We saw how well a promise to raise taxes worked for Walter Mondale in 1984. Surely it will be no more popular in 2008.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

Of course, we’ve already seen how well nationalized health care has worked in Canada and England – in the latter medical care is rationed based upon budgetary considerations, and in the former people skip across the border to the US to quickly receive treatment and diagnostic tests that take months to get in Canada. Do we really want to see our system follow their models, and for medical advances to slow to a trickle as the economic incentive for them is leached away – and your taxes go up, as they inevitably will? After all, you know that the “optional” single-payer program will quickly become mandatory.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

In keeping with the apology by President Bush, I promise that I will correctly pronounce the name of the other party.

Relying on self-deprecating jokes, unusual candor and outright flattery, President Bush on Saturday wooed lawmakers he not only needs but will have to answer to in the final two years of his presidency.

Bush had not seen fit to attend a Democratic congressional retreat since 2001, his first year in office. But the new political reality that has Democrats in charge of Capitol Hill for the first time in a dozen years changed his mind. When he appeared before House Democrats at a Virginia resort, he seemed to be trying to make up for lost time.

With his first words, he sought to put to rest one bone of contention between the White House and the new congressional majority: The dropped "ic."

Henceforward, I will cease referring to the Democrat Party. To ensure correct pronunciation, I will now refer to the party of abortion, racial discrimination, socialism and military surrender as the DemocratICK Party. Happy now, folks?

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Governor Perry;

I'm troubled by your decision to mandate that sixth-grade girls must receive the Gardasil vaccine as a condition of exercising the right to receive a free public education in the state of Texas. I'm troubled by your staff's insistence that your unilateral action on behalf of your big campaign contributor Merck and its lobbyist, your former chief of staff, may not be revoked by the legislature using its constitutional oversight powers-- or, based upon the statement of your spokesperson, any court. But since you seem to be a graduate of the Paul Begala School of Lawmaking, I won't argue with you over the question of the legitimacy of your position.

However, since you seem intent upon forcing pharmaceuticals upon children in order to prevent a sexually-transmitted condition not readily contracted by activity in the course of a normal school day, I'd like to offer a suggestion for the next executive order you should issue. It, too, involves prevention of a sexually condition which would not often be contracted in the ordinary course of a school day, but which much more often impacts the lives and education of school-aged girls in Texas, as well as the state budget.

That condition is teen pregnancy.

Governor, in the last decade I have had 10-15% of my female students either give birth or become pregnant during the course of the school year, or even enter my tenth-grade classroom already a mother. Their pregnancies wreak havoc on their lives and education, causing them to miss school on a frequent basis due to their pregnancy or the demands of motherhood. I've witnessed them drop out of school or seek a GED rather than a diploma so they could go to work rather than college. I've seen them enter unwise, early marriages and unstable live-in situations.

Furthermore, I know that most of them have been recipients of Medicaid dollars for delivery, and for the subsequent medical care their child needs. They often find themselves on food stamps and living in subsidized housing. During their pregnancies and the post-partum period, these young women are often segregated into special educational facilities, and many school districts find it necessary to provide some sort of daycare program for the offspring of their students.

Clearly, this condition adversely impacts the lives of Texas students and their children, as well as the budgets of the state of Texas and every school district and local government. It is therefore imperative, sir, that you take action to safeguard all of the above, just as you have with your decision bypass the legislative process to mandate Gardasil via executive order.

I urge you, Governor Perry, to mandate that every entering sixth-grade girl in the state of Texas receive Norplant implants as a precondition to enrolling in a public school in the state. Furthermore, you should by executive order mandate that the replacement of those implants be required as a precondition for being permitted to continue in a public school beyond tenth grade, due to the limited effective life of the Norplant implants. This will protect every school girl in Texas from the perils of teen pregnancy, and much more effectively than the abstinence-only education programs currently offered in our public schools.

Now some may object that government-mandated Norplant violates the right of a woman, even an eleven-year-old, to control her own body. You've already crossed that line with your Gardasil executive order. Others may argue that government-mandated Norplant may give these same young woman the message that unprotected sex is now safe. But you've already crossed that line as well. And still others might argue that government-mandated Norplant might be viewed as permission to engage in sex. That line has also been crossed by your executive order. And as for those who argue that such decisions are best left to parents in consultation with family physicians -- you blew right past that line when you chose to play doctor with every little girl in the state by mandating Gardasil.

So if you are really interested in protecting young girls from sexually-transmitted conditions that negatively impact their lives, you must issue the Norplant executive order.

Unless, of course, your real motivation for the Gardasil executive order was paying back Merck for the campaign contributions and doing favors for former staffers and the family members of your political allies.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, The HILL Chronicles, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123 Beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 9 kb.

After all, George Soros did spend millions in an attempt to buy the 2004 presidential election for John Kerry. And Soros has lined up squarely behind Barack Obama in 2008. So I have to ask if Obama and other prominent Dems will denounce this comment made at the Davos Economic Conference in Switzerland.

"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."

Now let's start with this question -- do Obama and the rest of the Dem candidates believe that "Bush & GOP=Hitler & Nazis" rhetoric is accurate and appropriate? Do they believe that America needs "de-Nazification", a process which, if implemented here as it was in Germany following WWII, would involve stripping Republican Party members and supporters of their civil rights and civil liberties, banning them from political participation, limiting their employment, and subjecting the media to censorship?

This is an issue with no gray area at all.

Either Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party believe that Soros is taking a legitimate position in urging the suspension of the rights of American citizens because of their political beliefs and activities, or they do not. If they do, they must condemn the extremist rhetoric. If they remain silent, they implicitly support his call for the abrogation of the First Amendment government suppression of the political views of their opponents.

Who wants to bet that the denunciations will not be forthcoming -- either because they fear losing this big-bucks contributor, or because they secretly agree?

H/T Captain's Quarter & QandO

Posted by: Greg at 08:39 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks to me like the John Edwards campaign has taken into its heart a dishonest hack who is not averse to trying to send inconvenient facts down the memory hole.

The individual in question, the shrilly profane Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, was hired on to be Edwards' blog czarina. Among her early moves was to go back and sanitize her own blog, removing potentially embarrassing material.

You know, like this post, preserved for posterity in a Google cache.

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will — not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

This written, of course, a full month after the rape charges were dismissed because of the constantly evolving story of the faux-victim in the case and the filing of ethics charges against DA Nifong for his handling of the case.

After the post was linked by Jon Ham of the John Locke Foundation, the new Edwards staffer went back and "sanitized" her post via the DELETE key, and replaced it with this pathetic justification.

UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, IÂ’m deleting it and hereÂ’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.

Change of language, change of stance, and a clear attempt to make it appear that she had not continued to accuse these young men of an offense which it is increasingly clear they did not commit.

In other words, Amanda lied -- in an attempt to cover her own tracks.

No doubt she will spend the next year -- until the Edwards candidacy folds under its own inadequacy after Iowa and New Hampshire -- engaging is similar acts designed to deceive the American public.

H/T Reason's Hit & Run

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

And personally, I'm quite content to see that happen. I argued that we should use a system with a paper trail back when Harris County selected its paperless system before the 2002 elections.

Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of FloridaÂ’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Voting experts said FloridaÂ’s move, coupled with new federal voting legislation expected to pass this year, could be the death knell for the paperless electronic touch-screen machines. If as expected the Florida Legislature approves the $32.5 million cost of the change, it would be the nationÂ’s biggest repudiation yet of touch-screen voting, which was widely embraced after the 2000 recount as a state-of-the-art means of restoring confidence that every vote would count.

Several counties around the country, including Cuyahoga in Ohio and Sarasota in Florida, are moving toward exchanging touch-screen machines for ones that provide a paper trail. But Florida could become the first state that invested heavily in the recent rush to touch screens to reject them so sweepingly.

Personally, I like the optical scanner machines -- but then again, as a teacher who works with scantron test sheets on a regular basis, i am familiar with the technology and trust it on a regular basis. And it isn't that I don't trust the touch screen system and other paperles forms of voting -- I do. But I feel there has to be a back-up, and I saw first-hand the limitations of the touch screen system this fall when the confusing nature of the machines and their instructions may have given the CD22 election over to Nick Lampson rather than Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Hopefully we will gt some sort of paper trail here in Harris county -- and the sooner the better.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, heÂ’s a poverty pimp and a race ho, but he also has a sense of humor.

Mr. Sharpton said that when Mr. Biden called him to apologize, Mr. Sharpton started off the conversation reassuring Mr. Biden about his hygienic practices. “I told him I take a bath every day,” Mr. Sharpton said.

ItÂ’s nice to know the man doesnÂ’t take himself too seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

I find this development a bit disturbing.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

I guess the Whore of Babylon-by-the-Bay thinks that she and her fellow Congresscritters shouldn’t have to mingle with the masses – and neither should their employees and relatives.

Now I’ll concede that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were grounds for giving the Speaker special protection in this regards, but I wonder if it should not have ended some time ago. However, I’d be willing to accept the request IF it were limited to the Speaker herself. But it isn’t – she wants to turn the US military into her own personal airline for her the favored few. And that, my friends, is intolerable.

Also, I love this little tidbit from a Pelosi aide.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

I guess we see the Democrat double standard on leaks.

Leaks that embarrass high-ranking Democrats are bad leaks, even if they do no real harm to the nation. This is especially true if the recipient of the leak is from a non-approved media outlet like the Washington Times.

Leaks that endanger national security and undermine the war effort are good leaks, especially when they go to the al-Qaeda Ministry of Intelligence the New York Time, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, or other terrorist left-leaning media outlets.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

I find this development a bit disturbing.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

I guess the Whore of Babylon-by-the-Bay thinks that she and her fellow Congresscritters shouldn’t have to mingle with the masses – and neither should their employees and relatives.

Now I’ll concede that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were grounds for giving the Speaker special protection in this regards, but I wonder if it should not have ended some time ago. However, I’d be willing to accept the request IF it were limited to the Speaker herself. But it isn’t – she wants to turn the US military into her own personal airline for her the favored few. And that, my friends, is intolerable.

Also, I love this little tidbit from a Pelosi aide.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

I guess we see the Democrat double standard on leaks.

Leaks that embarrass high-ranking Democrats are bad leaks, even if they do no real harm to the nation. This is especially true if the recipient of the leak is from a non-approved media outlet like the Washington Times.

Leaks that endanger national security and undermine the war effort are good leaks, especially when they go to the al-Qaeda Ministry of Intelligence the New York Time, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, or other terrorist left-leaning media outlets.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, William M. Arkin proved today that he, not those of us who disagree with him, is “arrogant and intolerant”. After all, he seems a little bit miffed that after using his First Amendment rights to bash the troops and spew his moronic views, some Americans (including some of those same troops, their families, and veterans) would dare to use their rights under the First Amendment to respond and to criticize. Indeed, he seems to believe that harsh responses are a threat to the First Amendment.

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Excuse me, Comrade Arkin, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t believe in the right to say what one believes. After all, are we to remain silent and bow down before the Almighty Wisdom of William M. Arkin, Journalist and Demigod? Are you immune from criticism and critique, or even vitriol, after you have insulted our troops? No one is stopping you from speaking – but you seem to wish to delegitimize any speech that you disagree with. You know, just as you argued it isn’t legitimate for soldiers to disagree with the all-wise and knowing public opinion polls when you stated in your earlier column that you “hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.” Or more accurately, the views of an ignorant and ill-informed (thanks to folks like you and your employer).

Of course, now he defames them even further, after implicitly calling them over-privileged mercenaries with fascist tendencies. Now he has gone and said it flat out.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

In other words, Arkin objects that those who are in Iraq have an opinion that he disagree swith, and he want to do his damnedest to make sure that they understand that only he, and those who think like him, have the right to an opinion – precisely what he object to in the comments, blog-posts, and emails he complains about.

They don’t like the cut-and-run Democrats – how dare they, after that party won the last elections!

They don’t like liberals – who do they think they are, objecting to folks who have been out to undercut their mission since before it began.

They don’t like journalists – don’t they understand that reporters are High Priests of the First Amendment and immune to criticism?

They don’t like dissent – even though what they are complaining about is rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to the enemy (a phrase I intentionally use) while they are in the field.

And they don’t like citizens – even though they are citizens, and are simply exercising their rights as citizens to be critical of Arkin and his ilk.

And then there is the grand finale to his comedy of errors.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

I’ll agree – deferring to the military is not a value I espouse. But I consider that to be closer to American values than the contempt that Arkin has shown the troops in these last two pathetic excuses for political commentary. They are angry and frustrated that their viewpoint doesn’t get out, while wing-nuts and moonbats on the Left are given plenty of ink and air time by the MSM. For them to argue that too many Americans are ignorant of what is going on in Iraq is not arrogant and intolerant – and for Arkin to again argue that the troops are a threat to American values and freedom places him beneath contempt and beyond serious consideration.

Oh, and this little update tidbit – Arkin has apparently wimped out and taken down this post from his front page on his WaPo blog. Unfortunately for him, it still appears if you have the permalink. I wonder how long until he scrubs this cowardly piece from that location, too. Don’t worry, Billy-boy – bloggers worldwide have the page cached and saved and will preserve your trash for posterity.

UPDATE: Arkin has since returned the post to his frontpage.

More at Michelle Malkin, Jammie Wearing Fool, Candy Slice Of Life, Riehl World View, Right Wing Nut House, Bill's Bites, Sensible Mom, CatHouse Chat, Don Surber, 7.62mm Justice, Running The Gauntlet, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Riehl World News, OpFor, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Leaning Straight Up, NW Bloggers, Hennessey's Views, Alphabet City, Flopping Aces, TacJammer, Gun Toting Liberal

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 10 kb.

Well, William M. Arkin proved today that he, not those of us who disagree with him, is “arrogant and intolerant”. After all, he seems a little bit miffed that after using his First Amendment rights to bash the troops and spew his moronic views, some Americans (including some of those same troops, their families, and veterans) would dare to use their rights under the First Amendment to respond and to criticize. Indeed, he seems to believe that harsh responses are a threat to the First Amendment.

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Excuse me, Comrade Arkin, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t believe in the right to say what one believes. After all, are we to remain silent and bow down before the Almighty Wisdom of William M. Arkin, Journalist and Demigod? Are you immune from criticism and critique, or even vitriol, after you have insulted our troops? No one is stopping you from speaking – but you seem to wish to delegitimize any speech that you disagree with. You know, just as you argued it isn’t legitimate for soldiers to disagree with the all-wise and knowing public opinion polls when you stated in your earlier column that you “hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.” Or more accurately, the views of an ignorant and ill-informed (thanks to folks like you and your employer).

Of course, now he defames them even further, after implicitly calling them over-privileged mercenaries with fascist tendencies. Now he has gone and said it flat out.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

In other words, Arkin objects that those who are in Iraq have an opinion that he disagree swith, and he want to do his damnedest to make sure that they understand that only he, and those who think like him, have the right to an opinion – precisely what he object to in the comments, blog-posts, and emails he complains about.

They don’t like the cut-and-run Democrats – how dare they, after that party won the last elections!

They don’t like liberals – who do they think they are, objecting to folks who have been out to undercut their mission since before it began.

They don’t like journalists – don’t they understand that reporters are High Priests of the First Amendment and immune to criticism?

They don’t like dissent – even though what they are complaining about is rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to the enemy (a phrase I intentionally use) while they are in the field.

And they don’t like citizens – even though they are citizens, and are simply exercising their rights as citizens to be critical of Arkin and his ilk.

And then there is the grand finale to his comedy of errors.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

I’ll agree – deferring to the military is not a value I espouse. But I consider that to be closer to American values than the contempt that Arkin has shown the troops in these last two pathetic excuses for political commentary. They are angry and frustrated that their viewpoint doesn’t get out, while wing-nuts and moonbats on the Left are given plenty of ink and air time by the MSM. For them to argue that too many Americans are ignorant of what is going on in Iraq is not arrogant and intolerant – and for Arkin to again argue that the troops are a threat to American values and freedom places him beneath contempt and beyond serious consideration.

Oh, and this little update tidbit – Arkin has apparently wimped out and taken down this post from his front page on his WaPo blog. Unfortunately for him, it still appears if you have the permalink. I wonder how long until he scrubs this cowardly piece from that location, too. Don’t worry, Billy-boy – bloggers worldwide have the page cached and saved and will preserve your trash for posterity.

UPDATE: Arkin has since returned the post to his frontpage.

More at Michelle Malkin, Jammie Wearing Fool, Candy Slice Of Life, Riehl World View, Right Wing Nut House, Bill's Bites, Sensible Mom, CatHouse Chat, Don Surber, 7.62mm Justice, Running The Gauntlet, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Riehl World News, OpFor, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Leaning Straight Up, NW Bloggers, Hennessey's Views, Alphabet City, Flopping Aces, TacJammer, Gun Toting Liberal

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (106) | Add Comment
Post contains 1015 words, total size 10 kb.

And the Dems keep telling us what a shitty economy we are in. I say – give us more of this shit!

Know what's really impressive about today's boffo 3.5 percent GDP growth number for the fourth quarter? It wasn't so long ago that Wall Street economists were wondering if the number would be a "one-handle"–meaning growth between 1.0 and 1.9 percent. And instead of a "hard or "soft" landing, investment pros are now talking about a "growth scare" where a surprisingly robust economy would push the Federal Reserve into raising interest rates.

In any event, I am starting to lend more personal credence to the theory that a combination of strong growth, fat corporate profits, and already tight labor market might push the unemployment rate to lows we have not seen since the 1960s.

LetÂ’s hear it for the Bush Boom!

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

This one deals not only with the illegitimate nature of the segregation caucuses, but also their operating procedure and the sexism that infests at least one of them.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez has quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, accusing the chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, of telling people she's a "whore."

Baca denied the charge.

In an interview with The Politico Wednesday, Sanchez, a California Democrat as is Baca, also cited concerns about whether Baca was properly elected Hispanic Caucus chairman in November and about his general attitude toward female lawmakers. The caucus represents 21 Hispanic Democrats in Congress.
"I'm not going to be a part of the CHC as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair Â… I told them no. There's a big rift here," Sanchez said. "You treat the women like shit. I have no use for him."

In a statement to The Politico, Baca said Sanchez "has decided to resign from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and has chosen to air baseless statements. Let me be clear; her comments are categorically untrue."

The last time lawmakers withdrew from the Hispanic caucus was in the late 1990s when the group's Republican members left over partisan differences.
Sanchez said she had been approached earlier this year to contribute funds from her office budget to support the CHC's shared staff, a requirement for all its members. She refused.

"I told them to take me off the list, take me off the Web site, take me off everything," Sanchez said.

IÂ’d be inclined to believe the denials, were it not for a longstanding history of accusations by female members of the caucus that Baca has engaged in demeaning and inappropriate conduct towards them. But this again points out the problems endemic in allowing these racist segregation caucuses to exist at all.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.