are not talking about the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But to think that she is so oblivious to the situation in Venezuela and the nature of the Chavez regime is frightening.

Then again, since when has the mere fact that appeasement has failed wherever it has been tried kept a liberal from advocating it?

More at Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

Only a week after joining her fellow Neo-Copperheads in urging the abandonment of AmericaÂ’s allies in Iraq, Queen Shelia has expressed her support for providing military equipment to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

A U.S. congresswoman called Wednesday for Washington to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, saying she had traveled to the South American country to repair strained political relations.
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez's December re-election with the message: "I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela."
Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.
Pledging to "personally go back and raise" the issue, she called for the U.S. Congress "to reconsider sanctions on the F-16s."
The U.S. State Department has banned arms sales to Venezuela, including parts necessary to maintain its fleet of F-16s, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its close relations with Iran and Cuba.

She said her fact-finding mission to Venezuela was part of an effort by a new Democrat-controlled Congress to show that "Venezuela has many friends in this new Congress."

To bad America doesnÂ’t.

Now remember, though – this is the same woman who asked if the Mars Rover would take pictures of the flags left behind by the Apollo astronauts, so we are not talking about the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But to think that she is so oblivious to the situation in Venezuela and the nature of the Chavez regime is frightening.

Then again, since when has the mere fact that appeasement has failed wherever it has been tried kept a liberal from advocating it?

More at Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

And if there is any justice left in our court system, Scooter Libby will be cleared of all charges in a case that amounted to little more than an instance of prosecutorial pique.

A federal jury ended its first day of deliberations yesterday in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby after the presiding judge urged jurors to rely on their "life experiences" in deciding whether the vice president's former chief of staff lied to investigators -- or made an honest mistake -- about his role in a CIA leak.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's instructions to the jury of eight women and four men reinforced the issue of the fallibility of human memory that has been central to one of Washington's most celebrated trials in years.

Prosecutors allege that Libby, then Vice President Cheney's top aide, lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury to obscure the fact that, in the spring and summer of 2003, he aggressively sought out and shared with reporters information about Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was emerging then as a harsh, early critic of President Bush and the Iraq war.

The only person accused in the three-year CIA leak investigation, Libby, 56, is charged with five felonies: two counts of making false statements to FBI agents, two counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice. He is not charged with the leak itself. If convicted of all charges, he would face a potential prison term of 1 1/2 to three years under federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors outside the case have said.

Libby's attorneys contend that Libby did not intentionally lie, but inaccurately remembered his conversations about Wilson and Plame with administration colleagues and Washington journalists.

And that is, ultimately, the big issue -- were any statements made by Libby intentionally misleading, or were they based upon inaccurate recollections? Interestingly enough, despite contradictory statements by many of the other witnesses, Patrick Fitzgerald chose to charge only Scooter Libby with a crime, in a leak case in which the rogue prosecutor knew from day one who the leaker was and made a decision not to prosecute the leak.

This is a case that never should have been prosecuted, on charges that never should have been brought. Let's hope the jury quickly acquits.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess she thinks being Speaker of the House means you cannot be criticized.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

It seems that Pelosi thinks that she and Murtha and the rest of the Neo-Copperheads are immune from criticism -- because no one can seriously argue that Cheney's comments are wrong. That is not to say that the DemocratICK leaders support al-Qaeda or share their ideology, simply to note that the course of action they are taking is precisely in line with the stated goal of al-Qaeda leaders to wear down America's political will. What else can you call the position taken by the new DemocrtICK majority and their White Flag Republican cohorts in seeking unilateral capitulation in Iraq?

Sorry, but it seems to me that the biggest gripe these folks have is not that Cheney is wrong, but rather that he is speaking an inconvenient truth.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

This story is beyond belief -- were it not for the long history of political violence engaged in by the American Left against political opponents. But this case is extreme even by those standards.

A Fredericksburg man is facing several assault charges after police say he hunted down a group of Republicans and confronted them in their home over their beliefs.

Police said Andrew Stone, 23, recently went to a home in Fredericksburg at around 5:30 p.m. after he saw a name and nearby address on a Republican Web site.

Stone confronted three residents about their political viewpoints, police said. When he found out the residents supported the Republican-led war effort in Iraq, police say Stone became enraged.

Stone then hit the homeowner and his roommates several times as they tried to force him out of the door, police said.

Stone faces three counts of assault and battery.

Now this story really does not do the event justice. Michelle Malkin has more, including an account by one of the victims of the attack.

"I was taking a shower a little after 5pm while two of my housemates were cooking dinner. A man (Stone) came to the door asking for Reed Pannell. He was very polite and had some military literature with him so the housemates assumed he was either a recruiter or a friend of mine from class. As they were waiting for me to get out of the shower, Stone came inside, sat down in our living room, and quietly read the paper while he waited. I rushed out of the shower, came down with just a pair of jeans on and shaving cream still on my face.

At this point, Stone politely stood up, shook my hand, and told me that he had found my address on facebook. He asked if I was a College Republican as it said on my account, I told him yes. He then asked me "Oh, so that means you support the war, right?" and I responded with a yes. He then said that since I was for the war, if I was interested in signing up for the army. At this point I was sure he was a recruiter, and I told him that I'd definitely look into it as soon as I graduate (I'm a junior political science/econ major right now at UMW). This is where something changed in his eyes and he started getting aggressive. He took a step towards me and said that I support the war, yet don't want to fight in it.

At this point my roommate, Matt, stepped into the room and told him he was being disrespectful, and that it was time to leave. I told Matt that I could handle the guy (I've gotten into debates like this before). Stone responded to Matt by saying that "I'm not done talking to your roommate, he's a pussy and can't back up anything he believes in". At this point I, not politely, told him to leave our house. He refused, saying he was not done talking with us. He threw the military literature he had at me, which turned out to be United States Air Force literature. He said that I would never make it in the army and that was why he brought over USAF literature (implying he came over in a sinister manner--not only have I never seen/spoken to him before, but what if I had said that I had wanted to join up, right then and there? Oops, take this Air Force literature...).

My roommate Matt pushed Stone's shoulder towards the door at this point, and the second that happened Stone swung and struck Matt in the side of the head. Both exchanged several punches to the face/body and then I jumped in, throwing them both onto our couch. My other roommate called the police while both Matt and I tried to restrain him on the couch, but he kept hitting us. Both of us were yelling at him to leave, but he kept screaming that he wanted to fight us one on one like men, that we're "pussies" for not being in Iraq, and that we're hypocrites. He going crazy. Both of us struck him several times while he was on the couch. We finally dragged him off of the couch and forcibly pushed him out of the door. He then forced his way back into the house, where he struck Matt several more times. We both pushed him outside and went outside with him, where he would not leave our porch, and he continued to strike us both. Matt ended up pushing him over the railing, but fell along with him face first, with Stone holding onto my right arm as he did so.

The police on the phone with my other roommate told us to get inside, and so we did, and locked the door. As we entered my house, we yelled at Stone that the police were coming, and that if he was in the right, he should tell them. Personally, I'm surprised that he stayed--any logical person would flee after assaulting two people at once, unprovoked (the third roommate was not assaulted). The police showed up (4 cruisers) 30 seconds later, and Stone continued to be incredibly disorderly. They got his story, then ours, talked with eachother for 30 seconds and then arrested Stone. They asked if we wished to press charges, we said that we did. He is now out on bail, but he is charged with assault and battery, trespassing, and we have a restraining order against him.

We then hopped on facebook to see this guy's profile--he is NUTS.

...Later that day we found a list of names on the front porch, complete with addresses, boys and girls, all members of the college Republicans. I was 9th on the list. I contacted a few of the people on the list and only one had received a visit from this guy, and they hadn't even answered the door because they knew of his affiliation and what he was coming to say. For lack of better words, we were pretty unsuspecting. His arraignment is on March 1st, and our school newspaper is doing a large investigation of his ties to other organizations on campus, etc. For now, we're all pretty scared about what this guy'll do now that he's back on the streets.

Malkin also includes a online posts by this clown, Andrew Stone, on her site. Good grief, he fits right in with the NutRoots anti-war types -- profane, anti-Semitrc, and ready to advocate violence against political opponents. He just took it to the next level by preparing a hit-list and beginning to act upon it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1132 words, total size 6 kb.

First, Merck suspended lobbying on making Gardasil mandatory. Now the Texas House has voted to overturn Rick Perry's executive order mandating the vaccine for Texas schoolgirls.

A House committee handed a stinging rebuke to Gov. Rick Perry by voting to rescind his executive order requiring pre-teen girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Wednesday's Public Health Committee vote was 6-3, with all the Republican members and one Democrat voting to reverse Perry's order. Three other Democrats voted against the bill, which now goes to the full House for consideration.

Passage is all but guaranteed since 90 of the 150 House members have signed on as co-sponsors, said the author of House Bill 1098, Rep. Dennis Bonnen.

"I'm very pleased that the majority of the committee saw the wisdom of not putting every 11-year-old girl into a mandated situation of a vaccination that we don't know all the facts about," said Bonnen, R-Angleton.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the committee's vote doesn't change the governor's position.

"He believes the state should do everything it can to protect young women from getting cancer," Black said. "He has encouraged the Legislature to have a vigorous debate on this issue. They are."

Another bill, HB 1397 by Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, would require the Texas Department of State Health Services to develop a public education plan about HPV. It also was passed by the committee on a 9-0 vote.

So as you can see, the vote is not one of opposition to the vaccine -- it is a rejection of the naked power-grab of a governor intent upon playing doctor with evey little girl in Texas. Education -- and presumably eventual legislation to make the vaccine more widely available -- are supported by many of us who opposed by Perry's actions. What we objected to was the high-hande3d manner in which teh governor sought to override the political proces.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

How long until the DemocratICK majority in Congress implodes?

The Democratic majority was only three weeks old, but by Jan. 26, the grass-roots and Net-roots activists of the party's left wing had already settled on their new enemy: Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), the outspoken chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Progressive blogs -- including two new ones, Ellen Tauscher Weekly and Dump Ellen Tauscher -- were bashing her as a traitor to her party. A new liberal political action committee had just named her its "Worst Offender." And in Tauscher's East Bay district office that day in January, eight MoveOn.org activists were accusing her of helping President Bush send more troops to Iraq.

Helping? Jennifer Barton, the lawmaker's district director, played them a DVD of Tauscher blasting the increase as an awful idea in a floor speech eight days earlier.

"The words are fine and good, but we are looking for leadership," scoffed Susan Schaller, one of the activists.

Leadership? Barton showed them the eight golden shovels Tauscher had received for bringing transportation projects to her suburban district, along with numerous awards she had won for her work protecting children, wetlands, affordable housing and abortion rights.

"That's fine and good," Schaller repeated, "but this is about Iraq."

The anti-Tauscher backlash illustrates how the Democratic takeover has energized and emboldened the party's liberal base, ratcheting up the pressure on the party's moderates. That pressure is also reaching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a San Francisco liberal who recognizes that moderate voters helped sweep Democrats into the majority. Pelosi has clashed with Tauscher in the past, but she's now eager to hold together her diverse caucus and to avoid the mistakes of GOP leaders who routinely ignored their moderates.

* * *

Democratic leaders want their activists to focus on beating Republicans. But the grass roots and Net roots believe the political tide is shifting their way, and they can provide the money, ground troops and buzz to challenge Democratic incumbents they don't like. MoveOn.org had two Bay Area chapters before the election; now it has 15, and they could all go to work against Tauscher in a primary. "Absolutely, we could take her out," said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga -- better known as Kos -- the Bay Area blogger behind the influential Daily Kos site.

This could be fun -- the Dem majority being flanked by the most liberal wing of its base, the part far outside the mainstream, and brought down by its own "supporters".

Keep up the good work, Markos!

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

While the Washington Post wants to know IF the system of public financing for presidential races can be saved, they really ought to be asking the more appropriate question -- "Should the public financing system be saved?"

THE PRESIDENTIAL public financing system is probably dead for the 2008 campaign. Certainly, the notion that candidates would limit their spending during the primary season in return for receiving federal matching funds has become quaint; the limits are so outdated and the amount of funds that can be raised so great that no serious candidate will take that bargain. And, for the first time, it looks as if the second part of the post-Watergate financing reform -- providing each major-party nominee with full financing for the general election campaign -- is about to become extinct as well.

Top-tier candidates of both parties, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator John Edwards, have already started raising money for a general election race. (They'll have to give it back if they don't win the nomination.) So has Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but with a twist: Mr. Obama has asked the Federal Election Commission to rule on whether he could legally collect money for the general election campaign but ultimately decide to take public funding were he to win the nomination and his GOP opponent followed suit.

The reality is that running a full modern campaign cannot be done on the budget set by law under public financing. Furthermore, the editorial begs the question of the desirability of public financing of campaigns. Why should we accept some artificial limit on political speech in the form spending limits? Why should we accept the inherent rationing of speech that results? Isn't it better for America to return to the system that served us well for most of the first two centuries of American history -- unlimited spending by candidates who raise money from willing contributors?

I think the answers to those questions should be self-evident to any believer in the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this move, given that it is an easy pander to the black voters in South Carolina who she is actively courting.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Personally, I'm pleased that the flag does not fly over the state capitol building any longer, but I'm troubled by efforts to remove it from what is, after all, essentially a memorial to the state's Confederate war dead. Even if the battle flag is removed, some flag of the Confederacy should fly as a part of that memorial, simply as a matter of historical accuracy and perspective.

However, if Senator Clinton is going to take this stand, she really needs to go further and condemn not just the flying of that flag, but also those who put it over the state capitol building in the first place as a sign of opposition to the civil rights movement. That would involve condemning, by name, former Senator Fritz Hollings, the grand old man of the DemocrtatICK Party in South Carolina, who supported and signed into law the bill raising that flag over the capitol dome. Not only that, but she should condemn, by name, the political party that supported secession in the South and capitulation in the North -- the DemocratICK Party, which in 1864 ran on a platform of appeasement and negotiated peace with the Confederacy even as victory was within grasp.

But then again, doing either of those things would cost Hilary Clinton votes -- the former because it would cost her the support of Hollings and his political heirs, and the latter because the position of latter-day Democrats on the Iraq War is eerily similar to the Copperheads of 1864.

Posted by: Greg at 07:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

Don’t you just love it when the word “racist” gets flung around by someone to hide their own questionable conduct? Well, Campaign 2008 has had an instance of that happen already, over questions about an endorsement made by a powerful black politician in South Carolina.

Days before U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to South Carolina as a presidential candidate, one of her top supporters here faces accusations that his support for her is tied to a contract his firm landed with ClintonÂ’s campaign.

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, said such accusations are offensive and smack of racism.

When asked Tuesday by a reporter, Jackson said he was backing Clinton, D-N.Y. A day later, a national political Web site reported JacksonÂ’s consulting firm, Sunrise Enterprises, had agreed to work for Clinton for $10,000 a month.
That story was picked up by The New York Post and on cable television. The Post story questioned whether “Jackson’s endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.”

That, Jackson said, was a low blow.

“I’m somewhat offended in the sense that ... the national media thinks that an African-American in my position cannot support a candidate without being paid off,” Jackson said. “Second, they seem to have a hard time believing that in South Carolina there could be a legitimate African-American public relations firm that’s not a hustler.”

Well, the fact that Jackson was, in fact, paid to work for Clinton just days before he made his public statement certainly raises questions. So does the fact that Jackson didn’t disclose that financial relationship when he made his endorsement. There is certainly an appearance of impropriety there, related to the timing issue, which Jackson himself calls “unfortunate”. So what makes asking these questions – questions which could be legitimately asked of any white politician with a consulting firm – racially tinged? The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing, and the charge is simply intended to obscure the scandal and stop it in its tracks.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

You should not have to retreat from an intruder in your own home – or from anyone threatening your safety anywhere else – if you are following the law. The very notion of the “duty to retreat” constitutes an affront to the notion that law-abiding individuals should not have to cower before criminals or face legal jeopardy themselves.

Aficionados of Hollywood Westerns know all about the legal code that says "shoot first, ask questions later". But now, Republican legislators in Texas - spiritual home of the six-shooter and a John Wayne-style frontier spirit - wants to enshrine the principle into law.

Sponsors of a new bill in the state legislature call it the Castle Doctrine - the idea that anyone invading your home or threatening your safety deserves everything they have coming to them. Critics are already calling it the "shoot thy neighbour" law and questioning whether Texas, of all places, really needs to give its citizens further encouragement to take matters of crime and punishment into their own hands.

"I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death," Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio - home to The Alamo - said recently in support of the bill.

"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy girl scout cookies; you could be harmed," the bill's other sponsor, Texas Representative Joe Driver told The Los Angeles Times. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble."

Opponents claim that such legislation is unnecessary because in practice such cases are not prosecuted – but if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with enshrining the practice into law, is there? And as for their fears of “Wild West-style violence”, I cannot help but recall that was their objection to concealed-carry, too, and that their predictions were so far from the mark as to render their arguments in this case incredible.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

One more example of the law of unintended consequences coming into play in the latest attempt to “fix” congressional ethics.

When Rep. Collin Peterson goes home to Minnesota, he likes to get around in his private plane, a single-engine four-seat Beechcraft Bonanza.
But since last month, his plane has been grounded, a victim of the new ethics rules passed by Congress, and Peterson isn't happy.

He said his Democratic colleagues were "trying to do the right thing" by cracking down on lawmakers flying around in fancy jets, but he was surprised when he was told he could no longer be reimbursed for flying his own plane for official business.

"It's a pretty stupid deal," said Peterson, 62, the new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

"I threatened to put in a bill to make it illegal for any member to drive their own car until we got this fixed," Peterson said. "And I told Nancy Pelosi that if she didn't get this fixed, I was going to quit and there was going to be a Republican in my place, that if I couldn't fly I wasn't going to do this anymore. She just kind of looked at me -- she said it'll be fixed."

It really is pretty simple – if Congresscritters can be reimbursed for auto mileage, there really isn’t any reason to forbid such reimbursement for official travel in any other sort of personal vehicle, is there?

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a position that certainly appeals to the conservative base of the GOP, but will it be enough to earn John McCain the trust of the many different strains of conservatives he has alienated over the years?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record), looking to improve his standing with the party's conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

The landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the decision, with the presence of an increasing number of more conservative justices on the court raising the possibility that abortion rights would be limited.

Social conservatives are a critical voting bloc in the GOP presidential primaries.

Frankly, this is a pretty mainstream position. Indeed, among legal scholars there is great sentiment that the decision is so flawed that it ought to and will be overturned.based upon its poor legal foundation. And as is often pointed out, all the reversal of Roe will do is place the issue of abortion back in the hands of the elected representatives of the people -- where it rested for the first two centuries of American independence.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Even the Washington Post can't help but report on one of the biggest broken promises by the DemocratICK majority in the House of Representatives -- free and open debate on the important issues facing America.

Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.

And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.

Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.

Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.

"It sounds like we're not doing what we said we would do -- I understand that," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday. "Here, however, we believe we are very justified in one of the most important issues confronting the country, which clearly was a huge issue in the election and which got bottled up in the Senate."

Did you get that from the number two Democrat in the House? Silencing the minority is especially justified when it deals with extremely important issues like national defense! After all, we can't let the elected representatives of the American people actually have their say, offer amendments or alternative resolutions or have any significant input on little things like the War in Iraq. I guess he thinks that this "huge issue in the election" only counts when the people of a district elect Democrats -- that those who voted for Republicans are not even entitled to input on such an important matter.

It has been said that there are three types of falsehoods -- lies, damn lies, and statistics. Pelosi, Hoyer, and the rest of the Democrats have made it clear that the more accurate assessment is that there are lies, damn lies, and Democrat campaign promises of reform.

Oh, and by the way, whose proposal would the Democrats not even allow to be discussed?

Republicans hoped to introduce a bill similar to one written by Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who flew combat missions in Korea and Vietnam and was a prisoner of war in Hanoi. It says Congress would not cut off money for soldiers in the field. But Democrats worried it would place some members of their party in a difficult position.

Dems have claimed that anything John Murtha does or says related to the military or the war cannot be disputed because he is a hero. Well, next to Sam Johnson, the corrupt windbag from Pennsylvania is nothing but a treasonous pussy -- and so the Democrats had to suppress Johnson's proposal at all costs. So much for respect for those who served.

Posted by: Greg at 03:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

I know this might shock the Copperhead Caucus and the White Flag republicans who joined them, but average Americans are not nearly so down on the War in Iraq as they seem to think. Consider these polling results.

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that victory is necessary, and a clear majority view it as likely. So why the urge to cut and run and defund? Why not follow the desires of the American people?

H/T Malkin & Captain's Quarters

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Maggie's Notebook, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 3 kb.

And so at least one house of Congress will continue to keep faith with America's troops in the field -- despite the fact that seven White Flag Republicans joined the Copperhead Caucus on this one.

Senate Republicans today blocked a floor vote on a House-passed resolution that expresses disapproval of President Bush's plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as a procedural motion to cut off debate on the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed.

It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Senators voted 56-34 to invoke cloture and proceed to a floor vote on the resolution, with seven Republicans joining all the chamber's Democrats in calling for an end to the debate. But the motion fell four votes short of the threshold needed under Senate rules.

Most Republicans objected to a rule barring amendments to the resolution and demanded a vote on a separate measure, introduced by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), that pledges not to cut off funding for troops in the field.

And so you see, the issue here is not even one of the GOP trying to block debate -- it is really about the Democrats refusing to allow any chance to permit the Senate to amend the Aid And Comfort Resolution to include a commitment not to give in to John Murtha's proposal to starve the troops until the Administration surrenders.

UPDATE: Looks like the DemocratICK Party is already planning on a strategy of massive aid-and-comfort.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be "relentless."

"There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."

Here's hoping this includes Sen. Lindsey Graham's suggestion to the Democrats.

"If you believe half of what you're saying in these resolutions then have the courage of your convictions to stop this war by cutting off funding. But no one wants to do that because they don't really know how that's going to play out here at home."

Will the Copperhead Democrats and White Flag Republicans be willing to serve up their treason straight, rather than cutting it with non-binding verbiage?

UPDATE 2: Yes, indeed, the current DemocratICK contingent in the Senate is acting in the finest tradition of the DemocratICK Party's heritage.

"There's always been a lot of dissent in wartime," said Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie. Sometimes, as in Vietnam, it takes a while to build, he added: "There's a certain point when everybody marches together. They were very much united with Johnson in '65 and '66. But when the war turned bad, that's when they broke away. The same was true in the Civil War, and the same was true in any protracted war when things didn't go well."

But interestingly enough, that opposition continued even when strategic and tactical changes were leading to victory -- with the Copperhead Democrats demanding the Civil War be ended a matter of months before the ultimate No doubt we will continue to get efforts aimed at forcing capitulation to terror even as we se reports like this one.

ATTACKS and killings in Baghdad have dropped by 80 per cent since Iraqi and US forces launched their security plan for Baghdad, Iraqi army spokesman Qasim al-Musawi said today.

"Terror operations in Baghdad dropped by 80 per cent," since the Iraqi Government officially launched a broad plan aimed at snuffing out sectarian violence in the capital, Mr Musawi said.

"The morgue was receiving 40-50 bodies per day before and now has received only 20 in the last 48 hours," said the spokesman for Lieutenant General Abboud Gambar, who commands a joint force of Iraqi soldiers and policemen.

Mr Musawi said that 144 people had been arrested in the four days since Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced the operation was underway. He said "they were wanted suspects and the arrests were not arbitrary."

And these are these are the early results, before the biggest impact of the surge can be expected to be seen. No doubt such successes will only intensify the efforts of the Copperhead Caucus and White Flag Republicans follow the Murtha/Schumer strategy of depriving the troops of training and equipment needed for ultimate victory.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

The betrayal of AmericaÂ’s troops in Iraq continues.

Capping four days of passionate, often angry debate, the House delivered President Bush its first rebuke since the Iraq war was launched nearly four years ago, voting 246 to 182 to oppose the administration's planned deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq.

Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats to approve a resolution that expresses support for U.S. combat forces but opposes the additional deployments. Two Democrats opposed the measure.

I am more disgusted with every story I read.

This is clearly designed to implement the Murtha strategy for "supporting the troops."

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind."

Clearly, this is a strategy of aid and comfort and cut and run and surrender on the part of the Copperhead Caucus and the associated White Flag Republicans.

These 17 White Flag Republicans must face strong opponents in the 2008 primaries, and must be defeated. Personally, I will be crossing the Kemah Bridge to work for any Republican who challenges Ron Paul, since my precinct borders his district.

Representative James T. Walsh

Phone: 202-225-3701
Fax: 202-225-4042
[Email: Rep.james.walsh AT mail.house.gov]

Representative Walter Jones

Representative Wayne Gilchrest
Phone: 202-225-5311
Fax: 202-225-0254
Web Email

Representative Michael Castle
Phone: 202-225-4165
Fax: 202-225-2291
Web Email

Representative Richard (Ric) Keller

Phone: 202-225-2176
Fax: 202-225-0999
Web Email

Representative Philip Sheridan English

Phone: 202-225-5406
Fax: 202-225-3103
Web Email

Representative Ronald Ernest Paul

Phone: 202-225-2831
Web Email

Representative Frederick Stephen Upton

Phone: 202-225-3761
Fax: 202-225-4986
Web Email

Representative Thomas M. Davis

Phone: 202-225-1492
Fax: 202-225-3071
Web Email

Representative Mark Kirk

Phone: 202-225-4835
Fax: 202-225-0837
Web Email

Representative Howard Coble

Phone: 202-225-3065
Fax: 202-225-8611
Email: howard.coble AT mail.house.gov
Web Email

Representative John J. Duncan Jr.

Phone: 202-225-5435
Fax: 202-225-6440
Web Email

Representative James Ramstad

Phone: 202-225-2871
Fax: 202-225-6351
Email: mn03 AT mail.house.gov
Web Email

Representative Steven C. LaTOURETTE

Phone: 202-225-5731
Fax: 202-225-3307
Web Email

Representative Robert Inglis

Phone: 202-225-6030
Fax: 202-226-1177
Web Email

Representative Timothy V. Johnson

Phone: 202-225-2371
Fax: 202-226-0791
Web Email

Representative Thomas Petri 

Phone: 202-225-2476
Fax: 202-225-2356
Web Email

In addition, I want to give my deepest thanks and heartiest praise to the last two loyal Democrats in House of Representatives.

Representative Jim Marshall

Phone: 202-225-6531
Fax: 202-225-3013
Web Email

Representative Gene Taylor 

Phone: 202-225-5772
Fax: 202-225-7074
Web Email

I know I will also be working hard to get rid of Copperhead Democrat Congressman Nick "I'm Afraid To Face A Republican On The Ballot" Lampson, who disgraced CD22 and the state of Texas today.

I urge every American who loves this country and supports the Crusade Against Jihadi Terrorism to join the Victory Caucus.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Right Nation, Pirate's Cove, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 10 kb.

I would like to call everyone’s attention to this interview with Mrs. Romney. Given my own wife’s health issues, I was particularly moved by this portion of the interview.

Snow: Stem cell research is another area that he's asked about a lot. He, he's essentially for limited amounts of embryonic (stem cell research)?

Romney: He is in favor, he's in favor of stem cell research. He is hopeful, as we all are, that there will be cures with stem cell research. He is not in favor of cloning…he sees it as sort of, of babies being developed for research, and I don't know, he, for him, that was the, that was the ethical line that he felt that life had been cheapened.

Snow: But this is a tough question, but if he is against most embryonic stem cell research, that's the very research that might help someone just like you.

Romney: That's why this discussion was very heartfelt, and went on for months. Um, and I, was, I'm also pro life, and am opposed to research for, the developing, cloning of embryos, for research.

Snow: Even if it could potentially help you some day, people like you?

Romney: You know, you know, I have to say yes, and, and I, you know, I pray for a cure for MS, and I'm, I'm very supportive of research for MS, and there's many other ways, you know, for, hopefully for us to get there. But it is, it is one of those life questions. Is my life more important than a child's, another child's life, and I, I see it as a life that they would be experimenting on. To maybe make me better, and I, how do you, that's why it's hard. These decisions are very, very hard. They, they tear you apart. But how do you balance that life?

This is an issue I struggle with (my darling wife, as on so many other issues, disagrees with me). But it does come down to the question of whose life one chooses, whose life is more valuable, and whether we as human beings have the right to even make that choice when it comes to a clash of innocents. And I’ll be honest, it is an issue over which I still weep, as I watch the woman I love deal with her medical conditions on a daily basis – and as I acknowledge that a cure for my own diabetes could be found though such research as well.

But what comes through most of all in this interview is the great love that exists between Ann and Mitt Romney – a love affair that is so reminiscent of the deep bond that existed between the Reagans. Mitt Romney isn’t afraid to refer to Ann as “my sweetheart” on the campaign trail – after over four decades as a couple, dating back to their teens. And for all the comments about Mormonism and polygamy that one hears, be they based in ignorance, bias, or humor, it is clear that Ann is a one-man woman and Mitt is a one-woman man.

And who would you rather see in the White House two years from now – Hill and Bill, Rudy or Newt and the spouse du jour, or a this sterling example of marital fidelity?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Right Nation, Pirate's Cove, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 650 words, total size 6 kb.

I would like to call everyoneÂ’s attention to this interview with Mrs. Romney. Given my own wifeÂ’s health issues, I was particularly moved by this portion of the interview.

Snow: Stem cell research is another area that he's asked about a lot. He, he's essentially for limited amounts of embryonic (stem cell research)?

Romney: He is in favor, he's in favor of stem cell research. He is hopeful, as we all are, that there will be cures with stem cell research. He is not in favor of cloningÂ…he sees it as sort of, of babies being developed for research, and I don't know, he, for him, that was the, that was the ethical line that he felt that life had been cheapened.

Snow: But this is a tough question, but if he is against most embryonic stem cell research, that's the very research that might help someone just like you.

Romney: That's why this discussion was very heartfelt, and went on for months. Um, and I, was, I'm also pro life, and am opposed to research for, the developing, cloning of embryos, for research.

Snow: Even if it could potentially help you some day, people like you?

Romney: You know, you know, I have to say yes, and, and I, you know, I pray for a cure for MS, and I'm, I'm very supportive of research for MS, and there's many other ways, you know, for, hopefully for us to get there. But it is, it is one of those life questions. Is my life more important than a child's, another child's life, and I, I see it as a life that they would be experimenting on. To maybe make me better, and I, how do you, that's why it's hard. These decisions are very, very hard. They, they tear you apart. But how do you balance that life?

This is an issue I struggle with (my darling wife, as on so many other issues, disagrees with me). But it does come down to the question of whose life one chooses, whose life is more valuable, and whether we as human beings have the right to even make that choice when it comes to a clash of innocents. And I’ll be honest, it is an issue over which I still weep, as I watch the woman I love deal with her medical conditions on a daily basis – and as I acknowledge that a cure for my own diabetes could be found though such research as well.

But what comes through most of all in this interview is the great love that exists between Ann and Mitt Romney – a love affair that is so reminiscent of the deep bond that existed between the Reagans. Mitt Romney isn’t afraid to refer to Ann as “my sweetheart” on the campaign trail – after over four decades as a couple, dating back to their teens. And for all the comments about Mormonism and polygamy that one hears, be they based in ignorance, bias, or humor, it is clear that Ann is a one-man woman and Mitt is a one-woman man.

And who would you rather see in the White House two years from now – Hill and Bill, Rudy or Newt and the spouse du jour, or a this sterling example of marital fidelity?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Right Nation, Pirate's Cove, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 6 kb.

On the Homeland Security Committee, no less. Now he can seek to take graft from companies involved in protecting our nation from terrorists – and get a cut of the relief funds for Katrina, since the committee controls FEMA.

Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who's facing an ongoing federal corruption probe, is being granted a spot on the Homeland Security Committee, according to Democratic aides.

The appointment will be announced Friday, according to one aide who requested anonymity because the decision isn't yet official.

Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

But the move by Pelosi, who was still minority leader at the time, infuriated members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Jefferson shouldn't be punished unless he is indicted; federal prosecutors have yet to bring an indictment, despite an FBI raid 18 months ago on his home that yielded $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Other lawmakers were angling for the seat on Homeland Security, which was the last slot available on the panel, according to another Democratic aide.
The committee oversees the Homeland Security Department and its web of agencies designed to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil.

The committee has oversight of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was widely panned for its response to Hurricane Katrina in Jefferson's hometown of New Orleans.

Remember – this is the same Jefferson who commandeered a relief boat and crew to remove evidence from his home in the days immediately following hurricane Katrina.

Nice choice, Nancy!

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

On the Homeland Security Committee, no less. Now he can seek to take graft from companies involved in protecting our nation from terrorists – and get a cut of the relief funds for Katrina, since the committee controls FEMA.

Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who's facing an ongoing federal corruption probe, is being granted a spot on the Homeland Security Committee, according to Democratic aides.

The appointment will be announced Friday, according to one aide who requested anonymity because the decision isn't yet official.

Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

But the move by Pelosi, who was still minority leader at the time, infuriated members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Jefferson shouldn't be punished unless he is indicted; federal prosecutors have yet to bring an indictment, despite an FBI raid 18 months ago on his home that yielded $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Other lawmakers were angling for the seat on Homeland Security, which was the last slot available on the panel, according to another Democratic aide.
The committee oversees the Homeland Security Department and its web of agencies designed to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil.

The committee has oversight of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was widely panned for its response to Hurricane Katrina in Jefferson's hometown of New Orleans.

Remember – this is the same Jefferson who commandeered a relief boat and crew to remove evidence from his home in the days immediately following hurricane Katrina.

Nice choice, Nancy!

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Politics apparently trumps humanitarianism in Ohio.

When Gov. Ted Strickland was campaigning for election, among the superlatives voters were fed about him was his background as a minister. Good man, big heart, trustworthy fellow was what the public was supposed to think.

Having met him, that description seemed to fit the bill.

Which is why it was distressing to read a news story in which Strickland basically said Ohio is off limits to Iraqi refugees coming to the United States to flee the violence in their homeland.

Under pressure from the United Nations to help relocate Iraqi refugees, the Bush Administration agreed yesterday to allow 7,000 to relocate in the United States this year. The administration especially wants to help Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their cooperation with U.S. forces in Iraq.

Strickland opposed the U.S. war in Iraq as a congressman, and when asked about the refugee plan yesterday, he reportedly said, ''I think Ohio and Ohioans have contributed a lot to Iraq in terms of blood, sweat and too many tears. I am sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Iraqi people who have fled that country. However, I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration's failed policies.''

I suppose that DemocratICK Gov. Ted Strickland would have tried to keep out blacks in 1863, Jews in 1938, and Southeast Asians in 1973 as well, combining racism with naked political partisanship. In that he constitutes a worthy successor to another former congressman from Ohio, Clement Vallandigham.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Proving that some things never change, DemocratICK opponents of the war are pushing for state cut-and-run resolutions to go with the cowardly proposals pending in Congress.

Frustrated by the inability of Democrats in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President BushÂ’s policies in Iraq, state legislators across the country, led by Democrats and under pressure from liberal advocacy groups, are pushing forward with their own resolutions.

Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa and Vermont. The Maryland General Assembly sent a letter to its Congressional delegation, signed by a majority of the State Senate and close to a majority of the House, urging opposition to the increase in troops in Iraq.

Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states. The goal is to embarrass Congress into passing its own resolution and to provide cover for Democrats and Republicans looking for concrete evidence back home that anti-Iraq resolutions enjoy popular support.

And this movement is in the finest tradition of the DemocratICK Party.

At the 1864 Democratic convention, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform that declared the war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy.

After all -- what's a little aid and comfort to the enemy among like-minded friends?

UPDATE: Biden seeks to up the ante on Iraq, actually proposing a move that would do something. But then again, we know he is in the best tradition of the Copperheads, who were also racist and supportive of slave states.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Faultline USA, third world county, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, and Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the worst kept secret in Harris County has been confirmed.

County Judge Robert Eckels announced his resignation this afternoon at the annual State of the County speech.

"Today, the time is right,'' Eckels said. "I had a friend who told me, 'You never become what you want to be while remaining where you are.' Harris County is moving forward, and it's time for me to do the same.''

Eckels said he has no timetable for his departure, but he will remain until the Commissioners Court considers the upcoming annual budget next month.
The Greater Houston Partnership, which sponsors the event, had sold about 1,140 tickets through Wednesday, within 60 of a sellout.

Speculation about Eckels' departure has increased in recent days with a close Republican ally, Commissioner Jerry Eversole, saying Eckels' departure was a sure thing. Eversole had advised Eckels to make his intentions known during the luncheon speech today, even though Eckels had indicated he wanted to wait for a previously scheduled fundraiser next week

I’m curious, Judge Eckels – why didn’t you adopt this philosophy a year ago, so that the voters of Harris County (and the GOP in particular) could have had a candidate on the ballot who really wanted your job and intended to serve us for a full term?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Mitt Romney does pretty well among conservatives when you look at opinion polls. I was shocked, therefore to see that he was mentioned nowhere in this story from FoxNews.

Perhaps because of the early start to the race, many voters say they hope someone new will join the 2008 presidential contest. And by new they mean new, making it clear they do not want third-party candidate Ralph Nader, former Vice President Al Gore or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to step into the contest, according to the latest FOX News Poll.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from February 13 to February 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

Half of voters (49 percent) say they are hoping there is someone new out there who they have yet to hear about who will enter the presidential contest. Republicans (53 percent) are a bit more interested than Democrats (46 percent) for someone new to come along.

Overall, one of four voters (26 percent) would like Gore to enter the 2008 presidential race, which is moderately more than want Jeb Bush (16 percent) and Nader to do so (14 percent). Even so, the big picture is clear — majorities are against all three of these potential contenders throwing their hat into the ring.

But then I looked at the polling results – and discovered that Opinion Dynamics didn’t even include Romney anywhere in the polling! Not one question about the guy who clearly is just such a fresh face in the race – but questions almost designed to bring the “old gang” (a fomer VP, a former Speaker, another Bush, and a has-been gadfly) into the race.

So tell me, FoxNews and Opinion Dynamics – where’s Mitt?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Faultline USA, third world county, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, and Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

Keith Ellison offered Tom Tancredo a non-apology for the recent call to Capitol Hill Police over Tancredo’s perfectly permissible smoking in his own office.

A freshman Democratic lawmaker sent a hand-written note Wednesday night to a neighboring Republican congressman to apologize for the situation that erupted after his staff complained to U.S. Capitol Police about cigar smoke.

No word yet that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison is sorry that his staff called the cops in the first place to complain that Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's cigar was stinking up the hallway they share in the Longworth House Office Building.

Ellison "apologizes for the situation" because "it was so blown out of proportion," Carlos Espinosa, Tancredo’s press secretary, told FOX News.

Notice that this is not an apology for the call to the police in the first place without so much as a courtesy call to Tancredo, who Ellison has never even met despite being in the neighboring office. The apology is for the press coverage of the situation – coverage that makes Tancredo look reasonable and Ellison look incompetent, foolish, and arrogant.

Maybe Ellison will choose to be an adult one of these days and actually apologize for the impertinent call to the police.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Keith Ellison offered Tom Tancredo a non-apology for the recent call to Capitol Hill Police over TancredoÂ’s perfectly permissible smoking in his own office.

A freshman Democratic lawmaker sent a hand-written note Wednesday night to a neighboring Republican congressman to apologize for the situation that erupted after his staff complained to U.S. Capitol Police about cigar smoke.

No word yet that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison is sorry that his staff called the cops in the first place to complain that Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's cigar was stinking up the hallway they share in the Longworth House Office Building.

Ellison "apologizes for the situation" because "it was so blown out of proportion," Carlos Espinosa, TancredoÂ’s press secretary, told FOX News.

Notice that this is not an apology for the call to the police in the first place without so much as a courtesy call to Tancredo, who Ellison has never even met despite being in the neighboring office. The apology is for the press coverage of the situation – coverage that makes Tancredo look reasonable and Ellison look incompetent, foolish, and arrogant.

Maybe Ellison will choose to be an adult one of these days and actually apologize for the impertinent call to the police.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess it is more of that “appearance of impropriety” thing at work in the DemocratICK Party.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reached a deal to pay a key South Carolina black leader's consulting firm more than $200,000 just days before he agreed to endorse her run for president, it was revealed yesterday.

The arrangement involves South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a well-connected African-American leader and pastor whose support is coveted by national campaigns.

Jackson confirmed to The Post yesterday that his public-relations firm struck a deal with the Clinton campaign just days ago for a contract worth up to $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections.

Jackson had also been in talks with Sen. Barack Obama's campaign about endorsing him and entering into a consulting contract for more than $5,000, sources said - raising questions about whether Jackson's endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.

Remember, this is one of the guys who more or less claimed that “a black man can’t win” and that an Obama nomination would destroy the chances of the DemocratICK Party in 2008. Now we find out that he was prepared to endorse Obama for a fee, until the Illinois senator was outbid by the former First Lady.
Am I the only one who thinks something stinks here – and that it is “politics as usual” in the DemocratICK Party?

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.