May 31, 2007
Guess what? Earmarks are the hallmark of Democrat pork-barrel spending. Not only that, but they want to hide it from you.
Sailing into majority status by running against the GOP “culture of corruption,” which included charges of widespread abuse of earmarks, Democrats have since turned their backs on promised reforms and instead have adopted rules that guarantee a continuation of the practice.In the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has made it clear that anonymous earmarking will continue, as will the practice of including the extra spending in the House-Senate conference report — behind closed doors with no debate whatsoever on the efficacy of the earmark while the bill is under consideration on the floor.
Obey’s arrogant response to questions about abandoning a major campaign pledge of the Democrats? “I don’t give a damn if people criticize me or not.”
Guess what, America -- they didn't mend it, they didn't end it. Obey and the rest have said "Screw you" to the American people. There's no better example of that than the refusal to condemn Jack Murtha's threats against a GOP colleague for exposing his earmarks to the public.
Turn them out in 2008 -- and elect real conservatives who have been acting to end earmarks.
Posted by: Greg at
01:41 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
(, 
, 
,
On May 25, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney participated in a 23-minute interview on Radio Station WBAI. The hosts asked her about the possibility that she may seek the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008. She said, “With the failure of the Democratic Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Tribunals Act, I have to seriously question my relationship with the Democratic Party. The idea has not been ruled out. All the current Democrats running for president support the principle of potential military action against Iran; none of them is for impeachment of the President. They can’t speak for me. I am open to a lot of ideas in 2008.”
The Hit & Run blog over at Reason.com offers these questions.
Remaining questions:1: Would McKinney get more or fewer votes than Nader did in 2004?
1a: Would the Libertarian candidate actually win fewer votes than her? Her? Really?
2: Would a McKinney candidacy make the LP look, by the mainstream media's lights, like the serious third party?
My answers?
1. More.
1a. Probably -- she takes all the right positions for the netroots, and the LP voters can't stuff a real ballot box like they do for Ron Paul in online polls.
2. No -- because the MSM actually likes McKinney, while they find the Libertarians insufficiently socialist -- though they do like the stuff about legalizing pot and prostitution.
Perhaps we can get a Cynthia/Cindy ticket in 2008 -- I doubt that Cindy Sheehan can keep herself out of the limelight more than two or three weeks and this would get her a platform.
Posted by: Greg at
01:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
May 30, 2007
"Law and Order" star Fred Thompson will make his flirtation with a White House bid official this week, forming a presidential committee and launching a fundraising effort that could culminate in a formal announcement over the July 4th weekend, advisers to the former senator said.Thompson, who has been fueling speculation that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination with a spate of appearances and speeches around the country, urged a group of donors in a conference call yesterday to each attempt to raise a total of $46,000 from 10 couples starting on June 4, according to two participants in the call. Once the money begins flowing, Thompson will begin to hire a campaign staff and set up headquarters in Washington and Nashville, his advisers said.
The question is, of course, which staffers are not committed to someone else -- and which "names" will be jumping to Thompson from the other declared candidates in the GOP.
And the launch date for the "real" campaign? The Fourth of July weekend -- giving Fred one month to raise a substantial kitty. Expect him to make his announcement in Nashville.
The big question is -- who among the GOP leaders does this development hurt? Could it be Romney? Or is it McCain, whose political record is similar to Thompson's?
Posted by: Greg at
12:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
May 29, 2007
Cindy Sheehan, the "peace mom" who made headlines in 2005 by staging a marathon protest outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, said Monday that she no longer wants to be seen as a leader of the anti-war movement.In a 1,245-word missive entitled "Goodbye Attention Whore" posted on the liberal DailyKos blog, Sheehan said her campaign to end the war in Iraq had strained her relationship with her children, cost her a marriage and left her nearly penniless.
"This is my resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement," Sheehan wrote. "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."
Her sanity and dignity are probably two of the things Sheehan will not recover, having clearly been driven around the bend by her son's death. I don't hate her -- I pity her, both for the loss she has suffered and her inability to channel her grief in a way that didn't destroy her family and disgrace the sacrifice of her son.
But I will point this out to you -- the Democrats embraced her in an opportunistic fashion only, as a weapon agains the GOP, so the conservative suggestion that she was a Democrat tool was, in fact, an accurate one. Once she ceased serving their purpose, she was discarded. It just sort of goes to show you how committed to the cause of ending the war in Iraq they really are -- and how much concern they really ahve for the troops and their families.
Posted by: Greg at
05:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.
May 28, 2007
During the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged, and never presented evidence, that Libby illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. But now, Fitzgerald wants Libby to be sentenced as if he had been guilty of that crime.Libby is scheduled to face sentencing on June 5. In court papers filed last week, Fitzgerald argues that Libby should be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in jail — a relatively stiff sentence that is appropriate, Fitzgerald says, because of the seriousness of the investigation which Libby was convicted of obstructing.
During the CIA-leak probe, Fitzgerald looked into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. He did not charge anyone with breaking either law. But in his court filing, Fitzgerald writes that the grand jury “obtained substantial evidence indicating that one or both of the…statutes may have been violated.” Therefore, Fitzgerald is asking Judge Reggie Walton to treat Libby as if it had been proven that such crimes occurred. “Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court much calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”
As a basis for his argument, Fitzgerald is using a common legal distinction: It’s more serious to obstruct a murder investigation than a shoplifting investigation. The problem, for Fitzgerald, is that he never proved that a crime, as defined by either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, actually occurred. Now, he’s arguing not only that he proved a crime occurred but that Libby knowingly took part in it. The formula for calculating the sentence recommendation, Fitzgerald writes, “is designed to match the offense level to the conduct and result intended by the defendant.”
Absolutely outrageous. Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby with leaking, fought to keep him from presenting evidence that any disclosures were legitimate under the law, and hid the identity of the real leaker throughout the investigation -- ultimately choosing not to charge that individual, who was in no way influenced by or connected to Libby, and who in fact was an opponent of Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney. But now Fitzgerald wants to treat Libby like a leaker?
There is only one word taht fits here -- scapegoat.
Posted by: Greg at
11:10 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
Here’s a sign that full-bore preparations for the 2008 elections start when the legislative session ends later today: U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson of Stafford, near Houston, is letting it be known he’s not running next year for the U.S. Senate seat held by John Cornyn, Lampson’s political strategist says.Mustafa Tameez of Houston, a political consultant to Lampson, said this morning that Lampson, the Democrat who last year captured the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, intends to seek re-election instead—fully knowing that his district historically leans Republican.
A Senate bid is “not going to happen,” Tameez said. “It sounds goofy, but he feels like he made a commitment to the people of Congressional District 22.” Tameez said Lampson feels a Senate try would be “disingenuous.”
Tameez aired Lampson’s decision to stamp out speculation regarding a Senate bid. “We just want it to stop,” he said (unwittingly the desire of some observers of this legislative session).
So Nick is willing to actually stand and face a GOP opponent this time around? Should be fun to watch him go down in defeat to a Republican -- again. After all, constituents keep rejecting him when he has to face an opponent who is actually on the ballot!
And let there be no mistake -- there are several credible candidates out there, ready, willing, and able to write the final line of Lampson's political obituary.
Deluded Democrat reactions at Musings and BayAreaHouston (OMG-- have I actually linked to John twice today?)
Posted by: Greg at
08:07 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
May 27, 2007
In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”
The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going onÂ… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agencyÂ’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
Now Byron York points out the obvious contradiction here -- them memo clearly puts forward her husband as a candidate for the mission to Niger, though admittedly she was not the first person to raise his name. however, she is clearly pushing his candidacy here, advocating for him to be selected. How can this be squared with her sworn testimony that she did not recommend her husband? After all, she is clearly laying out her husband's qualifications for the role -- the day before the vice president was briefed on the uranium matter and asked the questions that ostensibly led to her husband's mission.
There is also evidence that she made contacts abroad with US officials in Africa seeking concurrence for her husband's travel -- only hours after the Cheney briefing. However, there is no way that her timeline can be jibed with the contention that the vice president instigated her husband's trip to Niger -- because it is practically a done deal when she sent the cable, and she had already been putting forth her husband as a candidate to seek information in Niger on the previous day.
Now this leads to a very interesting problem for Plame and Wilson. They are now seeking damages based upon true statements made by executive branch officials trying to correct the record after her husband's statements in the press. We now know that Plame lied about her role in selecting her husband -- and have since the original Senate Committee report was issued. The matter is new even clear than it was at the time. Should this evidence not be the basis for dismissing the suit? Furthermore, should this not be the basis for trying Plame, and perhaps Wilson, on perjury charges?
Regardless, it is clearly a basis for appeal on the part of Scooter Libby -- assuming the president is unwilling to immediately do the honorable thing and issue a full, complete, and unconditional pardon. After all, any misstatements on Libby's parts were not material to the investigation conducted by Fitzgerald, the actual leaker was never prosecuted, and the one individual clearly guilty of perjury is the so-called victim in the case.
H/T Ace
Posted by: Greg at
11:41 AM
| Comments (141)
| Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.
A longtime Clinton benefactor used corporate jets to fly the former president and Hillary Rodham Clinton on business, personal and campaign trips that a lawsuit brands as wasteful company spending.The supporter, Vinod Gupta, also secured contracts worth more than $3 million for
Bill Clinton to provide consulting services to Gupta's Nebraska-based company, infoUSA, from 2003 through 2008, according to the suit.Since 2002, Gupta spent $900,000 flying the former president to international locations on presidential foundation business and flying Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York, to political events.
The suit, filed by infoUSA shareholders last year, claims those expenses as well as millions of others unrelated to the Clintons were a "serial misuse of corporate assets and resources." The Clintons are not a party to the suit.
Details of the suit were first reported in February by The Deal, a business publication. Accounts also appeared in Saturday's New York Times and Washington Post.
These freebies have made it onto ethics reports and campaign finance disclosures. However, they do create an appearance of impropriety, because the Clinton sense of entitlement does not concern itself with little matters like appearances.
I'm curious -- will the Clintons provide reimbursement to the company at full cost if Gupta is found to have engaged in wrong-doing?
Oh, and one other question -- why did this story get buried in the Saturday paper on a holiday weekend by both the Post and Times? Is is an attempt to cover it up? And is it collusion to avoid embarrassing the former president and his presidential candidate wife?
In other words, there are lots of questions out there.
Posted by: Greg at
01:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.
May 24, 2007
Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.
Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.
Unfortunately, the leading Democrat contenders for the White House showed their unfitness for the position.
Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal."I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.
Supporting the troops by abandoning them -- an interesting concept. I guess they are more interested in the nomination that in principle or national security.
Though I will concede that they are not as unfit as John Edwards, who doesn't even recognize that the United States is at war with the forces of Islamist terrorism around the world, and who effectively denies the last 5 1/2 years (the last 15, really) of American history.
Posted by: Greg at
10:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.
Prodded by Democratic leaders and by freshmen elected partly on promises to clean up Washington, the House approved new ethics legislation yesterday that would penalize lawmakers who receive a wide range of favors from special interests, and would require lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they collect and deliver to lawmakers.Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.
The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of "bundled" campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. Yesterday's legislation passed 396 to 22.
"It is absolutely imperative that we break this circle of deceit that exists, that has existed, between lobbyists, their wealthy clients and this legislature," said Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), who helped rally support for the rules. In November, Space won the seat vacated by Republican Robert W. Ney, who had pleaded guilty to corruption charges.
The House in January passed rules banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists. The rules also require sponsors of pet spending projects, known as earmarks, to identify themselves and certify that they have no financial interest in them.
The vote to let Murtha skate, followed by his admission of guilt, makes it clear that this is nothing but window-dressing from the Democrats.
Posted by: Greg at
10:09 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
A former Democratic Party activist who left dog feces on the doorstep of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's Greeley office during last year's 4th Congressional District campaign was found not guilty Wednesday of criminal use of a noxious substance.A Weld County jury deliberated about two hours before acquitting Kathleen Ensz of the misdemeanor count. Her trial began Tuesday.
Ensz's lawyers never denied that their client left a Musgrave campaign brochure full of feces at the front door of the congresswoman's office. But they argued that Ensz was making a statement protected by free speech - the poop was a symbol of what she thought of Musgrave's politics.
"Her only intention of going over there was to make a political statement that Marilyn Musgrave's politics stink," attorney Shannon D. Lyons said after the verdict.
So letÂ’s get this straight.
Stuffing dog crap in the mailbox is free speech.
Presumably this also means that throwing dog crap at an elected official is free speech, despite my argument that such repulsive and disgusting behavior was criminal conduct, not free speech, back when I originally wrote about this case.
Gee – I can’t wait for Hillary to come to town!
Posted by: Greg at
12:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania sent a note of apology to Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan Wednesday, the day after a divided House denied Rogers a vote to officially reprimand the powerful senior Democrat.Murtha apologized for his "outburst" in a handwritten note Rogers received Wednesday morning, the latter's office confirmed. This marks his first acknowledgement of an episode between the two lawmakers on the House floor.
Last week, the powerful Democrat allegedly threatened to deny Rogers any future spending projects in defense bills after the Michigan Republican challenged his earmark request for $23 million to prevent the administration from closing an intelligence gathering facility in his western Pennsylvania district.
Republicans have called the tirade a flagrant abuse of House rules.
Members and aides on both sides of the aisle continued to speculate that Rogers or another Republican will eventually call on the ethics committee to formally investigate last week's flap, even after Tuesday's partyline vote to prevent debate.
However, Tuesday’s vote followed by Wednesday’s apology makes the duplicity of the Democrats really clear – and clarifies that their promises of a new tone were a lie.
Posted by: Greg at
12:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.
Rep. Jackson Lee also caused a few observers to scratch their heads when she opened her questioning of Goodling this way: “Allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they — your answers — be as cryptic and as brief as possible, however truthful, because we do have a shortened period of time.”
The woman is an idiot – but since she serves a racially gerrymandered district designed to put an African-American, no matter how incompetent, in Congress, we shouldn’t be surprised that she lives down to the level of Maxine Watters and Cynthia McKinney.
And interestingly enough, it appears that Congressman Keith Ellison may be giving her a run for her money in the idiocy department.
“So you all bypassed a chief of [the Civil Division] and went to somebody who had no experience in management simply because they were a liberal?” Ellison asked Goodling.“No, not at all,” she answered. “There were other reasons involved in the decision.”
“Now — “
“To clarify, we — “
“No, I don’t need a clarification,” Ellison said. “Thank you, ma’am.”
“Well, I would like to complete my answer.”
“Well, I don’t need an answer.”
Actually, that is probably true. After all, these hearings into the perfectly legal firings of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President are not about wrong-doing or oversight. Rather, they are about scoring cheap political points with pseudo-scandals and mini-gotchas. As a result, the actual evidence and testimony is irrelevant, for the conclusions were predetermined before the first question was asked. Ellison simply made the mistake of letting the cat out of the bag.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Here's looking at . . . me!, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, , The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
12:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 5 kb.
May 23, 2007
Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"
"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."
Maybe we can get registered Democrat Fred Phelps to start showing up outside Edwards campaign events. He can just make his signs read "John Hates Fags".
And Shrum also makes it clear that Pretty-Boy John is an intellectual light-weight with a temperament unsuitable for the White House.
While praising Edwards as a man of "many innate political gifts," Shrum says he hoped the senator wouldn't run for the White House in 2004: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."When Shrum called to say he had decided to join the presidential campaign of another former client, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edwards was angry. "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed," he quotes Edwards as saying.
Dumb.
Inexperienced.
Emotionally unstable.
That's John Edwards.
Posted by: Greg at
10:44 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
Guess what – his actions were legal.
President Bush found himself in a flap Tuesday about seat-belt use, a day after a federal agency began a campaign to encourage drivers to buckle up.Video cameras caught Bush without his seat belt while driving a pickup on his Texas ranch last weekend, giving a tour to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment in detail on Bush's driving habits but said, "We encourage everybody to wear their seat belts." He noted Bush was driving slowly at his ranch when the incident was taped.
On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began its annual "Click it or Ticket" seat-belt campaign, which runs through June 3.
Bush did not violate Texas law. "On private property, you're not required to wear your seat belt," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. She said "it's fairly common" in the ranchlands of Texas.
Mind you, I’m opposed to the nanny-statism that legally mandates seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and believe such laws should be repealed. That said, I also know the requirements of Texas law – and recognized immediately that there was no scandal here, because all such private farm and ranch roads are exempt under Texas law.
Posted by: Greg at
08:38 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
May 22, 2007
Decrying near-record high gasoline prices, the House voted Tuesday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.The White House objected, saying that might disrupt supplies and lead to even higher costs at the pump. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is the cartel that accounts for 40 percent of the world's oil production.
"We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of gas," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor, declared, reflecting the frustration lawmakers have felt over their inability to address people's worries about high summer fuel costs.
The measure passed 345-72. A similar bill awaits action in the Senate.
Why don't we deal with the real issues in the gas price crisis and allow for more exploration and drilling in areas closed by law, encourage the building of more refineries and the upgrading of older ones, and do away with all the special blends of gas required by government fiat. Those things would do more to end the upward spike than getting a non-enforceable judgment from a federal court.
Posted by: Greg at
10:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.
The netroots are, of course, frothing, as are assorted moonbats doing fly-bys on radio and television broadcasts.
I just wish they would remember -- there is no substitute for victory.
Posted by: Greg at
09:55 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
First, we learned that adult movie star Jenna Jameson supports Sen. Hillary Clinton’s run for president of the United States.Now, we learn that another, um, Taboo Titleholder backs the New York senator’s White House ambitions: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka, the “D.C. Madam.”
Yeas & Nays tracked down Palfrey following her appearance at Nathans of Georgetown’s “Q&A Cafe” Tuesday (where she told Nathans owner Carol Joynt that she's a “conservative Democrat”) and inquired into the politics of this former escort service owner.
Palfrey admitted that she’s pulling for Hillary in 2008. “I think she’s great,” she said. “She’s bright and articulate.”
IÂ’m sure that Bill is out rounding up support and contributions from such supporters with great vigor.
Posted by: Greg at
01:25 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
May 21, 2007
The Gonzales hearings have made plain for all to see that the highest law enforcement officer in the land is unwilling to tell the truth under oath. He doesn't recall, or he doesn't know, or he answers questions with questions, evading the issues. He can't remember his own name, his job title, details of meetings or decisions or strategies.
* * * Let's not be shy. Let's get the "I" word -- IMPEACHMENT -- out there loud and clear. Say it, SHOUT it -- it has a good patriotic feel to it. And yes, in fact, the attorney general CAN be impeached. It is legal, it is proper, it is time.
Here is your ammunition for impeachment -- a video, a petition, a whole campaign to get the House Judiciary Committee to launch this action, NOW. We and our friends and partners at Democracy for America want and need your help.
Don't just be angry, don't just be annoyed, don't yell at the ones you love. IMPEACH GONZALES.
Let's see -- these folks were quite supportive of a president who couldn't remember having sex with a federal employee in the office, using his office to actually obstruct justice, misusing FBI files, and other actual high crimes and misdemeanors -- but they are more than willing to go after this administration and its officials for firing employees who serve at the pleasure of the president. I guess though, that it is the party, not the facts, that matter to such folks.
Posted by: Greg at
10:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.
While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.
While the war may be unpopular, the cut-&-run-&-surrender proposals of the neo-Copperheads are even less popular -- especially when they are loaded up with pet pork projects. America wants victory -- and may get it, if the Democrats can beforced to continue backing down.
Posted by: Greg at
10:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico formally announced his candidacy for president here Monday, launching a bilingual campaign for the Democratic nomination that emphasized his Hispanic heritage, his extensive diplomatic and political experience and his knowledge of issues.Richardson, 59, the son of a Mexican mother and half-Mexican father, drew a large crowd of supporters -- and, perhaps as importantly, reporters -- to a ballroom in downtown Los Angeles for the announcement, which had been all but a foregone conclusion for many weeks. Richardson chose to launch his bid in California, the state where he was born, in part to attract as much media attention as possible in a race that already includes numerous high-profile candidates.
I don’t think that playing up his ancestry will work – as my students tell me, with a name like “Bill Richardson†they consider him to be just another white guy. I’m sure that reflects the view of their parents as well.
Posted by: Greg at
02:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico formally announced his candidacy for president here Monday, launching a bilingual campaign for the Democratic nomination that emphasized his Hispanic heritage, his extensive diplomatic and political experience and his knowledge of issues.Richardson, 59, the son of a Mexican mother and half-Mexican father, drew a large crowd of supporters -- and, perhaps as importantly, reporters -- to a ballroom in downtown Los Angeles for the announcement, which had been all but a foregone conclusion for many weeks. Richardson chose to launch his bid in California, the state where he was born, in part to attract as much media attention as possible in a race that already includes numerous high-profile candidates.
I don’t think that playing up his ancestry will work – as my students tell me, with a name like “Bill Richardson” they consider him to be just another white guy. I’m sure that reflects the view of their parents as well.
Posted by: Greg at
02:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1. Preserving and enhancing the legal-standing of the institution of slavery in the ante-bellum South against all humanitarian calls for reform;2. Extending the peculiar institution of slavery into Texas and Missouri;
3. Attempting to extend the institution of slavery into California, Kansas and other US territories and states;
4. Extending into free-states the slave-masters' legal right to retrieve their "property", escaped slaves. (Dred Scott);
5. Initiating the secession of the Southern states to preserve slavery upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican with abolitionist views;
6. Undermining the North's resolve to preserve the Union and emancipate the slaves (Democrat Copperheads);
7. Terrorizing freed black Republican politicians and voters during Reconstruction in order to ensure election of white Democrats;
8. Disenfranchising black voters to make the entire South a one-party state (Democrat), a political monopoly not broken until quite recently;
9. Via their control of Southern state governments, instituting Jim Crow laws in the 1880s and preserving them until 1965 (America's apartheid);
10. Governing the South in a manner that tolerated, concealed and surreptitiously-supported racial terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered southern civil rights activists;
11. Resisting Federal enforcement to end racial segregation as initiated by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.
If reparations are due for slavery and the subsequent failure of the promises of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to be fully realized by the freed slaves and their descendants, they are clearly the responsibility of the institution that committed itself to maintaining the subjugation of African-Americans for an additional century after they were emancipated through the efforts of the Republican Party.
Send all demands for reparations to:
The Dishonorable Howard Dean
Chairman
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Posted by: Greg at
02:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.
A group hoping to abolish horse-drawn carriage tours of New York will crack the whip on Boston if they persuade the Big Apple to just say nay to “animal slaves.”“These are two international cities that will get along just fine without carriage rides,” said Edita Birnkrant, New York City campaign coordinator for Connecticut-based Friends of Animals
“People only see the surface of it, where it looks so romantic. It’s a complete life of misery for a horse: noise, traffic, pollution. They’re like animal slaves. It’s their whole lives until they either die or just get too old or sick to work anymore. I’m surprised more of them don’t drop in the street,” she said.
One day these people will figure out that animals are not people. Or maybe not – they are liberals, after all.
Posted by: Greg at
02:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
May 20, 2007
I can tell you that Thompson will be making an announcement NLT the first of July. I have had one phone conversation with Thompson and I'm convinced he is getting in the race. Others who have talked to him are also convinced.
I know Jerry Patterson, and find him to usually be a reliable source and astute reader of the political tea-leaves. he wouldn't stick his neck out like this unless it were going to happen.
Posted by: Greg at
10:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a close Democratic ally whom Republicans want to reprimand for threatening a GOP lawmaker's spending projects.Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had "no idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
"What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.
"He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side," she said.
Murtha is a 35-year House veteran who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee on military spending. He is known for a fondness for earmarks — carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favored constituent group.
Three observations.
First, I thought the Democrats considered earmarks a bad thing -- but Murtha is the King of Earmarks. Was last year's campaign strategy a case of selective outrage at the practice?
Second, the House Democrats decisively rejected Murhta when Pelosi backed him for a high leadership post earlier this year due to the loud outcry over Murtha's sleaze. Does that sound like folks having high regard for him -- or her, as the new Speaker of the House?
Third, Murtha is n tape indicating his willingness to take bribes during the Abscam case -- and was even named an unindicted co-conspirator. Doesn't that give her any pause before she defends him?
Of course, since Nancy admits she really doesn't know what happened in the confrontation on the House floor, does her opinion really even matter?
Posted by: Greg at
09:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
Kucinich met her husband-to-be two years ago when she visited his office in the House of Representatives with her boss as a volunteer worker for the American Monetary Institute, an offbeat group dedicated to reforming the “unjust monetary system."It was love at first sight for both of them. Immediately after their meeting, Dennis Kucinich phoned a friend and said: “I’ve met her [my future wife].”
He was mesmerized to receive a business e-mail from Harper with her usual signature line from "Kama Sutra," one of her favorite films: “Knowing love, I shall allow all things to come and go, to be as supple as the wind and take everything that comes with great courage. My heart is as open as the sky.”
He proposed at their second meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., and they married three months later. The actress Shirley MacLaine attended their wedding.
“I knew at once I really wanted to marry this man,” Elizabeth Kucinich said. “When you know it, why hang around?” It was Dennis’s third marriage, but by the time he met Elizabeth he had been single for more than 20 years.
If Dennis were elected, they would make a great team, Elizabeth said.
“Can you imagine what it would be like to have real love in the White House and a true union between the masculine and the feminine?”
Well, they would certainly be more of a union of masculine and feminine than th last pair of Democrats to occupy the White House -- but I don't think we have to worry about the Kucinich family ever taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Posted by: Greg at
09:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.
Mitt Romney has sprinted ahead of presidential competitors John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in a new Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucus participants.The Des Moines Register poll shows Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, is the top choice of 30 percent of those who say they definitely or probably will attend the leadoff Iowa caucuses in January.
McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, nips former New York Mayor Giuliani for second place — 18 percent to 17 percent.
However, things could go differently if the list of candidates changes.
Other polls taken in Iowa this month, presenting a different lineup of candidates that included Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, have shown Giuliani, McCain and Romney bunched together. The former U.S. House speaker and former Tennessee senator have said they are considering presidential bids but have not taken steps toward running.
Rudy's abortion problem and McCain's immigration problem may be sufficient to give the nomination to Romney -- provided there are no significant new entries into the presidential race.
Posted by: Greg at
11:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
May 19, 2007
Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
Excuse me, but the single least competent individual to occupy the Oval Office during my lifetime was this pea-brained peanut farmer. After all, he decimated the military and our intelligence services, helped bring hostile regimes to power in both Iran and Nicaragua, presided over the worst economy in the last four decades and did such a poor job that the liquor-addled lecher Ted Kennedy even looked like a better choice to many of his fellow Democrats (and fellow Americans in general).
UPDATE: Great response from the White House.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
But then again, Jimmy Carter was irrelevant from about November 1979 onward, so I don't know that it would be fair to characterize him as "increasingly irrelevant". After all, his despicable abandonment of the Shah and his ball-less response to the Iran Hostage Crisis can arguably be seen as marking the start point of the Islamist reaction against America.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Colloquium, Jo's Cafe, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, Stageleft, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
12:06 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 5 kb.
May 18, 2007
Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.
I thought that it was only the top 1% of Americans who needed to pay more according to the Democrats. Looks like it is going to be all of us – and as I see it, my taxes will be going up a couple of grand. That’s OK, though – I’m sure we will be able to do without our medications until the middle of October, when this school teacher and his disabled wife will have finally paid off the additional taxes we owe for being among the super-rich who disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: Greg at
12:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
May 17, 2007
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened to deny any further spending projects to a Republican who challenged him over an earmark, his antagonist has charged -- a potential violation of House rules.Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) had challenged money that Murtha inserted into an intelligence bill last week.
Rogers turned the tables later that night by saying he would propose a reprimand of Murtha for violating House rules.
The Republican is planning to insert a transcript of their exchange in the Congressional Record to document the potential violation.
The privileged resolution will also require a House vote to reprimand Murtha for his comments, according to a copy received by Politico. Rogers is expected to file it on Monday.
It does not call for an investigation by the ethics committee.
Bravo to Rogers for bringing this matter to the public -- but it also needs to go before the Ethics Committee. And I'm curious -- will the Democrats show anything approaching the level of outrage they always showed over Tom DeLay? Or will they continue to accept corrupt members as they have in the past, even as they talk a good game about ethics while shielding them?
Posted by: Greg at
10:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.
Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law.In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.
"I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license," he said. "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize."
Why surrender the license? This makes it all clear.
In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft.
In other words, Sandy Berger didnÂ’t want to have to tell, under oath and facing penalty for perjury, exactly what he took and why.
Berger joins a long list of Clinton officials, including the former president himself, to have suffered the loss of their law licenses for criminal activities.
Posted by: Greg at
12:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
May 16, 2007
It’s a rough day for the idea that conservative talk shows are the home of “hate radio” if you were tuning in the day after Jerry Falwell passed away. Liberal talk shows are blazing with Falwell hate. In the first minutes of Tuesday’s “Stephanie Miller Show,” callers were saying things like “I hope his soul is writhing in Hell, and may Dick Cheney join him next week.” Another wished Falwell would be soon joined in Hell by “Pat Robertson and Bill O’Reilly.” Miller jokingly suggested she shouldn’t have opened the phones. But later in the hour, a self-described “militant homosexual” called to crack wise that he was eating “pagan babies” in celebration of Falwell’s death, and Miller suggested they tasted better when they were fried. She thought it would be funny if a conservative tuned in at that moment: “Right-wingers, this is satire,” she oozed. But it’s not pretty.
The only problem, Stephanie, is that your comments and callers donÂ’t meet the definition of satire. But the callers certainly do meet the standard for being called hateful -- and your egging them on makes it clear you belong in that same category. Would you consider such statements appropriate if the dead political minister were Jesse Jackson?
Posted by: Greg at
01:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.
May 15, 2007
At one point, one of Mr. Giuliani’s lesser-known opponents, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, gave what turned out to be a big platform to Mr. Giuliani when he appeared to suggest that the United States invited the attacks of Sept. 11 by having originally invaded Iraq.“May I comment on that?” Mr. Giuliani said, looking grim. “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”
Mr. Giuliani was interrupted by cheers and applause. “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that,” he said.
Ron Paul needs to get out of the presidential race -- and out of the US Congress. And not only that -- the GOP needs to put distance between ourselves and the Kucinich of the Right. I wonder how a resolution rebuking Ron Paul would go over at the next Executive Committee meeting.
MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Don Surber, Jawa Report, Chatterbox Chronicles, WC Varones, NeoCon Express, GOP3, Wizbang, Flopping Aces, WuzzaDem, The Hill Chronicles
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:55 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 4 kb.
Why the need to find someone to bash the Pope? Why not respectfully present the historical and religious event as significant in and of itself – perhaps even with a little bit of reverence? Because of a misguided notion of “fairness†as found in the so-called “Fariness Doctrineâ€, that’s why. Because of a government mandate that there be equal time given to different points of view, even the bigots need to be given their say.
Of course, advocates of this faux fairness would argue, equal time doesn’t mean that any old viewpoint needs to be given a chance to be heard on the airways. But as a practical matter, it will mean giving special prominence to “opposing views†that are outside the mainstream in the interest of making “good television†or “good radioâ€. We already see that, when Ann Coulter is used as the “conservative voice†on liberal shows. Rather than a thoughtful voice, we get screeching rants that contribute lots of heat and very little light. But at least Coulter has the advantage of being somewhat in the mainstream, as measured by book sales and circulation figures.
But imagine a discussion of terrorism. Will it be necessary for every discussion a bombing to include an apologist for Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda? And if the discussion doesn’t, has the station in question violated its obligation to provide balance? Doesn’t the Fairness Doctrine really do nothing more than create a new grievance class – in this case, marginalized terror supporters. Should the WTC attacks on 9/11 have been accompanied with the pious dronings of an America-hating Islamist to explain why our nation deserved to have thousands killed?
But the reality is that such extremes may still be left out, on the theory that their views are sufficiently bizarre to include. Instead, the new rules will be used to force conservative commentators to include liberal views – or broadcasters to exclude the conservative commentators that the audience has again and again shown that it wants. That isn’t fairness – that is out-and-out censorship. And it is the goal of those seeking to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatterofact, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 5 kb.
Why the need to find someone to bash the Pope? Why not respectfully present the historical and religious event as significant in and of itself – perhaps even with a little bit of reverence? Because of a misguided notion of “fairness” as found in the so-called “Fariness Doctrine”, that’s why. Because of a government mandate that there be equal time given to different points of view, even the bigots need to be given their say.
Of course, advocates of this faux fairness would argue, equal time doesn’t mean that any old viewpoint needs to be given a chance to be heard on the airways. But as a practical matter, it will mean giving special prominence to “opposing views” that are outside the mainstream in the interest of making “good television” or “good radio”. We already see that, when Ann Coulter is used as the “conservative voice” on liberal shows. Rather than a thoughtful voice, we get screeching rants that contribute lots of heat and very little light. But at least Coulter has the advantage of being somewhat in the mainstream, as measured by book sales and circulation figures.
But imagine a discussion of terrorism. Will it be necessary for every discussion a bombing to include an apologist for Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda? And if the discussion doesn’t, has the station in question violated its obligation to provide balance? Doesn’t the Fairness Doctrine really do nothing more than create a new grievance class – in this case, marginalized terror supporters. Should the WTC attacks on 9/11 have been accompanied with the pious dronings of an America-hating Islamist to explain why our nation deserved to have thousands killed?
But the reality is that such extremes may still be left out, on the theory that their views are sufficiently bizarre to include. Instead, the new rules will be used to force conservative commentators to include liberal views – or broadcasters to exclude the conservative commentators that the audience has again and again shown that it wants. That isn’t fairness – that is out-and-out censorship. And it is the goal of those seeking to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatterofact, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 5 kb.
May 14, 2007
The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.
A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."
Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.
Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.
Now given the constant cries of Democrats to raise taxes, are we to assume that they want the government -- and the economy as a whole -- to operate on less tax revenue? Or that they simply want to punish some folks by confiscating their wealth?
Posted by: Greg at
10:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 1 kb.
Rudy Giuliani yesterday fingered his former top emergency-management aide Jerry Hauer as the man responsible for the tragic decision to put the city's emergency command bunker inside the World Trade Center complex."Jerry Hauer recommended that as the prime site and the site that would make the most sense," Giuliani said on "Fox News Sunday," adding, "It was largely on his recommendation that that site was selected."
Giuliani was answering a question about why the city built the $61 million bunker on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center despite the 1993 truck-bomb attack on the WTC, even though Hauer - a Democrat who has since had a falling-out with Giuliani - had told him the existing facility in Brooklyn could be updated.
So Giuliani picked the option that was taken -- but it is the fault of the guy who gave him the options. What we have here is certainly not leadership -- it is an exercise in blamesmanship -- and not very presidential.
Posted by: Greg at
10:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce "in a matter of weeks" that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year."It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.
A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls -- former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- fall short of social conservatives' expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn't. "He's right on the issues ... He's better than all of the above."
Both the Protestant and Catholic activist, like other Christian conservatives, spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity.
They say their support for Mr. Thompson is shared by like-minded conservatives, though the sentiment is not unanimous in their circles. Many born-again Christians are said to be skeptical of Mr. Giuliani's views on abortion and same-sex "marriage," of Mr. Romney's change of position on abortion and of his Mormon religious faith, and of Mr. McCain's advocacy of campaign-finance reforms that restrict speech and issues-advocacy ads.
Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left.
I’ve been quite clear that I am behind Mitt Romney’s candidacy. I am generally supportive of his positions on the issue, find his explanation of his evolution on the abortion issue credible (it reflects my own, a couple of decades ago) and don’t find his religion to be troubling in the least. That said, I also find Thompson to be a credible candidate whose entry into the race could be sufficient to stop the two candidacies I find most troubling – those of Giuliani and McCain, both of whom I believe would lose if they somehow received the GOP presidential nomination.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.
Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce "in a matter of weeks" that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year."It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.
A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls -- former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- fall short of social conservatives' expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn't. "He's right on the issues ... He's better than all of the above."
Both the Protestant and Catholic activist, like other Christian conservatives, spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity.
They say their support for Mr. Thompson is shared by like-minded conservatives, though the sentiment is not unanimous in their circles. Many born-again Christians are said to be skeptical of Mr. Giuliani's views on abortion and same-sex "marriage," of Mr. Romney's change of position on abortion and of his Mormon religious faith, and of Mr. McCain's advocacy of campaign-finance reforms that restrict speech and issues-advocacy ads.
Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left.
I’ve been quite clear that I am behind Mitt Romney’s candidacy. I am generally supportive of his positions on the issue, find his explanation of his evolution on the abortion issue credible (it reflects my own, a couple of decades ago) and don’t find his religion to be troubling in the least. That said, I also find Thompson to be a credible candidate whose entry into the race could be sufficient to stop the two candidacies I find most troubling – those of Giuliani and McCain, both of whom I believe would lose if they somehow received the GOP presidential nomination.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.
69 queries taking 0.2841 seconds, 464 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
