Maybe they want a candidate who can win.

As Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fund-raisers have already signed on with Senator Barack Obama.

Among the biggest fund-raisers for Mr. ObamaÂ’s campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.

At minimum, a dozen were major fund-raisers for President Bill Clinton. At least four worked in the administration and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fund-raisers have contributed to Mrs. ClintonÂ’s Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.

A list of Mr. ObamaÂ’s top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rivalÂ’s camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of a family feud. Some of the movement would have been inevitable given Mr. ClintonÂ’s former dominance of the party.

The donors helped Mr. Obama, a first-term senator little known outside Illinois four years ago, best Mrs. Clinton in the first quarter of fund-raising for the Democratic primary by $5.7 million, according to reports filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

But her campaign proved it still had the support of some deep pockets. About 5,100 big contributors accounted for about three quarters of the $26 million combined that she raised for the primary and general election, pulling her very slightly ahead of Mr. Obama by just $200,000 in total fund-raising for the quarter. And, with $10 million rolling over to her primary campaign from her last Senate race in New York, Mrs. Clinton was well ahead in cash in the bank.

Half of Americans reject Hillary as a potential president -- why would the Democrats want to nominate her?

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Maybe it is because our party finally recognizes who the real enemy is -- the Democrats, not any of the disparate factions that make up the GOP.

A parade of Republican White House candidates appealed for support from over 1,000 Iowa Republicans on Saturday, with two of their leading candidates — Senator John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani — assailing Democrats in Washington for pressing legislation that would set a timetable for bringing American troops back from Iraq.

It was the first time that the major Republican candidates had appeared at the same event — the annual Lincoln Day dinner, held in the sprawling ballroom of a downtown convention center here. For more than three hours, an audience of the state’s most active Republicans listened attentively as candidates proclaimed their strong opposition to abortion rights, called for a crackdown against illegal immigrants and warned that a Democratic return to the White House would result in higher taxes.

Although the event was called a “Unity Dinner,” the speeches reflected divisions among the Republicans on various issues, in particular abortion. Several candidates, including Mr. McCain of Arizona and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, presented themselves as lifelong opponents of abortion rights, drawing clear if unspoken contrasts with Mr. Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, and Mr. Romney, who once supported abortion rights but now opposes them.

But the strongest divisions emerged between the parties, as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. McCain offered attacks on Democrats for their efforts to bring an end to the war in Iraq. Apart from his remark about abortions — and a warm-up joke that involved Zsa Zsa Gabor — Mr. McCain devoted almost his entire nine-minute speech to arguing in support of the war, and attacking Democrats for opposing it.

America is in a fight for its survival -- and the other party wants to surrender. Are you surprised that the GOP would be more concerned about that than the issues that we spar over within the party?

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, whether Alabama should display the Confederate flag is ultimately a matter for the people of Alabama, not a presidential candidate.

A civil rights leader in Alabama today accused former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani of flip-flopping and pandering on the confederate flag during his visit to the state capitol earlier in the week.

Giuliani, currently the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, has in the past seemed to voice personal opposition to the flag, which to many African-Americans is an offensive symbol of bigotry and slavery.

But when the former New York mayor visited Montgomery, Ala., on Tuesday he said simply that the matter was a state issue.

Edward Vaughn, the president of the NAACP Alabama State Conference, who was in Montgomery that day, told ABC News that Giuliani's remarks disappointed him.

"Giuliani is posturing himself to try to get the conservative, right-wing, Southern white vote in Alabama," Vaughn said. "He used to oppose the flag, but now he's backtracked because he's running for president."

The Giuliani campaign responded that the mayor's position has consistently been that this issue should be decided by each individual state.

Personally, I have no objection to such displays -- simply as a matter of historical acknowledgment of the Civil War in the interest of accuracy. As such, I oppose efforts at historical revisionism by BOTH SIDES of the controversy.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

I despise Fred Phelps with a passion -- few individuals in America today are more despicable than the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, a tiny hate cult from Kansas. But as rancid as this crew of inbred cretins are, the First Amendment still applies to them -- which is why this decision by a federal judge in Baltimore really offends me, even more than the hate-filled anti-American actions that led to the decision.

A federal judge in Baltimore is ordering Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church to pay more than $3,000 in costs related to the funeral of a Marine the group picketed.

Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, is suing because church
members demonstrated at the funeral of his son, Lance Corporal
Matthew Snyder. Church members also posted pictures of the protest
on their Web site.

Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq in March.

The lawsuit was filed in June. It says church members violated
the family's right to privacy and defamed the Marine and his family
at the funeral and on the church's Web site.

Court documents say the church has 30 days to make the payment
to Snyder.

I respectfully disagree -- and would argue that the political and religious speech these lowlifes engaged are fully protected by the First Amendment -- and that laws, lawsuits, and other efforts to prevent these hell-bound hatemongers from speaking are much more anti-American than the protests of the Phelps klan.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Personally, I think you're an idiot. But that's besides the point. I think you're perfectly entitled to say what you're saying now, and that I 'm perfectly entitled to call you an idiot, both because of the First Amendment. However, with the case of the WBC, they should have received this fine, and in my opinion, been fined more.

Why did Imus get fired for his comments about Women's basketball? First Amendment, right? No, he screwed up. He's a professional, and he made a very unprofessional comment. If you're family died, how exactly would you perceive this? "They're assholes, but I completely respect their right to be complete assholes"? No, it's harassment, taken to the extreme.

There has to be restitution for their actions, and with that said, how do you propose that restitution be accomplished? They're pushing the bounds of the First Amendment as it is, and the fact is, it is what's protecting them. However, they overstep their bounds when they protest at funerals. They can protest with a press release, with a sermon at their church, anywhere they want, EXCEPT in front of the the families themselves as they mourn the loss of their son, brother, or father. That's pretty damned close to being the lowest form of harassment thus far conceived, the very definition of kicking them while their down.

They also are planning to protest at the funerals for the Virginia Tech shootings. Is that right? Is that truly legal? First Amendment my ass. They'd use the Constitution for toilet paper.

Posted by: No at Tue Apr 17 01:03:13 2007 (pvloB)

2 Sorry to see that you don't believe in the First Amendment, No.

And as for the disgusting plans to protest at the Tech funerals, I view that action as entirely within the bounds of the First Amendment -- entirely outside the bounds of any sort of Christian morality. But then again, I've been saying that for over two decades, since they started protesting at the funerals of dead gays with AIDS.

Private individuals and businesses can and should punish speech that crosses the line of decency -- government cannot and must not if it is to retain legitimacy under our Constitution.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Apr 17 12:00:13 2007 (MAd+s)

3 Here is the number for the Westboro Baptist Church : (785) 273-0325
call them and let them know how much you disapprove

Posted by: snb at Wed Apr 18 04:46:33 2007 (aBLw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I don't like the guy, but my prayers are with him.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine underwent surgery on Thursday night after a car accident in which he broke his left leg, sternum, collarbone, six ribs on each side and a lower vertebra, state police and other government officials said. He was in critical but stable condition at midnight, sedated and on a breathing tube.

Mr. Corzine was in the front passenger seat when his state police vehicle swerved to avoid an apparently out-of-control driver on the Garden State Parkway and hit a guardrail. He was flown by helicopter to Cooper University Hospital in Camden, where he received seven units of blood and a metal rod in his leg during a two-hour operation that ended about 11:30 p.m.

“He has what we call multisystemic injuries,” Robert F. Ostrum, Cooper’s director of orthopedic trauma, who led the surgical team, said in a midnight briefing for reporters here. “Injuries to his chest, lungs, to his legs, and he lost a significant amount of blood.” Asked whether Mr. Corzine was lucky to be alive, Dr. Ostrum said: “Yes.”

Mr. Corzine is scheduled for two more operations, Saturday and Monday, to clean up the wounds, Dr. Ostrum said, adding that it would be “days to weeks” until he was lucid enough to conduct state business, and three to six months before he could get around fairly well. Though the governor sustained a cut on his forehead, Dr. Ostrum said a CAT scan showed no brain injury.

Sounds bad, but it appears the governor will recover. I'm thankful for that -- because political disagreement doesn't constitute a basis for a death wish.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Beat John Cornyn? They must not be in much contact with reality – but then again, they wouldn’t be Democrats if they were.

On the Democrats' Senate campaign Web site, Texan John Cornyn is labeled the least popular U.S. senator in the crop of Republican incumbents running for re-election next year.

He's also identified as the administration's most loyal ally on Capitol Hill, which could be an uncomfortable title to wear at a time of flagging public confidence in President Bush and the war in Iraq.

But Democrats have yet to field a challenger or offer any sign that the race should be shifted out of the "solid Republican" category where political handicappers have it listed. Meanwhile, Cornyn is busily working to build a $20 million campaign war chest.

"If there were credible senior Democrats in Texas, this would be a race to look at," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. "But I don't see that person on the horizon here in Texas."

Democrats in Austin and Washington insist they'll field an attractive candidate. And while their bench of proven statewide vote-getters is thin, the Democrats argue that the race will be made competitive by demographic and political trends that are inexorably weakening the GOP's dominance of Texas.

"Given his record, given his approval ratings, we do believe that John Cornyn is vulnerable and Texas Democrats are going to work to challenge him at every corner," Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon said.

Though party officials are reluctant to publicly discuss potential candidates, the names mentioned include former Comptroller John Sharp; state Rep. Rick Noriega, of Houston; state Rep. Pete Gallego, of Alpine; and Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the 2006 Senate nominee against Kay Bailey Hutchison. U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, who earned celebrity in his party for claiming the seat formerly held by Republican Tom DeLay, also has been mentioned, along with former U.S. Rep. Jim Turner, of Crockett.

There isn’t a single credible Democrat in the bunch mentioned – with perhaps one exception.

Radnofsky? She got crushed by Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Gallego? Good guy, but not a household name.

Sharp? Out of office for years – though his name ID is high due to being part of the Texas equivalent of the Kennedy family.

Lampson? Well, he does hold DeLay’s seat – but then again, he will actually have to face an opponent on the ballot if he runs for Senate against Cornyn. Besides, he has already been rejected by the voters of two Texas congressional districts, and is likely to lose the CD22 seat in 2008, when he will actually have a GOP opponent on the ballot in our heavily GOP district.

Indeed, there only one on that list who I find to be of potential concern is Rick Noriega, whose balancing of legislative responsibilities and his duty as an officer in the Reserves has earned him the respect of many of us on the GOP side of the aisle.

But Cornyn is very popular in this state, especially among Texas Republicans – more than Kay Bailey Hutchison, to be honest about it. And if Texans get to decide the outcome of this race, we will certainly reelect this former state Attorney General and former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court – and maybe send him to the White House in the future.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, , Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 7 kb.

This has to be seen as a hopeful sign -- Senator Tim Johnson is well enough for his staff to begin planning for his return.

Aides to Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) have begun making structural changes to the space in his Hart Senate Office building suites in anticipation of his return to the Capitol following a serious illness. They are widening walkways so that the offices will be accessible by wheel chair.

Julianne Fisher, Johnson's spokeswoman, sent a memo to all Democratic press secretaries today explaining the changes to come, while tamping down expectations of when he will return from his rehabilitation after suffering a brain hemorrhage in a mid-December while on a conference call to South Dakota reporters. Johnson, according to Fisher, is still undergoing in-patient rehabilitation and must shift to out-patient rehab before he can return to work.

But the decision to restructure the office is the clearest sign yet that Johnson is recovering enough to return to the Senate, where his absence has left the Democrats with a razor-thin 50-49 majority. Had he declared he was incapable of returning to work, a Republican governor would have replaced Johnson for the remainder of his term through 2008, creating the potential for the Senate to be 50-50 and flip back to Republican control because of Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Let's continue to pray for the Senator's recovery.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

One has to wonder if this will impact his decision on the 2008 presidential race – and the level of support that he will draw.

Former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson told FOX News on Wednesday that he's in remission from lymphoma cancer.

The "Law & Order" star who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, said he was diagnosed with indolent lymphoma in 2004 after a routine physical. He said the cancer is "fortunately a good kind if you can ever call something like that a good kind" and treatable.

"I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future — and with no debilitating side effects," Thompson said in a personal commentary following the interview.

According to the American Cancer Society, this year doctors will diagnose about 63,000 new cases of indolent lymphoma, a slow-growing type of cancer that affects the lymphatic system, the part of the body that helps regulate the immune system.

Thompson has a favorable prognosis, said Dr. Bruce Cheson of Georgetown University Hospital. Thompson had been on a cancer therapy called Rituxan, but is not currently in treatment.

Now let’s be real clear here – this is not a form of cancer that is life threatening. Indeed, according to doctors it is more likely that Thompson will die of old age than of the cancer. But the specter of the “C Word” may be sufficient to cool the ardor of many conservatives towards a Thompson candidacy. We’ll have to wait and see if this turns out to be the case.

And regardless, we all need to keep Fred Thompson in prayer.

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Horrors! Between a draft version of a report and the final version, editorial changes were made that reflect the truth on the subject matter -- and The New York Times smells a scandal.

A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.

Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.

The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states.

Democrats say the threat is overstated and have opposed voter identification laws, which they say disenfranchise the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely to have photo IDs and are more likely to be Democrats.

Though the original report said that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”

The topic of voter fraud, usually defined as people misrepresenting themselves at the polls or improperly attempting to register voters, remains a lively division between the two parties. It has played a significant role in the current Congressional investigation into the Bush administrationÂ’s firing of eight United States attorneys, several of whom, documents now indicate, were dismissed for being insufficiently aggressive in pursuing voter fraud cases.

The problem, of course, is that there is a great deal of debate over the pervasiveness of such fraud -- especially given a number of recent prosecutions for election fraud and certain irregularities in predominantly DemocratICK communities regarding the number of votes cast and the security of ballots. Part of the problem comes down to one of definition, and part of it relates to the question of how one defines "pervasive" -- and whether one considers voter fraud that impacts election results to be a serious problem worth even looking at.

One interesting change is this one.

The original report said most experts believe that “false registration forms have not resulted in polling place fraud,” but the final report cites “registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud.”

Well let's consider that for just a minute. It may well be argued that fake registrations coming from such registration drives are caught by election officials, but the fact that groups such as ACORN have a long track record of submitting fake registrations is of concern -- and is an example of attempted election fraud.

Oh, and by the way, let's consider a little comment by one of the Democrats on the commission.

Gracia Hillman, the Democratic commissioner who voted in favor of releasing the final report, said she did not believe that the editing of the report was politically motivated or overly extensive.

“As a federal agency, our responsibility is to ensure that the research we produce is fully verified,” Ms. Hillman said. “Some of the points made in the draft report made by the consultants went beyond what we felt comfortable with.”

Which raises a question -- is the report the responsibility of the commission, or the consultants? And if the answer is "the consultants", why do we have the commission in the first place?

No scandal here -- but I'm willing to bet that we will continue to see efforts to create one by partisan Democrats interested in making one more attack on the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a little bit inconvenient for them, so they want it overruled.

Attorneys for the District sought yesterday to preserve the city's gun-control law, asking a federal appeals court to reconsider a recent decision that called some restrictions unconstitutional.

The District urged the full appeals court to review the ruling made last month by a three-judge panel. The 2 to 1 decision declared that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms and struck down a part of the D.C. law that bars people from keeping handguns in homes.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) vowed to fight the decision, and yesterday he was at the courthouse for the filing of a petition seeking a full review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Flanked by Attorney General Linda Singer, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier and council members Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and Marion Barry (D-Ward , Fenty said the District cannot afford to accept a ruling that would increase the number of guns in the city.

"More guns quite simply leads to more violence," Fenty said.

In seeking another layer of review, the District argued that the case deals with "questions of exceptional importance" and noted that the decision creates conflicts in federal case law that must be resolved.

In a related development, Mayor Fenty and other city officials asked that the court also declare that the right of the people to peaceably assemble and the right of the people to be secure in their homes and their papers -- rights added to the Constitution at the same time as the right to keep and bear arms as a part of the so-called "Bill of Rights" -- apply only to government bodies and not to individual citizens, noting that applying such rights to individual citizens would do nothing besides protect criminals and rabble-rousers, leading to further disorder within the city.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

I agree whole-heartedly with the Supreme Court precedent that burning a flag is constitutionally protected speech -- as long as it is your flag. As a result, I hope they throw the book at these three guys -- and deport the two who are not US citizens.

Three Yale University students were arrested early Tuesday morning for burning an American flag on a pole attached to a house in New Haven, the Yale Daily News reported today.

The three men, all of foreign origin, were charged with offenses ranging from reckless endangerment to arson and were held in jail Tuesday night after a judge refused to release them without bail.

According to the newspaper, the New Haven police said the men — two freshmen and a senior — first attracted police attention at about 3 a.m. Tuesday when they asked two offcers for directions back to their residence. They were identified as Said Hyder Akbar, 23, Nikolaos Angelopoulos, 19, and Farhad Anklesaria, also 19.

Dumb-asses.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

If the Senate Democrats are going to play politics with appointments because they object to the exercise of First Amendment rights by appointees, it is fully appropriate for the White House to use the Constitution to bypass them.

President Bush, defying Senate Democrats, gave recess appointments yesterday to three controversial nominees, including, as ambassador to Belgium, Republican donor Sam Fox, who had contributed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group whose ads helped doom Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.

Kerry (D-Mass.), who grilled Fox about his $50,000 contribution to the group during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, had complained that Fox never disavowed his actions and that he should not be confirmed. "It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate," Kerry said in a statement yesterday.

No, Senator, it is sad that you and your colleagues would place your pathetic little ego and the demonstrable falsehoods in your Vietnam record above the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 2 kb.

I generally support many of the ideas put forward by State Senator Dan Patrick. Even when I don't, I at least respect where he is coming from. Unfortunately, he has really blown it this time.

Republican Sen. Dan Patrick on Wednesday boycotted the first prayer delivered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric, and then praised religious tolerance and freedom of speech in an address at the end of the day's session.

"I think that it's important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision," he said later.

"I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn't want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that."

Patrick, a conservative radio talk show host from Houston and self-professed Christian, said he wasn't the only senator to miss the invocation — in English and song — by the Imam Yusuf Kavakci of the Dallas Central Mosque.

I'm sorry, but being present for an invocation does not legitimize the faith of the person offering that invocation -- and if it does, then surely that makes the ACLU right on the issue of invocations being constitutionally suspect, especially if they are limited to representatives of the Christian and Jewish faiths.

And the bigger problem is that Patrick's more important point got overshadowed by that stupid part of his objection -- an objection to the individual who was selected to be the first Muslim to offer the invocation for the Texas Senate. Over at Lone Star Times (started but no longer owned by Patrick, and for which I was one of the original group of contributors), they offer a much more serious basis for objecting to Imam Yusuf Kavakci.

The prayer to begin this morningÂ’s Texas Senate session was given by Imam Yusuf Kavakci, a Turkish-born Muslim preacher who runs the Islamic Association of North Texas.

In 2004, Kavakci was a featured speaker at a conference in Irving entitled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary.” The conference, honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, discussed such moderate, genteel topics as… worldwide Islamic revolution.

HereÂ’s a flyer.

The guy also has an ugly tendency to praise guys like Hasan al-Turabi (OsamaÂ’s buddy who helped establish sharia in Sudan) and Yusuf Qaradawi (who thinks suicide bombings are just peachy.)

Muslim apologists constantly lecture America that jihadists are a tiny minority of Muslims, that the overwhelming majority are moderate, peace-loving folks.

Out of all those moderate Muslims, we couldnÂ’t do any better than this guy?

I'm all for having an imam in to do the invocation -- but seriously, is this the right man for the job? Unfortunately, Patrick's RELIGIOUS objection to the imam made it impossible for anyone to raise a principled objection to Kavakci without being tied to the religiously exclusive objections Dan voiced.

Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News offers this objection to the choice of Kavakci to do the invocation -- the ideologies of the Islamists and extremists with whom the imam and his mosque have associated themselves, including Islamic "scholars" who call for jihad against Jews.

Does Imam Kavakci disagree with this? Does he think that urging murder of Jews is consistent with being the kind of Islamic scholar fit to guide US Muslims? Sen. Shapiro should also ask Imam Kavakci about his similar "quality scholar" praise for the Sudanese Islamist leader Hasan al-Turabi, who gave Osama bin Laden sanctuary when he ruled Sudan, and who instigated jihad against Sudanese Christians and animists. How does Imam Kavakci reconcile this aspect of Turabi's life and belief with his (Kavakci's) praise for his brilliance as an Islamic scholar? Or does Imam Kavakci agree with him?

I do hope Sen. Shapiro or someone in the legislature will put the question to the Dallas imam. Every time I've tried to get him to answer these simple and legitimate questions, he's refused, and on several occasions accused me of Islamophobia for daring to ask. He shouldn't be allowed to bluff and bully his way around giving a straight answer to perfectly reasonable questions.

Reasonable questions -- and a reasonable basis for selecting someone else. After all, would it be appropriate to open a session with the words of someone who praised the Fred Phelps klan?

Oh, and a quick note for Harris County GOP chairman Jared Woodfill -- yes, the invocation occurs in the midst of Passover and Holy Week, but since yesterday was also the birthday of Muhammad the selection of yesterday for the invocation was not at all problematic. After all, as often happens, there is some overlap between the holy days of different faiths.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, sissunchi, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 874 words, total size 8 kb.

As I read this, we have both assault and unlawful imprisonment.

White House Advisor Karl Rove was the target of a protest on the American University campus Tuesday night, News4 reported.

Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

The students then got on the ground and laid down in front of his car as a protest.

The students said security officials picked them up and carried them away so Rove could leave.

Police said they have dealt with a lot of protests on campus and this one was handled peacefully.

No one was arrested.

Let’s hope that American university takes appropriate disciplinary action against the students in question for their unlawful conduct which certainly violates the campus code of conduct – provided, of course, that conservatives receive equal protection of campus regulations. After all, could you imagine that no arrests would have been made if this were Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi?

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Who cares how involved Mormons are in Mitt Romney's campaign? Are we going to start focusing on how many Italians work for or raise funds for Giuliani? Or how many blacks are on Obama's staff? This is really a false issue.

It is the rare presidential candidate who comes to Idaho to raise money, but there was Mitt Romney last month, packing more than 100 people, at up to $2,300 a head, into the Crystal Ballroom in Boise.

"Nearly every seat was filled. Just about everybody that's anybody was there," said Grant Ipsen, a former Idaho state legislator. "I don't think I'd ever attended another fundraiser for a federal candidate in Idaho."

There was no great mystery why Romney was in town. The former Massachusetts governor is a Mormon, as are about one-quarter of Idaho residents, including Ipsen and many others who turned out for the lunchtime event. The fundraiser was bracketed by two others in the Mountain West: one in Las Vegas and another outside Phoenix. At both of those events, Mormons made up at least half the crowd, organizers said. Altogether, the two-day swing brought in well over $1 million for Romney.

As he vies for a place in the top tier of contenders for the Republican nomination, Romney is reaping enormous benefits from being part of a growing religion that has traditionally emphasized civic engagement and mutual support. Mormons are fueling his strong fundraising operation, which this week reported raising $21 million, the most of any Republican candidate. And they are laying the foundation for a potent grass-roots network -- including a cadre of young church members experienced in door-to-door missions who say they are looking forward to hitting the streets for him.

"When Mormons get mobilized, they're like dry kindling. You drop a match and get impressive results quickly," said University of Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell, who is Mormon. "It's almost a unique group in the way in which it's organized at the local level and the channels through which mobilization can occur."

But the intensity of this support has a potential downside as Romney tries to establish an identity separate from a religion still regarded warily by many Americans -- a quarter of whom, polls suggest, do not want a Mormon president.

Really, this is a non-issue for most Americans, except a minority of bigots; a few on the Right but more on the Left who would never have voted for Romney in any event. It survives because the media keeps up a focus on it -- in a way they would never do over Obama's black support. Indeed, they would never treat racist refusal to vote for a black man as the basis for calling Obama's heritage and support among African-Americans a "mixed blessing", would they?

It seems clear that too many folks in the MSM have forgotten the lessons of 1960. And I say that as someone who is not Mormon and has serious issues with Mormon teachings and theology -- but who also supports Mitt Romney as the best the best declared GOP candidate for 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

And one need look no further than Jimmy Carter's presidency (and Supreme Court precedent) to reach that conclusion.

In the aftermath of Watergate, President Jimmy Carter directed Attorney General Griffin Bell to prepare legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause. Carter's idea was to keep the attorney general independent of presidential direction to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes, as it had been during the ethically troubled Nixon presidency.

Despite Carter's noble intent, Bell refused. In a little-known memorandum to the president dated April 11, 1977, he explained why. Any law that restricted the president's power to remove the attorney general — and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney — likely would be found unconstitutional. The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. "Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations," Bell wrote.

Carter argued that the attorney general is different from other Cabinet officers. The job entails dual responsibilities: carrying forward White House policies like any other Cabinet official and representing the law of the United States, whether it coincides with the president's policies or not. Bell agreed, but he found that insufficient to justify separating the attorney general and subordinate U.S. attorneys from presidential direction.

Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926).

Congress enacts different types of laws, the chief justice opined. Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, "they are exercising not their own but (the president's) discretion," the court said. "Each head of a department is and must be the president's alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority."

In other words, history, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution are on the side of the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

He's got no traction, and little support among the GOP base -- so John McCain is seeking to rake in the very big bucks donations he says corrupt the system.

Lagging in fund-raising and under fire for his support of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain is overhauling his campaign finance operation and delaying the official announcement of his candidacy, his aides said Tuesday.

They said he would adopt the kind of big-donor fund-raising program pioneered by President Bush and give a speech explaining his support for the administrationÂ’s troop buildup in Iraq.

The maneuvers come at a time of sharp anxiety in Mr. McCainÂ’s camp, especially over his fund-raising, which is trailing all the major Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

The concern grew after his visit to Iraq over the weekend, when he asserted that conditions there were improving.

Mr. McCainÂ’s aides said that to deal with his fund-raising problems, he would adopt what had been a centerpiece of Mr. BushÂ’s fund-raising technique, and one that has been embraced by most major presidential candidates: creating an honorary campaign designation to reward the campaignÂ’s top money raisers. Mr. Bush called his Rangers and Pioneers; Mr. McCain will call his the McCain 100Â’s, for supporters who collect $100,000 for the campaign, and the McCain 200Â’s, who collect $200,000.

Mr. McCain has been identified throughout his career as an advocate of curbing the influence of money in politics, notably as a co-sponsor of a landmark bill limiting political contributions. He criticized Mr. Bush, when the two were opponents in 2000, as leading overly aggressive fund-raising efforts.

I think the word for this is HYPOCRISY!

But then again, McCain is desperate to become president, and if that means selling out his own principles, he'll do it.

Not that he will ever get his vote.

Indeed, the only way John McCain will ever be president is if he runs as an independent with Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate -- and even then he would be a long-shot.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine if the GOP tried to do this under Bill Clinton – or Hillary Clinton? Especially since foreign policy is a presidential, not congressional, prerogative.

Rep. Tom Lantos, a San Mateo Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who is accompanying Pelosi and several other Democrats and one Republican lawmaker, said during the group's visit to Israel on Sunday, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

But then again, why should we be surprised.

They tried to undermine US foreign policy under Reagan – and arguably engaged in treason at that time.

Heck, they tried that alternative foreign policy thing during the Civil War – and justly earned the name “Copperheads” at that time.

And today we see that Pelosi, Lantos and the rest are clearly Neo-Copperheads.

Posted by: Greg at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine if the GOP tried to do this under Bill Clinton – or Hillary Clinton? Especially since foreign policy is a presidential, not congressional, prerogative.

Rep. Tom Lantos, a San Mateo Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who is accompanying Pelosi and several other Democrats and one Republican lawmaker, said during the group's visit to Israel on Sunday, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

But then again, why should we be surprised.

They tried to undermine US foreign policy under Reagan – and arguably engaged in treason at that time.

Heck, they tried that alternative foreign policy thing during the Civil War – and justly earned the name “Copperheads” at that time.

And today we see that Pelosi, Lantos and the rest are clearly Neo-Copperheads.

Posted by: Greg at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Harry's not right! Feingold's not right!
They just dangerous and weird.
Surrender! Surrender!
Let's just give Iraq away!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement.

Reid's new strategy faces an uphill battle because many of his colleagues see yanking funds as a dangerous last resort. The proposal increases the stakes on the debate and marks a new era for the Democratic leadership once reluctant to talk about Congress' power of the purse.

"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.

Funny, but I thought the Democrats had told us they would never abandon the troops in the field or cut off funds. Now, in a fit of pique because the president won't accept their timetables for surrender, they are going to do precisely that.

I stand with Dick Cheney on this one.

"It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday....

Of course, maybe the problem is that they DO understand that such a course is nothing but surrender.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Which may indicate his support goes deeper than the polls have indicated.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney provided a jolt to the Republican presidential contest yesterday, reporting a haul of $21 million in the first three months of the year, as Sen. John McCain of Arizona posted a lackluster third-place finish that even his campaign manager called a disappointment.

As campaigns release their first meaningful fundraising figures in what appears certain to become the most expensive presidential campaign in history, McCain's $12.5 million total also put him behind former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who leads the Republican field in public polls and reported taking in $15 million in the first quarter.

Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has set the pace for the field so far, reporting Sunday that she had raised $26 million in combined primary and general election funds and transferred an additional $10 million from her Senate campaign account. Her total was followed by that of former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who raised $14 million. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has so far declined to release figures for his campaign.

The totals of the major contenders easily surpassed the record $8.9 million raised by Al Gore in the first three months of 1999.

Now some folks may be disturbed by the sheer number of dollars raised and spent during this election cycle, but let me put it in perspective for you -- taken in the aggregate, the money raised by the six leading candidates amounts to $0.33 (yeah, that's right, thirty-three cents) per American. Is that really too much to be spent by those seeking the most powerful elected office in the United States?

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, maybe he'll out-poll Ron Paul, but I don't even know about that.

Criticizing other GOP candidates as weak in their efforts to stop illegal immigration, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo announced Monday he would seek the Republican presidential nomination.

"The political elite in Washington have chosen to ignore this phenomenon," he said.

I'm not happy with any candidate's position on immigration, but I think that a one-trick pony like Tancredo does nothing to advance the debate by entering the race -- and can do much more harm, both by draining support away from the candidates who are better on the issue and by endangering his Congressional seat.

Withdraw, Ton.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

A big tip of the hat to Don Surber for noting a little bit of absurdity from the KOSsacks.

Ordinarily I let lying blogs sleep, but this post at the Daily Kos was too insipid to ignore: “Partying Down with Bush in His Radio Address” by Susan G:

If the President of the United States goes on a stark raving mad lunatic partisan word salad spree in a purportedly non-partisan venue in which he is — at least on paper — supposed to represent all of America, would anyone notice? Apparently not.

Really? So what was this act of insanity by President Bush?

He called the Democrats “Democrats.” And Susan G counted:

He mentioned “Democrats” or “Democratic” 22 times, in almost every instance linking the chosen term to America’s biggest bugaboo, taxes.

I would call her complaint childish but my wife and I raised 3 children and they never did~anything like that.

Surber then goes on to note that the Dems have plenty to be paranoid about over this truth-in-labeling by the President, given the bankruptcy of an agenda that has failed every time it has been tried in the last three decades. And he also notes that the Dems are troubled by a sometimes-missing syllable.

I am curious as to what Susan G wants us to call Democrats. Some of them go off the deep end if you fail to include the “ic” in Democratic Party.

How about the “Icks” then? Icky Frye did seek the party’s nomination for governor in West Virginia in 2004. Harold Ickes is a very familiar name in presidential politics.

I’ve been doing something like that for a while, referring to them as the DemocratICK Party. But hey – if “Democrat” really offends them, I can go with calling them the Icks.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

A big tip of the hat to Don Surber for noting a little bit of absurdity from the KOSsacks.

Ordinarily I let lying blogs sleep, but this post at the Daily Kos was too insipid to ignore: “Partying Down with Bush in His Radio Address” by Susan G:

If the President of the United States goes on a stark raving mad lunatic partisan word salad spree in a purportedly non-partisan venue in which he is — at least on paper — supposed to represent all of America, would anyone notice? Apparently not.

Really? So what was this act of insanity by President Bush?

He called the Democrats “Democrats.” And Susan G counted:

He mentioned “Democrats” or “Democratic” 22 times, in almost every instance linking the chosen term to America’s biggest bugaboo, taxes.

I would call her complaint childish but my wife and I raised 3 children and they never did~anything like that.

Surber then goes on to note that the Dems have plenty to be paranoid about over this truth-in-labeling by the President, given the bankruptcy of an agenda that has failed every time it has been tried in the last three decades. And he also notes that the Dems are troubled by a sometimes-missing syllable.

I am curious as to what Susan G wants us to call Democrats. Some of them go off the deep end if you fail to include the “ic” in Democratic Party.

How about the “Icks” then? Icky Frye did seek the party’s nomination for governor in West Virginia in 2004. Harold Ickes is a very familiar name in presidential politics.

I’ve been doing something like that for a while, referring to them as the DemocratICK Party. But hey – if “Democrat” really offends them, I can go with calling them the Icks.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

No surprise here -- but a neat family story.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, they clearly believe that the real enemy of the United States is its elected president, not the terrorists who want to destroy us.

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

Would that the Neo-Copperheads realized that Hoyer's statement should be made about the real enemy we are fighting, not the political struggles at home.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that is the view expressed by Barack Obama -- a view which he wraps in a lie.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

* * *

"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

Too late, Senator -- you and your party already have played chicken with the troops on the ground -- and your failure to send a clean bill to the President will result in a lack of funding as soon as April 16. So stop lying to the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not Fred Thompson -- Former Wisconsin Governor and Bush Cabinet member Tommy Thompson.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson on Sunday joined the crowded field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008. "I am the reliable conservative," he asserted.

Thompson, who was health and human services secretary during President Bush's first term, also said he is the only GOP candidate who has helped assemble both a state and federal budget.

Since announcing last year he was forming a presidential exploratory committee to raise money and gauge support, Thompson has lagged behind better-known rivals.

Asked Sunday whether he was running for president, Thompson said, "That is correct."

Thompson, 65, has focused his strategy on Iowa, which holds the nation's first caucuses for presidential nominees. He has made weekly visits to the state and sought to make the case that it will take a candidate who can carry the Midwest to win the nomination.

I like Tommy Thompson, and could see him as a potential vice presidential candidate -- but he has no more chance of getting the presidential nomination than I do.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.