Well, maybe that isn't exactly what she said -- but it is the only way this woman can plausibly claim she does not understand the conservative and Republican disdain and contempt for Hillary Clinton.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says "hatred" of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election.

"I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified," Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. "I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

Well, let's see.

HillaryCare.

Cattle futures.

Whitewater.

Gennifer Flowers.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Rose Law Firm.

FBI files.

Craig Livingston.

"I don't recall."

And I think that only takes us through 1995. Does any of that ring a bell, Liz?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 4 kb.

Is there no seditious extreme to which the Democrats will not go in an attempt to undermine the war effort for political gain?

Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP. He cited bringing up legislation after Labor Day that would require troops to have more home leave, forcing military leaders to reduce troop levels, a measure that has drawn some Republican support.

The Surge is working. Progress is being made. And yet we again see the Democrats seeking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in order to gain political advantage in 2008.

And let me be clear -- I know of no Republican who does not want the war to come to an end and all the troops brought home. However, speaking as the son of a Vietnam vet, I know that we want to see it done in a way that honors the troops -- and the only way to do that is to pursue a strategy of victory an success, not retreat and surrender.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

The waiting game is almost over. Fred Thompson will declare his candidacy for the presidency next week.

Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site, followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time; the global threat of terrorism; taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a statement Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.

Thompson, 65, is vying to be seen as the most consistent mainstream conservative in the race.

Aides disclosed details about how he will formally enter the race in a conference call with supporters.

Evening house parties will be held nationwide on Sept. 6. A tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will quickly follow the Internet announcement on http://www.imwithfred.com, with later stops in Florida, and a homecoming event in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., on Sept. 15.

Next Wednesday, Thompson will appear on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" but he won't participate with his Republican rivals in a debate that same night in New Hampshire.

Thompson brings to the eight-man GOP field a right-leaning Senate voting record with a few digressions from GOP orthodoxy and a healthy dose of Hollywood star power. He is hoping to attract conservatives who are lukewarm about the current crop of candidates.

I personally think it is about time that he make the move -- but that he should make the announcement on September 4 and participate in the big GOP debate on September 5. I don't think he is intentionally dodging that event, but it would have made for a great opportunity to place himself next to the otehr candidates at the start of his formal campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Or at least of the Second Amendment – they will continue to engage in absolutist idolatry of the First Amendment, even if it undermines the war effort.

As the Army's suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there's small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government's record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans' medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front.

If Congress can somehow guarantee confidentiality, I'd support this bill. But unfortunately, Coburn is correct in fearing that these records could somehow be abused . After all, I remember some 900 FBI files turned over to political appointees in the Clinton White House, the disclosure of top secret national security programs by the NY Times – and today's lead story at the Washington Post is all about a leaked copy of a classified report. Imagine the concern that this confidential information will get out and be used to deny veterans the right to own a gun!

I'll tell you what – I'll give up my absolutism on the Second Amendment when the New York Times gives up its absolutism about the First Amendment. Until then, I'll stick by the views of the Founding Fathers.

Oh, and I can't help but be struck by the ignorance of our founding documents exhibited in the editorial as well.

But that's to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Guys – that isn't a constitutional right. It is a statement of principles in the Declaration of Independence. My tenth graders even know that.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, DeMediacratic Nation, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 4 kb.

This really doesn't even rise to the level of a human interest story.

Karl Rove, your car is ready.

White House pranksters wrapped Rove's Jaguar in plastic wrap on the private driveway next to the West Wing. Rove's car is easily recognizable because of its "I love Barack Obama" bumper sticker and the twin stuffed-animal eagles on the trunk. Oh, and there's a stuffed-animal elephant on the hood.

Rove, the top White House political strategist who recently announced his resignation, left his car on the driveway while visiting Texas and traveling with President Bush.

He got back to the White House early Wednesday evening, ventured out to the driveway and — wearing a big smile — began unwrapping the car. Rove got some help from a few eager children who had come by the White House to watch President Bush arrive on the South Lawn in the Marine One helicopter.

Rove seemed to assign blame for the prank on Al Hubbard, the chairman of Bush's National Economic Council. He playfully pointed the finger at Hubbard while the kids ripped off the plastic wrap.

So what? What does this story tell us, other than that Rove has friends and coworkers who play practical jokes -- and not even particularly original ones?

Posted by: Greg at 09:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems to me that liberals just can't follow the rules that they insist be applied to the rest of us.

The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle's biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.

America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.

The group's big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union.

The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission's 33-year history.

I don't know about you, but illegal campaign practices seem a lot more important than Larry Craig's non-BJ. Which will the press cover extensively?

Seems to me that the bumper sticker slogan that the Democrats need is "Got Corruption?"

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep – that is the latest John Edwards mantra.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."

Doesn't Edwards often travel in an SUV? Doesn't he often fly on private jets? Isn't he the owner of a palatial mansion that uses a superabundance of energy? In other words, isn't John Edwards a carbon sasquatch?

I've never owned an SUV, and won't unless my wife needs one to get around in a wheelchair. But let me say this – I resent being called on to sacrifice by an individual who annually consumes more energy than I do in the course of 5 years.

MORE AT Captain Ed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that felons really are a Democrat constituency.

For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

Hsu has donated or raised over $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential run -- and over $1,000,000 for Democrats since 2004.

And Hillary's response to this?

"Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday.

"During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."

Could you imagine the outrage if this were a Republican candidate refusing to return funds raised by a fugitive felon? And given the unusual patterns of some of those donations, it is clear that there is a serious question about Hsu's integrity and his commitment to playing by the rules.

I wonder if the Clinton PardonMart is already open for business.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

The Firefighters Union has endorsed. . . Chris Dodd.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) picked up the first significant prize in the competition for labor union endorsements yesterday, winning the support of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) in what his advisers believe will be an important boost to his presidential primary campaign.

The firefighters count 281,000 members, meaning they are only the 10th-largest union in the AFL-CIO. But they are among the most politically active and symbolically prized labor groups in the country, in part because of the heroic actions of firefighters at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

Just let that one sink in. Chris Dodd.

That certainly makes me take them seriously when the union thugs in charge of this organization attack Rudy Giuliani. After all, if you want evidence of bad judgment, this endorsement is it.

Chris Dodd? Good God!

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

I condemned it when the Democrats did it. Now I fear that my own party may follow them in the same sort of mistake -- even if not nearly as extreme.

The Republican National Committee plans to penalize at least four states holding early primaries, including New Hampshire and Florida, by refusing to seat at least half their delegates at the partyÂ’s national convention in 2008, a party official said Tuesday.

Much of the focus in the primary scheduling fight up to now has been on the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s moves to penalize Florida by not seating its convention delegates because of the stateÂ’s decision to move up its primary. But the Republican rules are even more stringent, and the national party said today that it would not hesitate enforcing them.

I agree that we need to get a better hold on the nominating process, but disenfranchising the voters is not the way to do it. And make no mistake, that is what such penalties do.

To the legislators of the four states involved, I offer the same advice that I offered when the Democrats took action against Florida.

1) Deny access to the November 2008 ballot to any party which holds a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

2) Exercise its constitutional power to direct the votes of the state's electors by prohibiting the awarding of any of the state's electoral votes to a candidate nominated at a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

Disenfranchisement is wrong when the GOP does it, every bit as much as when the Democrats do it. I urge my party to pull back from the brink of a serious political and moral wrong.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, , Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 4 kb.

And they are all George Bush's fault.

Five years into a national economic recovery, the share of Americans living in poverty finally dropped.

The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200.

Individual earnings dropped for both men and women in 2006, but more members of each household worked, resulting in the overall increase in household income, said David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

Remember -- the burst of the tech bubble in the final months of the Clinton Administration, followed by the Enron debacle (caused by lax enforcement and supervision by the SEC during the Clinton years) and 9/11 (again, brought on by lax Clinton terrorism policies) led to an economic downturn in 2001 and 2002. Tax cuts brought us out of that slump -- the Bush tax cuts opposed by the Democrats. Had we followed their policies, we would still be in the midst of an economic depression.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

I frankly don't care whether or not Senator Larry Craig is gay or bisexual.

I don't even care if he attempted to solicit sex in a bathroom.

We determined in the 1980s and 1990s that sexual orientation and sexual misconduct are irrelevant to fitness for office -- and any Democrat who didn't support the removal of Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds from office has no basis for raising a fuss over Craig.

What I do find disturbing is the hypocrisy charge -- based upon the presumption of his sexuality and his positions on gay marriage and hate crimes.

I've been trying to figure out how to explain my position, but ran across something that reflected my thoughts in a manner better than I could express them.

The liberal view of homosexuality is based on two claims: an empirical one and a moral one. The empirical claim is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. The moral claim is that homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality; that a gay relationship, like a traditional marriage, can be an expression of true love and a source of deep fulfillment. Out of these claims flows the conclusion that opposition to gay rights is akin to racism: an unwarranted prejudice against people for a trait over which they have no control.

For the sake of argument, suppose this liberal view is true. What does it imply about the closeted homosexual who takes antigay positions? To our mind, the implication is that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices, which he has internalized and turned against himself. "Outing" him seems an act of gratuitous cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if one also claims to believe in the right to privacy.

According to the Statesman, the blogger who "outed" Craig did so in order to "nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights." But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.

Defenders of "outing" politicians argue that the cruelty is not gratuitous--that politicians are in a position of power, which they are using to harm gay citizens, and therefore their private lives are fair game. But if the politician in question is a mere legislator, his power consists only of the ability to cast one vote among hundreds. The actual amount of harm that he is able to inflict is minimal.

Anyway, most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.

Of course, liberals don't really believe that those who disagree with them are worthy of respect or rights. From Stalin's USSR to the Clinton White House to the local Democrat official who called for the murder of a prominent Republican for supporting the Iraq War, those who oppose the position of the liberal is seen as an enemy to be destroyed, not a fellow human being with a different point of view.

Some interesting takes on the Craig issue at Captain's Quarters, Slate, Lawyers Guns & Money, Talking Points Memo, Crossed Pond

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

Seems rather oxymoronic to me -- but then again, most anarchists I've met have been morons, so there's no surprise.

A group of activists who describe themselves as "anarchists and anti-authoritarians" will hold a private strategy session over the Labor Day weekend to discuss plans to protest at the Republican National Convention to be held in St. Paul Sept. 1-4, 2008.

The group, called the RNC Welcoming Committee, held a news conference on Monday at the Jack Pine Community Center on Lake Street in Minneapolis, where Bea Bridges, speaking for the committee, showed a video that hinted at confrontational tactics, read a statement and walked out, taking no questions.

It seems pretty clear they are planning violence -- like such anarchist groups do every time they seek to express their displeasure.

Captain Ed has a great analysis of this group and the article.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

A great many Harris County GOP activists became quite upset after last spring's bait-and-switch resignation of County Judge Robert Eckels and his replacement with Ed Emmett only weeks after Eckels had been sworn in for a new term of office. We have been looking around for a candidate that we could support -- one selected by the voters, not foisted on us as a part of an inside deal.

The day is rapidly approaching when our candidate makes his formal announcement.

Harris County District Clerk Charles Bacarisse is expected to announce his candidacy for county judge on Wednesday, ending months of speculation about whether he would seek the job after being passed over for it earlier this year.

Bacarisse told the Houston Chronicle last week that he had no plans to declare his intentions before Labor Day. But a close political adviser, Jim McGrath, indicated Monday that Bacarisse would make it official this week.

Asked if that was true, the district clerk hedged.

"I want to wait until I speak at the press conference to say anything, for obvious reasons," Bacarisse said. "I don't want to trigger the 'resign to run' provision until I trigger it."

Charles has done a great job in his current office, and has the skills needed to be a fine County Judge. He has been popular among Harris County voters, while Emmett has not been before the people for election in about 20 years, and holds his job because he was chosen by a constituency of one -- Eckels selected his friend and pulled the strings to get him selected.

Charles Bacarisse has my whole-hearted endorsement for the office.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

John Edwards has jumped on the defeat-at-any-cost bandwagon.

Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."

And Edwards kept insisting that there has been no political progress in Iraq, even as the Maliki government announced exactly the sort of compromises and steps forward that Edwards called a necessary step to stability.

Iraq's top Shi'ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.

The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States, which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands.

It seems that the Breck Girl wants to go down in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

And I don't doubt that Hillary will be throwing lamps at her husband again, this time for being off-message as she attacks the Bush record in the course of her presidential run.

In an interview for a high-profile magazine cover story just hitting newsstands, President Clinton offers praise for several foreign policy initiatives undertaken by President Bush.

Speaking with Condé Nast Traveler, Mr. Clinton lauds Mr. Bush mostly for decisions that involved overruling hard-liners in his administration.

"He has done three things that I think the world generally approved of: restoring cooperation with the Latin American countries, making a diplomatic agreement with North Korea instead of continuing to have a frigid standoff, and sending Americans to the conference to discuss the future of Iraq with the Iranians and the Syrians," Mr. Clinton said. "Those are, all three, things that signify we're trying to do better in the world."

The former president said more inflexible positions the Bush administration took earlier on those and other issues were the understandable product of the trauma America incurred on September 11, 2001. "It took us a couple of years to regain our bearings, and I think we have now," he said. "I think that we're getting our balance back."

Mr. Clinton also gave Mr. Bush credit for pressing for an end to the genocide in Darfur. "I think the fact that he's pushing really, really hard through the diplomatic channels on Darfur is a plus. People see that we're pushing harder than some of the other countries are to try to get an acceptable UN force in there that will save more lives," he said.

Clinton's rhetoric is so moderate that it can only further alienate the mouth-frothing leftoids that claim to be the new center of Democrat politics. Not only does he praise Bush, but he also praises Wal-Mart at a time that his wife is having to distance herself from the company. I don't see this as being any help to the Senator .

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

What can I say -- even when the New York Times explicitly concedes the legitimacy of the President's position on an issue, it still feels it necessary to delegitimize that position.

I mean, consider this in today's editorial on the SCHIP program and the new regulations put into place by the President.

There is a legitimate argument to be had over how far up the income scale the federal-state partnership known as the State ChildrenÂ’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, should climb. When it was created, the program focused on children whose family incomes were no higher than twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 today for a family of four. The goal was to cover the near-poor, who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance.

After all, who can argue with the notion that those intended to be helped by the program should be effectively served before it is expanded to cover others -- especially when the new "market" is the upper middle class, including families making over $82,000 a year (also called "the rich" by the NYT editors when they get a tax cut)?

Well, the New York Times, that's who!

Yet the Bush administration wants to return to a darker age. Its letter to state officials seems intent on virtually eliminating such coverage for middle-income children, or at least drastically reducing it.

In other words, the position advocated by the President (making sure the program fulfills its primary mission) is legitimate, but not legitimate because it is advocated by the President.

It must be so easy to be a part of th NYT editorial staff. You just need to see what W is doing and declare it illegitimate.

Posted by: Greg at 07:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

This is David Broder.

This is David Broder on drugs.

Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska, describes himself as a "tidal" politician, one who believes that larger forces in society shape careers more than the ambitions of individuals. "The only mistakes I've made," he told me last week, "were when I tried to go against the tide."

Today, that tide may be carrying him away from his Republican Party and toward a third-party or independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a development that could reshape the dynamics of the 2008 presidential race.

Any questions?

Where, exactly, would Hagel and Bloomberg draw their support? Neither has any significant GOP support. Neither would appeal to the Democrats. And third party/independent bids are generally insignificant things. Why would this one, with two politicians with limited national recognition, be any different?

Posted by: Greg at 07:16 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

In an attempt to control the primary dates of the states, the DNC has declared that Florida delegates selected this January will not be seated at the 2008 presidential nominating convention.

The Democratic National Committee, threatening to take the toughest line possible, voted Saturday to refuse to seat any Florida Democrat at the Democratic presidential convention in 2008 if the state party did not delay the date of its 2008 primary to conform to the partyÂ’s nominating calendar.

The committee gave Florida Democrats 30 days to propose a primary date that conformed with Democratic rules prohibiting all but four states from holding their primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5. But Florida leaders, who seemed stunned by a near-unanimous vote and the severity of the punishment, said they were doubtful they could come up with an alternative.

They said they were bound by the vote of the Republican-controlled State Legislature, which set the primary for Jan. 29.

Beyond what is emerging as a clear embarrassment for the party, the practical results of this dispute were unclear. To a considerable extent, it could prove to be little more than a reminder of how little authority the party appears to have over its nominating process this year.

It strikes me that the Florida legislature may need to take a firm hand in resolving this dispute. As i see it, they have two options.

1) Deny access to the November 2008 ballot to any party which holds a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

2) Exercise its constitutional power to direct the votes of the state's electors by prohibiting the awarding of any of the state's electoral votes to a candidate nominated at a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

The first of these might be subject to a court challenge, but the second is clearly within the power of the legislature to implement, and would not even require the signature of the governor to implement.

And I'd like to pointedly suggest to my own GOP that my proposal is not a partisan one -- they apply to any attempt to sanction the Florida GOP as well.

On the other hand, this does point up the need for some nominating structure that is more structured, more coherent, and arrived at through a process of consensus.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , , Stageleft, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, , The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 5 kb.

What else do you call Martin Lewis' direct call for the overthrow of the Constitutional principle of civilian control of the military by having a general relieve the President of his constitutional role of commander-in-chief during time of war?

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

That is, of course, a military coup and a direct abrogation of the US Constitution. The military is subordinate to the President.

What is most shocking is this disingenuous disclaimer.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY commandÂ…

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Now let's break this down -- he is urging the general to violate his oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution by preventing the President from exercising his powers under that Constitution, and to do so by illegally (indeed, unconstitutionally) using military force to that end. That would be unlawful, an insurrection, an act of mutiny, and, consequently, a military coup. And the call for a military trial of the President while he is detained under military arrest prior to and during a military trial is undeniably one which would interfere with the President's civilian duties -- one of which is to be the civilian head of the armed forces exercising civilian control over the same.

In effect, the author is calling on the general to dispense with the constitutional method of removing a president -- impeachment. Given that the House lacks the votes to impeach and the Senate lacks the votes to convict, Lewis is calling for the subordination of the Executive Branch to military control, but also the Legislative Branch. No doubt any attempt to use the courts to legally challenge this military coup would be suppressed, so we would also see the constitutional role of the Judicial Branch overthrown. Interesting how quickly this Leftist is prepared to dispense with the Constitution just to get rid of a President and policies he disagrees with. Who is the fascist?

Captain Ed points out a number of flaws, some of which I have touched upon.

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the presidentÂ’s election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isnÂ’t C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs — and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President — nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It’s what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

Lewis wants to turn America into just that kind of nation. His Bush-hatred runs so deep that he would willingly see the military take control over the federal government just to get rid of him. The Left likes to talk about supposed fascism among conservatives, but the Huffington Post is literally calling for a military coup to reverse an election, not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.

I'd argue, as my title suggests, that this post at HuffPo constitutes treason on Lewis' part -- and possibly on the part of Arianna Huffington for allowing it to continue to run on her site. However, Clayton Cramer suggests that it might merely be sedition, and points out that Lewis has taken a course of action that could legitimately lead to his imprisonment for the next twenty years.

OTHERS COMMENTING: Stop The ACLU, Hot Air, Blue Crab, American Mind, California Yankee, Sister Toldjah, Macker's World, Second Hand Conjecture, QandO, Say Anything, The Moderate Voice, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, J's Cafe Nette, Patterico, Rusted Sky. Old Controller, ShySpeak.net, Pal2Pal, Willisms , Pink Flamingo, Daily Pundit, Wake Up America, Hegemonic Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , , Stageleft, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1061 words, total size 11 kb.

Looks like the big announcement is coming VERY SOON.

A round of applause, please, for former Virginia Sen. George Allen, who finally got likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson to hint when he plans his big announcement. Filling in for Richmond's WRVA morning host Jimmy Barrett, Allen just came out with it, asking the Law & Order star what's up.

Said the Fred, who's been testing the political waters: "Well, the water is pretty warm. I like the temperature a lot." He also told Allen, "It won't be very many more days" before he declares.

During the five-minute chat, Thompson addressed the complaints that he is taking too long to make up his mind.

"This is not an attempt to be cute or game the system," he promised. Thompson said instead that he's just working on more of an old school schedule, when candidates didn't announce until the fall before the election year.

And he said that running for president isn't something he's planned all his life. "I'm doing in a few months what people have taken a long, long time period to do," he said.

It will be interesting to see how the announcement jumbles up the already tight GOP race.

Posted by: Greg at 03:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Proving that the Democrat legacy of hatred and violence is alive and well today, one local blogger and Democrat leader has called for a prominent Jewish Republican to be tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged like James Byrd.

And there is no question of my misinterpreting the post in question. Not with this title.

Time to drag Ari Fleischer out of town

And certainly not when it is combined with this conclusion.

The ads are running in states where Senators are possibly waffling on whether to continue to "stay the course". Nothing like using the war and our vets for political purposes. Someone needs to volunteer to give Ari, the rotten bastard, a ride out of town.

Behind the back of a pickup truck.

Sorry about the language, folks, John Cobarruvias tends to be a crude, profane individual. He clearly doesn't believe that his political opponents have a right to speak, and obviously isn't above urging/threatening violence to silence them.

Since John is a good enough friend with Congressman Nick Lampson to be admitted to his hospital room following heart surgery, I wonder what he has to say about such a close friend and political supporter engaging in calls for political violence. Why don't you call him and ask?

Congressman Nick Lampson
Washington Office Phone: 202.225.5951
Stafford Office Phone: 281.240.3700
Clear Lake Office Phone: 281.461.6300

For that matter, how about making a similar call to John's new best friend, Senate candidate Rick Noriega. Does Noriega support calls for dragging Jews and Republicans behind a pickup truck like James Byrd?

Exploratory Committee Office Phone: 713-921-7425

Political violence has no place in the American political system. That calls for such violence are coming from a Democrat leader is despicable -- and presents an opportunity for that party to prove whether it has really progressed beyond the era when it held on to power via the noose and the burning cross.

As an aside -- John makes an accusation about me here (note the juvenile name-calling) that is false and libelous. The comments in question raised the issue of his call for violence and a tendency towards anti-Semitism. He deleted them and then made the accusation -- but you know that had they REALLY been racist he would have left them in place, given his history of attempts to frame me as a hate-monger for opposing illegal immigration and jihadi terrorism.

UPDATE: Looks like John is calling for the lynching of more folks who disagree with him -- now he is going after Lone Star Times blogger/managing editor Matt Bramanti

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, CommonSenseAmerica, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 6 kb.

Within the GOP, there is a wide-range of positions on abortion. And while the official platform position is one supportive of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, there is a sizable group that simply believes that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned and the matter left to "the several states". This latter group includes folks who are vocally pro-choice and vocally pro-life, but who agree that the major flaw of Roe is its nationalizing the so-called "right to an abortion" in a manner that cut off political debate and imposed a "one size fits all" policy on a sharply divided nation. Such folks prefer that the issue of abortion be dealt with as a question of federalism not federal preemption.

Mitt Romney seems to have placed himself in this camp with his latest statements about abortion.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."

Some are going to accuse Romney of waffling on the abortion issue. I don't think that is fair, and believe that such criticism is coming from those who were opponents from the get-go -- both from the hard-core pro-life advocates who cannot be reconciled to his previous pro-choice rhetoric and the liberals who would never have supported a clean-living conservative Mormon under any condition.

Frankly, I fall into the same camp as Romney. There is no way that a Human Life Amendment is going to pass in the short term. And the legislative solution of a congressional resolution stating that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn would be legally weak and politically unsustainable as partisan control of Congress shifts back and forth. The best we who are pro-life can hope for is a situation in which we can fight and win the battle on the state level, with the ultimate goal of creating a political reality in which stronger defenses of the unborn can be enacted. That doesn't indicate tepid support for a pro-life position -- it reflects a reasoned strategy towards the goal of protecting innocent human life. And I say that as someone who has been involved in pro-life activities for over 30 years, including service as the founding vice president of the pro-life group at my college.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Nanotechnology Today, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Inside the Northwest-Territory, third world county, Right Celebrity, , The World According to Carl, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 6 kb.

Since we mentioned the reading survey, let's take a look at it.

One in four adults read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and older people were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven.

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

That choice by Bustos and others is reflected in book sales, which have been flat in recent years and are expected to stay that way indefinitely. Analysts attribute the listlessness to competition from the Internet and other media, the unsteady economy and a well-established industry with limited opportunities for expansion.

This reflects what I saw when I taught English -- the comment that stood out to me came from a student seven or eight years ago.

"Mr. RWR, books today are called movies."

Younger folks today have a variety of media sources for getting information and entertainment. At 44, I was raised with books and television. Those who are two decades younger have many more outlets vying for their attention, and the book is simply an archaic communication form for them.

The study notes that men don't read books -- something I have long found to be true, though I am very much an exception. Other than "purposeful reading" (work and education), I never saw my father read a book growing up. Mind you, he was a career military officer, and earned a masters and a doctorate during the latter part of his military career and in retirement, but I just never saw him reading for pleasure. Indeed, neither the book about a colleague's experiences as a POW nor Tom Clancy's jack Ryan novels interested him when I got them for him. In fact, the Clancy books went home with me in my suitcase three years later -- without the cellophane having ever been stripped from the boxed set. I think this is true of many men -- reading is a work skill, not a leisure activity.

But again, I will caution folks that not reading books does not necessarily translate to not reading at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

This headline looks just awful.

Book chief: Conservatives want slogans

Certainly more so than this one which would disclose more information

Longtime liberal pol: Conservatives want slogans

Unfortunately, the first headline is the one placed on the article, while the more honest one was left on the scrapheap along. I suppose that is because it would make the criticism much easier to dismiss.

Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

The book publishing industry is predominantly liberal, though conservative books by authors like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and pundit Ann Coulter have been best sellers in recent years. Overall, book sales have been flat as publishers seek to woo readers lured away by the Internet, movies and television.

I suspect that a lot of that has to do with what is being published today. How many conservatives have given up on the publishing world because of the amount of crap coming out? And I'm also curious how many of those conservatives have, in fact read a book in the last year -- the Bible, cover to cover -- but do not count it as "reading a book" due to its sacred nature?

Oh, and speaking of my personal habits, I certainly meet the conservative average of eight books.

Oh -- that was eight books a year. I'm sorry -- I've read that many from cover to cover just in the month of August.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, isn't a cut-off of 250% of the poverty line sufficient?

The Bush administration, engaged in a battle with Congress over whether a popular children's health insurance program should be expanded, has announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.

New administrative hurdles, which state health officials were told about late last week, are aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program. But Democrats and children's advocates said that the announcement will jeopardize coverage for children whose parents work at jobs that do not provide employer-paid insurance.

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level -- or $51,625 for a family of four -- must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state must also demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children's health insurance program or Medicaid -- a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

These and other steps must be implemented within a year, Dennis G. Smith, director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, advised state health officials in a letter on Friday.

As written, the current legislation could allow families making over $82,000 -- 400% of the poverty level for a family of 4 -- to enroll their kids in the program. And without the changes being implemented here, the law would also allow/encourage parents to dump the health insurance they are paying for through an employer plan and shift the burden to the taxpayers. After all, the reauthorization legislation will declare 75% of American families to be "poor" for purposes of the program.

Now, if we can just find a way to keep illegal immigrant kids from getting the benefits, eliminating one more incentive for folks to jump the border.

What I find particularly interesting, though, is that the Democrats are complaining that folks they call "wealthy" when they got tax cuts pushed by the Bush Administration in 2001 are now considered "poor" when the Democrats want to expand government-funded insurance. Setting aside the hypocrisy of the Democrats (which is never in short supply), could it be that they simply don't like folks to be able to choose how they spend their ow money, and prefer for the government to decide how to spend it for them?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hey Greg I've been to that site... nice. I know of a secret HAUNTED HOUSE backdoor that gives your a discount coupon. HA! It's right there in your face and nobody knows about it. Should I tell you? OK twist my arm.

Backdoor: Go to their homepage halfway down and click on the comma in the line that reads “Our Store now has over 14,000 masquerade items for you to choose from!”

...but shhhh it's a secret.
Susan

Posted by: Susan West at Tue Aug 21 17:06:22 2007 (wh2Cz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been waiting for this.

A liberal blogger has filed a federal complaint against former Sen. Fred Thompson, the actor and unannounced Republican candidate for president, accusing him of violating election laws as he ponders his entry into the race.

The blogger, Lane Hudson, submitted his complaint to the Federal Election Commission on Monday saying Thompson has raised far more money than he needs to explore whether to run for president.

Federal law allows potential candidates to raise money to travel, conduct polls and pay for other expenses related to "testing the waters" for a political campaign. During that exploratory period, a potential candidate does not have to file financial reports with the FEC.

The law prohibits anyone who is "testing the waters" from hoarding the money for use during his actual campaign. Potential candidates also cannot refer to themselves as candidates, can't run ads that publicize their intention to campaign or take steps to qualify for the ballot in a primary or caucus state.

According to a financial report filed late last month, Thompson had raised nearly $3.5 million and had had spent $625,000. Thompson must raise money within federal contribution limits and must report it to the FEC once he becomes an official candidate.

"We're following the law," Thompson spokesman Jim Mills said in response to the complaint.

Under federal guidelines, the FEC will now give Thompson 15 days to respond to the complaint. Following Thompson's response, election commissioners will decide whether to dismiss the case or investigate further.

I pointed this out when Fred's contribution numbers came our last month.

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.

I'm just surprised that it has taken so long for someone to file a complaint. I suppose this will help clarify the incredibly vague rules on such activities -- as well as making it clear that efforts to regulate political contributions are fatally flawed no matter what you try to impose beyond full disclosure.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | Comments (306) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, we've been told that the President's low approval rating is indicative that he is a failure. But if Bush has numbers more than twice as high as Congress, how can we argue that they are a success?

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has taken a small dip, dropping to 32% positive, down from 34% who gave him positive job marks in mid-July, a new Reuters/Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The survey also shows that the overall job approval rating for the work of Congress remains far below the President's, as just 15% give the national legislature a collective positive rating, up one point since last month. Changes in both the ratings for the President and Congress are statistically insignificant.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll included interviews with 1,020 likely voters between August 9-11, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

What i find really interesting, though, are these numbers.

Just 35% said they are pleased with current U.S. economic policy, but 60% said their own personal economic situation is good or excellent. Overall, 65% said they feel secure in their current jobs, and most are optimistic about the long-term future of the nation: 64% said they expect their children to have a better life than them.

More than three-quarters - 77% - said they feel America is facing threats from abroad, while 21% said they are not concerned about such things.

It is fair to say that the doom and gloom pronouncements of the Democrats have managed to convince people that our nation's economic policy is bad, despite the fact that they are finding their own economic status to be pretty good. Indeed, a closer look by these folks would probably force them to admit they don't know anybody facing serious economic issues (unless they bought too much house on too much credit using a gimmicky loan, like this WaPo reporter). And contrary to the notions promulgated by John Edwards, most Americans recognize that the Crusade Against Jihadism is not merely a bumper sticker.

H/T Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , The Florida Masochist, Wake Up America, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Public Domain Clip Art, Pursuing Holiness, Faultline USA, Stageleft, , Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 5 kb.

It's a cute stunt -- bringing in a waitress to give the Democrat's message this week. The only problem is that she betrays her ignorance as she parrots the Donk talking points.

A North Carolina waitress on Saturday lauded the Democratic-initiated increase in the minimum wage, saying in the party's weekly radio address that the extra money will have a ripple effect on millions of lives.

Fawn Townsend, a nightshift server in Raleigh, N.C., criticized Republicans for blocking efforts to raise the minimum wage over the last 10 years. The Democratic-led Congress approved the increase earlier this year and President Bush signed it into law in May.

"Millions of Americans now have a little more in their paychecks to help pay for basic necessities like food and clothing. And now more Americans can save to build a better future for themselves and their families," Townsend said.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says about 1.7 million people made $5.15 or less in 2006. The federal minimum wage increased from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour last month. Increases of 70 cents are scheduled each of the next two summers.

And I wonder what Ms. Townsend will have to say over the next couple of years as prices rise following these increases. Will she thank the Democrats for the inflation? Or will she blame greedy business owners (Dem code-word for Republicans) for daring to raise their prices to cover the higher labor costs? Or when she (or a co-worker) gets fired because the restaurant can't afford as many employees? How about when her employer closes because teh new, higher costs make him less competitive?

But there is more.

Townsend criticized Bush for threatening to veto a bill that would provide more money for the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate has voted to add 3 million lower-income children to the plan at a cost of $35 billion, and the House has approved a more ambitious and expensive version. Bush has proposed spending just $5 billion more on the program.

Yep -- now parents who make $82,000 a year and currently have private insurance for their children will be able to shift the burden on to the American taxpayer. Are these the "lower-income" families and children that Townsend thinks ought to be getting a share of the tax dollars taken out of her check?

In the future, Townsend said she hoped to attend nursing school — and she applauded Democrats for passing legislation to make higher education more affordable.

I encourage her to enroll in an Economics class, where she might discover hatt every time the government has acted "to make higher education more affordable" we have seen massive increases in college costs -- both because of the increased federal mandates on colleges and universities, and the economic reality that the cost of an item will increase to match the number of disposable dollars available to purchase it. That is why education costs have spiraled well-ahead of the rate of inflation for decades.

"I'm grateful that our Democratic leaders in Congress are taking our country in a new direction," she said. "They have accomplished more this year than Republicans accomplished in the past six years combined — including giving people like me a long-overdue raise."

Now that Townsend thinks that it is the place of the government to give her a raise, I also suggest that the take an American Government class along with that Economics class. That way she will read the US Constitution and will be shocked to find that nowhere is the government granted the power to raise anyone's pay, unless they are a government employee.

But she is right about one thing -- the Democrats have and will lead us in a new dircetion.

Towards higher taxes for all Americans.

Towards a substantial weakening of an economy that has grown strong under a GOP Congress and a GOP President.

And towards a surrender in Iraq and the Crusade Against Jihdism.

Yep -- they had to find someone pretty ignorant to deliver this weekly address. No one with a lick of sense would have believed a word of it.

Others commenting include Carolina Politics Online, The IDIOT, and The Media Blog. The last of these also notes that Fawn Townsend isn't some random waitress -- she is an activist with ACORN, a radical left-wing group that is noted for its efforts to subvert American elections through registering face voters and other sorts of election fraud.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , The Florida Masochist, Wake Up America, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Public Domain Clip Art, Pursuing Holiness, Faultline USA, Stageleft, , Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 7 kb.

After all, every administration has engaged in the sort of political calculus and activities that angered Democrats over the last several years.

Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees with senior federal officials, and held some political briefings for top Cabinet officials during the 1996 election.

But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.

Under Rove's direction, this highly coordinated effort to leverage the government for political marketing started as soon as Bush took office in 2001 and continued through last year's congressional elections, when it played out in its most quintessential form in the coastal Connecticut district of Rep. Christopher Shays, an endangered Republican incumbent. Seven times, senior administration officials visited Shays's district in the six months before the election -- once for an announcement as minor as a single $23 government weather alert radio presented to an elementary school. On Election Day, Shays was the only Republican House member in New England to survive the Democratic victory.

"He didn't do these things half-baked. It was total commitment," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), who in 2002 ran the House Republicans' successful reelection campaign in close coordination with Rove. "We knew history was against us, and he helped coordinate all of the accoutrements of the executive branch to help with the campaign, within the legal limits."

And while the Democrats are demanding investigations and shouting about possible Hatch Act violations, it thus far appears that Rove's work violated no law -- simply was more coordinated and more effective. Indeed, there is only one meeting which may have strayed over the line -- and the individual who did so was not even a part of Rove's staff.

Indeed, despite the tone of the article, the reality that comes through is that Rove's offense is not the breaking of the law, but rather his effectiveness.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems that Democrat Rick Noriega has a problem with Senator John Cornyn -- he represents the state of Texas the way that Texans vote.

From Noriega's new campaign video:

For the past six years, the junior senator from this state has merely represented the Administration. The other 23 million Texans need representation, too.

Well, let's consider how Texans have actually voted. In 2000, George W. Bush received 1.37 million more votes than Al Gore. In 2004, George W. Bush received 1.7 million more votes than John Kerry.

Now I don't know about you, but based upon those numbers, the people of Texas seem to have given George W. Bush a pretty decisive mandate in 2000 (59% of the vote) -- and increased that mandate in 2004 (61% of the vote). It seems pretty clear to this observer that John Cornyn has been doing precisely what we sent him to Washington to do with 55% of the vote. That is the essence of representation -- unless you are an arrogant liberal who believes that the voters are too stupid to understand who and what they are voting for, given the fact that Texans have not given a majority of their votes to a Democrat seeking the presidency since 1976.

Noriega's entire video plays to the Kos Klownz Krowd, not to real Texans.

CLOSING QUESTION FOR NORIEGA: Having attended a conference at which a member of the US military was silenced for saying that the war in Iraq is going well while wearing his uniform, how do you dare include so many pictures of yourself in your uniform while you do voice overs on political topics?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Pursuing Holiness, Stop the ACLU, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, Right Pundits, Blue Star Chronicles, Outside the Beltway, The Pink Flamingo, Right Celebrity, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 5 kb.

But being a liberal multi-millionaire means never having to say your sorry.

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

So let's look at this real closely. John Edwards preaches about compassion and helping the poor -- while foreclosing on Katrina victims and profiting from their misery.

Q: Has he no shame?

A: No -- but then again, we already knew that.

H/T Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 2 kb.

Her legal troubles marred the early months of her father's presidency. Now her marriage may be the highlight of the waning months of the Bush Administration.

Jenna Bush is getting married.

Is a White House wedding in the works? Jenna Bush, one of President Bush's twin daughters, is engaged to be married to her longtime boyfriend, Henry Hager, the White House announced Thursday.

Asked if the two were getting married in the Rose Garden, Sally McDonough, press secretary for first lady Laura Bush, replied: "They have not set any details, date or place."

Jenna Bush, 25, and Hager, 29, were engaged Wednesday in Maine, she said.

The two have been dating for several years, and Hager is often seen at Jenna Bush's side at Bush family functions and formal events, such as a White House dinner in November 2005 in honor of Britain's Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Here's hoping that America can put all partisanship aside and wish this young couple nothing but happiness.

But I would like to comment on what may be the most absurd and disrespectful attempt to take a shot at the President -- courtesy, of course, of the New York Times.

President Bush, who has been the sole male in his nuclear family with the exception, perhaps, of his dog Barney, will finally have a son-in-law.

WTF? That sort of lede really has no place in a story of this sort.

On the other hand, The Washington Post scored points with me with the anecdote they used to start this story.

Back in February 2005, Laura Bush was asked about the guy her daughter Jenna was seeing. "This is not a serious boyfriend -- I hate to have to be the one to say it on television," said the first lady. "But he's a very nice young man."

And one not easily dissuaded. Henry Hager proposed marriage to Jenna on Wednesday in Maine. She said yes.

Maybe I just a sucker for silly courtship stories. Or maybe it is the fact that my mother-in-law still has the letter in which my wife offers a not so flattering commentary on me after our first meeting -- two weeks before we began dating and fourteen months before our wedding. Persistence pays off.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, really?

Democrats seeking the White House have received more than four times as much money from some of the nation's wealthiest enclaves as party contenders did in 2003, an analysis of campaign-finance records shows.

The major Democratic presidential candidates have raised nearly $32 million from the 50 ZIP codes that were the top sources of campaign money in the first six months of the year, the non-profit Center for Responsive Politics found. In contrast, Republicans received $13.8 million.

The analysis for USA TODAY shows Democrats raised the most money in 43 of the 50 postal codes. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the top recipient in 28 areas.

In the first half of 2003, John Kerry, Howard Dean and other Democrats who ran for president raised about $7.7 million from the top 50 donor ZIP codes. President Bush, who did not actively raise money until May of that year, collected nearly $6 million in that period.

The trend in giving from such upscale areas as Greenwich, Conn., is another sign of the financial advantage for the 2008 election enjoyed by Democrats, who have outraised their Republican counterparts by nearly $60 million.

"There's a lot of pent-up demand by Democrats to win back the White House," said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Because fewer than 1% of all Americans donate to presidential campaigns, the contributions from tony neighborhoods also highlight the influence that a tiny fraction of people will have on the contest.

"In some ways, this 2008 primary season won't be decided in the heartland or the swing states, but in Upper East Side apartments, Beverly Hills mansions and Palm Beach villas," center spokesman Massie Ritsch said. The analysis also found:

•Donors living in New York's 10021 ZIP code rank first, providing more than $4.5 million. That's up from $1.2 million in the first six months of 2003, when the area also was the top source of presidential money.

Clinton received the most, $1.4 million, followed by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, with $941,000.

Investment banker Jewelle Bickford, who gave $4,600 to the former first lady, said Clinton's Senate and White House experience make her the best candidate to cope with the Iraq war: "My support for her is totally pragmatic."

•Areas trying to boost native sons have emerged as top money sources. Donations to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama made Chicago's Gold Coast area No. 17 on the list. The 60610 ZIP code didn't make the list in 2003.

Neither did Paradise Valley, Ariz., where Arizona Sen. John McCain was its top recipient with $275,000.

"It takes more money to run for president," said developer John Graham, who donated $4,600 to McCain. "Everyone has ratcheted up their efforts to help."

•Three of the seven ZIP codes where Republicans have raised the most money are in Texas. Giuliani, a partner in a Houston-based law firm, was the leading recipient in all three.

•Some areas with close ties to Bush are no longer top sources of donations. Among them: North Dallas, where Bush lived before he was elected governor of Texas.

Seems to me that the Democrats are actually the party of the rich and over-privileged. Wouldn't it be great if this money actually went to helping the poor, like Democrats CLAIM they want to do, rather than subsidizing multi-millionaires with no contact with the wants and needs of average Americans as they seek to seize power?

But then again, why would it -- these folks in the wealthiest zip codes are giving to those exactly like themselves. And the only individual who has a clue as to the problems besetting the poor is Hillary -- after all, she has lived in government housing for much of her adult life.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Thoughts, Public Domain Clip Art, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 6 kb.

First, they wanted to take away a worker's right to a secret ballot.

Now they want to require that employers recognize unions that represent only a minority of employees.

Seven labor unions asked the National Labor Relations Board yesterday to order employers to bargain with unions, even when the unions represent only a minority of employees.

This would be a sharp departure from current practices, in which employers are required to bargain with a union only after it shows that a majority of employees at a workplace support it.

The unions hope that such a change will make it easier to unionize workers. Today, 7.4 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions, less than a fourth of the rate in the 1950s.

Frankly, this notion is absurd. To require an employer to have different wage scales and benefit packages depending on union membership is unreasonable. And that is exactly what the result would eventually be -- because the next step for the unions is to demand not only negotiations, but binding arbitration or mediation with the employers.

Indeed, the entire notion that an employer has an obligation to bargain with a union at all is absurd -- after all, why shouldn't a business be able to look for the best value for his dollar by picking a different supplier? If he can do this with raw materials, he should also be permitted to do this with labor.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

After all -- if the country is in relatively good shape and the Surge is working, how can they run on a platform condemning the party and president that presided over all this good news?

How do you make a Cambridge liberal cry? Tell him some good news.

Mention the amazing state of the American economy - low unemployment, rising wages and record-setting per-household wealth - and heÂ’ll angrily fling his $4 bottle of Fiji in your face.

Show her the new NASA numbers debunking the “it’s the hottest decade on record” panic, and she’ll kick you with rain forest footwear.

Quote USA Today’s report that large al-Qaeda style attacks in Iraq are down nearly 50 percent since the troop surge began, and he may punch you with a “Peace Now” bumper sticker.

You wonÂ’t read it on the front of the Boston Globe-Democrat, and you sure wonÂ’t hear it from cranky Keith Olbermann, but there is actually good news in the world. And itÂ’s putting the left in a foul mood.

Take Karl RoveÂ’s resignation. After years of demanding the Evil GeniusÂ’ head on a pike, the Bush-bashers are finally getting a Rove-free White House. HeÂ’s leaving Washington, his reputation in tatters. Great news for the left - and theyÂ’re miserable about it.

The answer, of course, is simple -- good news for America is bad news for a party that needs things in America to suck in order to achieve success. It is why, for example, one local blogger who leads a major Democrat organization here in Houston spends much of his time arguing how bad life is here in Texas -- even as our population is growing and our economy is booming. Why? because anything else would call into question the notion that the Democrats have anything to offer the state or the nation.

It must suck to have to tear down your state and nation in order to grab hold of political power.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Karl Rove is leaving, but Condi will remain at the State Department.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to continue serving President George W. Bush until he leaves the White House, her spokesman said Monday after Bush's top aide Karl Rove resigned.

"The basic question is: Is she planning on sticking around? The answer to that question is, 'yes,'" State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

With Rove's resignation as deputy White House chief of staff announced Monday, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney are among the last of the remaining top officials with Bush since he first took office in 2001.

Rice became secretary of state in 2005 at the start of Bush's second term in office after being his national security advisor since January 2001.

She had not been spared criticism for her role in prosecuting the unpopular Iraq war, which has taken the lives of 3,684 American soldiers since the March 2003 invasion.

McCormack said that while Rice and other cabinet officials "serve at the pleasure of the president," the top US diplomat has "got a lot on the agenda" for the next 17 months, including grappling with the Iraq war, the Israel-Palestine question as well as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues.

"And she has a lot that she wants to accomplish on behalf of this president, on behalf of the American people," he said.

She's hoping to head back to Stanford in 2009.

But I wonder -- might we see the Secretary of State resign next fall to be the GOP Vice Presidential candidate? Or is this the signal that she will not accept such an offer?

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Hillary Clinton may get the nomination from the Democrats, but is she an asset to other Democrats seeking office? Many think not.

Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination _ despite privately held fears.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

And let's be honest here -- as polarizing as the President has been during his presidency, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have the same sort of effect. There is no candidate that the Democrats could nominate who would fire-up the GOP base to work against the Democrats -- and turn away independent voters in GOP-leaning states.

I really hope she gets the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 03:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

Whatever will the Democrats do with the Source of All Evil no longer in the West Wing?

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.

Mr. Rove's departure removes one of the White House's most polarizing figures, and perhaps signals the effective end of the lame duck administration's role in shaping major domestic policy decisions. Mr. Rove revealed his plans in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Mr. Rove, who has held a senior post in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.

Personally, this Republican is not sad to see Karl Rove go, nor do I think he is leaving too soon or showing disloyalty. Let's be honest here -- this is the time when Presidents get ready for the home stretch of their administrations, and if someone is planning to leave early the time to do so is now. Besides, an earlier departure would have looked like an admission of guilt in the Plame case or some other sign of weakness -- instead we have Rove leaving on his own terms.

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

I mentioned last week that John Edwards, despite attacking FoxNews and NewsCorp as enemies of the Democrats, had taken $500,000 in advance money and $300,000 in expense money to write a book.

Well guess where the $300,000 went --to Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan prince, and to the candidate's own daughter, Cate Edwards.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently defended taking a lucrative book contract from a publisher controlled by Rupert Murdoch -- whose News Corp. empire Edwards has sharply criticized -- by insisting that “every dime” of his $500,000 advance went to charity.

Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that MurdochÂ’s HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to EdwardsÂ’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.

The sums paid to Cate Edwards and Prince, who are listed as co-authors on the little-noticed 2006 coffee table book, "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives," have not been made public, but were confirmed by two sources with first-hand knowledge of the book deal.

Edwards demanded that all Democrat candidates return all money from Fox executive -- and even adopted a policy of not allowing any contribution from any Fox employee, no matter how low on the food chain. But until he demands that this senior campaign staffer and his own daughter divest themselves of the "tainted" cash, he is just one more liberal hypocrite.

Unless, of course, he is willing to fire Prince and disown Cate so that they can keep the filthy lucre obtained from the evil Rupert Murdoch -- but we know that isn't going to happen.

Oh, and for what it is worth, the whole book deal itself smells, given that Edwards received advance and expense payments that sales of his book never even remotely covered.

The book was sold to HarperCollins without an auction after that publishing house showed decidedly more interest than any other, a person familiar with the book's sale said.

The person said the Edwards campaign dealt with editor Joe Tessitore and HarperCollins President and CEO Jane Friedman (who didn't respond to calls and emails seeking comment), but never with Murodch.

The doubters, however, appear to have been validated by the book's sluggish sales. Nielsen Bookscan, which is thought to account for between 60% and 70% of domestic sales, reports that it has sold about 20,000 copies so far, and thus perhaps about 30,000 overall.

Publishing economics are notoriously murky, but with a cover price of $29.95, those sales might have earned back roughly $100,000 royalties, a fraction of the $500,000 advance, publishing industry sources said.

Indeed, the book's gross sales, at full price, would have roughly covered Edwards' advance and expenses -- and publishers usually net roughly half of that gross sum, and then pay authors a relatively small percentage of that net.

So Edwards, his daughter, and his staffer have received payments far in excess of the actual value of what Edwards' book -- and the contract for the book was arranged THROUGH HIS CAMPAIGN. Doesn't it therefore appear that Edwards used campaign dollars to feather the nests of a senior staffer and a family member, as well as himself? I wonder what campaign finance laws have to say on that sort of thing?

More At Malkin

Open Trackbacking At Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 6 kb.