Gee -- that didn't take long.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the longshot who had pinned his 2008 presidential hopes on a top-two showing in the Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll, has decided to end his candidacy, FOX News has learned.

"I'm outta the race," Thompson told MyFoxMilwaukee.com.

Thompson, 65, said he felt like he'd been hit by a Mack truck after hearing the news of his 6th place finish at Saturday's Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll, adding that his campaign was shocked after hearing the results. They were hoping for a top two finish.

No money and no support -- the kiss of death in a presidential race.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Mitt Romney wins in Iowa. But so did Mike Huckabee.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival.

Romney had been expected to win the test because he spent millions of dollars and months of effort on an event that was skipped by two of his major rivals.

Romney scored 4,516 votes, or 31.5 percent, to outpace former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who had 2,587 votes, or 18.1 percent. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent.

Announcement of the results was delayed for 90 minutes because a hand count was required on one of the 18 machines.

The biggest loser of the evening likely was former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who finished in 6th place with 1,039 votes. He had said repeatedly that if he didn't finish in the top two his campaign was likely to end. He left the event before the results were announced.

Now remember -- Fred, Rudy, and McCain all sat this one out, so a Romney victory was a given here. If anything, the diminished turnout and the fact that he didn't win more votes should be of concern to the campaign, though this is a clear win for the former Massachusetts governor.

Mike Huckabee was the surprise, though, coming in second place. I guess some of Sam Brownback's dirty campaign tactics have turned folks off, and we should expect to see him disappear from the campaign in relatively short order.

Tom Tancredo's fourth place finish seems to indicate more support for his position on immigration than it does support for the candidate.

Ron Paul failed to meet expectations set by his campaign.

"We expect to be in the top three," Benton said. "We've got four staffers organizing and we've got a lot of web site RSVPs from volunteers."

I therefore agree with Don Surber -- "If Iowa ever annexes Sim City, he has a chance."

Tommy Thompson is dead -- and I think he even realizes it now.

And the saddest outcome? Duncan Hunter's pathetic 1%, trailing even Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, neither of who competed and one of whom is not even a declared candidate yet. He's a good man and deserved better.

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

They keep saying they want to bring the troops home immediately -- but then outline plans that will keep us in Iraq for years.

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

As i look at these positions, I see a big problem (besides the duplicity) -- in addition to eschewing victory, each involves drawing down the force in Iraq to the point that it cannot defend itself and accomplish the mission for which it remains behind. If the Democrats REALLY believe that the mission in Iraq is hopeless and that troops killed there are dying in vain, why are they prepared to leave a force that is more of a target and less ready? Are the lives of those soldiers somehow less valuable than those whose sacrifices they are politicizing in the name of surrender?

Well, except for Bill Richardson, who proved he learned something while at the UN. Unfortunately, he took French lessons, and so proposes a strategy could be drawn from the French Defense ministry.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

In other words, "Throw down you weapons and run, boys!"

Of course, with the Surge working, I wonder how many of these Democrats will embrace it as their own invention in the coming months, just as they did the original use of force in 2003. After all, the only victory they care about is their own political victory -- and winning or losing in Iraq doesn't matter to them at all.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, 123beta, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Public Domain Clip Art, CounterCulture, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 7 kb.

It is clearly unequal justice for similar crimes.

After all, look at these two incidents.

Such a brutal crime was unusual, but not unheard of, in Laramie, Wyo. The victim had spent the evening drinking in a bar and accepted a ride from a stranger. It would be the victim's last. The victim would be assaulted and then left outside of town on the prairie on a cold night — to die. No one would find the victim until the next day. The attacker, who was on drugs, had left his child and the child's mother at home.

Hold it, you are probably thinking -- there is only one crime mentioned there.

Well, sort of.

You see, there are actually two crimes described there -- virtually identical -- that happened three months apart in Laramie, Wyoming. Everybody knows about the Matthew Shepard murder (a despicable act of evil by lowlife scum) -- but they don't know about the killing of Cindy Dixon three months later in a similar manner.

The punishment for the two men who killed Matthew Shepard was life in prison. The killing of Cindy Dixon netted her killer 4-to-9 years for manslaughter.

We know what the difference was -- one was a member of a designated protected class and the other wasn't. Even the added aggravating factor of the sexual assault of Cindy Dixon by her killer failed to get her justice equal to that given for the murder of Matthew Shepherd.

We are a nation that professes to believe in equality. Our Constitution mandates equal protection of the laws. But where is that equal protection when similar crimes result in disparate sentences because the death of one victim is deemed more heinous because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual identity? Why shouldn't the Cindy Dixons of the world get the same sort of consideration as the Matthew Shepherds?

Oh, and let's not forget that these two crimes show the evil of such disparate impact of the law in another way, too. Cindy Dixon's son will see his mother's rapist and killer walk out of prison a free man while that son, Russell Henderson, will do life for the remarkably similar murder of Matthew Shepherd because that murder is deemed a "hate crime". Tell me -- where is the justice there? Why should the law deem the life of Cindy Dixon to be any less valuable than that of Matthew Shepherd?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , CounterCulture, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 6 kb.

We've seen plenty of attacks on the spouses of GOP candidates recently -- and a recent effort to undermine a GOP candidate because of his daughter's MySpace page appeared to support another candidate. Now it appears that the MSM is out to make a scandal of the fact that the Romney family is supporting -- Mitt Romney!

They have driven here from California, Ohio, Canada or Texas, while others have flown from Michigan, Utah or Florida. There are aunts, uncles, cousins, second cousins, in-laws, nieces, nephews and grandchildren.

At last count, 96 members of the Romney clan, a veritable army, have arrived here over the last few days to help out at SaturdayÂ’s Republican straw poll, bolstering what is already a huge ground operation for the event that far outstrips the efforts of any other campaign.

Leading the shock troops will be Mr. RomneyÂ’s five adult sons, who have come to occupy an increasingly prominent place in their fatherÂ’s campaign, giving speeches, holding fund-raisers, blogging and even weighing in on strategy, all the while helping their father paint a not-so-subtle contrast to some of his leading Republican rivals.

"Shock troops"? I'm curious -- the Kennedy Klan has been deploying for family campaigns for decades. Has the New York Times ever described them "shock troops"? And, of course, the Times finds it important to get in this week's MSM talking point about the lack of military service by the Romney sons, despite the fact that the only two candidates with children in the military are John McCain and Duncan Hunter. I doubt we will get similar coverage of Chelsea Clinton's six-figure sinecure working for friends of her parents.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this article didn't try to make much of century-old polygamous ancestors to make the story even more sordid. Maybe they are saving that for after the Romney victory in the Iowa straw poll.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , CounterCulture, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 6 kb.

Some people are just scum -- take this Democrat lawyer who has set up a Fred Thompson smear site trying to link him to racist groups.

It doesn't take long for provocateurs to crawl out of the woodwork to attack candidates, especially in stealth attacks. With Fred Thompson, they've apparently started before he officially enters the race -- and in one case, race is the operative word. Apparently hoping to confuse web surfers looking for Fred's website at www.imwithfred.com, a new site has appeared at www.imwithfred2008.com -- only this site welcomes people to the Ku Klux Klan, "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!" It includes links to a variety of disgusting racist sites.

How do we know he is Leftist scum? Donations to Kerry, the DNC, and MoveOn.

Kudos to Captain Ed for uncovering this Democrat Dirty Trick.

Also covered at StixBlog, Blue Crab Boulevard, Blogs for Fred Thompson

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

George H. W. Bush left the White House under a whithering barrage of attacks from political and personal enemies who managed to destroy his credibility in office despite his many successes. And while I was never an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Bush, my admiration for him has grown over the years, especially during the decade I have lived here in Houston. You see, I have had the opportunity to see him (and his wife, Barbara) in situations where he is not "The Former President Of The United States", but rather as simply one more member of a diverse and vibrant community.

Take this spring, during RodeoHouston. My wife is disabled, so we often arrive early on evenings we attend the event so that we can get good parking and avoid crowds. One night we arrived to find the Lil' Rustlers activities for special children still underway on the floor of Reliant Center, with physically and mentally challenged children experiencing the thrill of participating in rodeo events with real cowboys and cowgirls. And at the end of it all, presenting them with gifts and trophies, stood the 41st President of the United States and his wife. Every kid got a hug and a photo -- and there was not a press photographer in sight, and no mention of it appeared in the media. Why not? Because that is the sort of people that the Bushes are.

Which leads me to this article on how a father watches his son bear the same burdens he did in the highest office in the land.

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain.

“I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here,” they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a political fund-raiser, or a restaurant dinner, a chance meeting on the streets of Houston or Kennebunkport, Me. They are, he says, just one way the presidency of the son has taken a toll on the father.

“It wears on his heart,” Mr. Kaufman said, “and his soul.”

God bless you, sir -- and your son as well.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, in my vocabulary the word to be banned is a synonym for the junior Senator from New York.

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.

And before you rabid liberals get all indignant, consider the rhetorical brickbats you folks direct at the President. Is mine really any worse?

UPDATE: Volokh may have the answer -- DOGGESS.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, I don't see this as much of a story.

There's one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can't count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter's. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

On her profile, she designates her political views as "liberal" and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.

In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site. But she didn't lock her profile, allowing any Facebook user with access to the Harvard or Trinity School networks (more than 42,000 people) to view her detailed profile. (As a Harvard student, I was able to see it.)

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News.

Caroline's Facebook profile does not reveal why she doesn't want her father to win the White House. She has not responded to e-mail questions from Slate.

You know, a 17-year-old's political views are really not something a put a lot of stock in, especially given that at 16 I was willing to support either Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy for President. At that age, most kids operate more on emotion and image than on intellect.

But I have two really simple questions.

1) Why is this being treated as a significant story by media outlets?

2) Given the acrimonious ending to her parents' marriage and Rudy's boorish behavior at the time and since, why would we expect her to support him?

Malkin agrees.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

This looks bad -- for both Spitzer and Cuomo.

INVESTIGATORS for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the state inspector general weren't given potentially crucial evidence - private e-mails from top aides to Gov. Spitzer - related to the explosive Troopergate probe, The Post has learned.

"It's a huge gap in the investigation," conceded a source close to both investigations.

Cuomo's probers, who eventually produced an explosive report showing top Spitzer aides used the State Police in a plot to destroy the career of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer), allowed the governor's legal counsels to decide what "relevant" e-mails would be turned over as part of the investigation.

Those lawyers - who instructed top Spitzer aides, including the governor's chief of staff, Richard Baum, and communications director, Darren Dopp, not to cooperate with Cuomo's investigators - turned over a small number of scandal-related e-mails from official state e-mail addresses, not personal ones, sources said.

However, Baum, linked to the scandal by e-mails sent to his official state address, has repeatedly used at least one private e-mail address to communicate with other administration officials in recent months, sources with ties to the administration told The Post. One source provided The Post with a private e-mail address containing Baum's name, saying it was the address Baum often used for official communications.

An e-mail sent by The Post to the address went unanswered.

Dopp, who was suspended after the Cuomo report put him at the center of the scandal, also regularly communicated with other senior members of the Spitzer administration by private e-mail, sources said.

Letting those who are being investigated decide what evidence to turn over -- and making no effort to get relevant evidence -- looks like Cuomo's office intentionally did a half-assed job to destroy Spitzer's credibility while not giving the GOP an advantage. At the same time, the failure to turn over these emails makes it clear that the Spitzer regime has something to hide. Could the whole Democrat establishment in New York be heading for a fall?

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (240) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, what else is new?

The current editorial laments alleged political prosecutions of Democrats.

Individual Democrats may be paying a personal price. Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor, was the stateÂ’s most prominent Democrat and had a decent chance of retaking the governorship from the Republican incumbent. He was aggressively prosecuted by both the Birmingham and Montgomery United States attorneyÂ’s offices. Birmingham prosecutors dropped their case after a judge harshly questioned it. When the Montgomery office prosecuted, a jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman of 25 counts, but convicted him of 7, which appear to be disturbingly weak.

The mere fact that he was found guilty of at least some of the charges seems to be irrelevant to the New York Times. The Times deems the case weak due to the acquittals, despite the fact that there was substantial evidence of Siegelman's guilt on even those charges. It seems that the editors believe that Siegelman should not have been prosecuted because it harmed the chance of a Democrat electoral victory -- corruption doesn't matter when your name is followed by a D.

And then there is this little example.

Georgia Thompson is a Wisconsin state employee wrongly put in jail on corruption charges by the Milwaukee United States attorney. Despite strong evidence that she was innocent, Steven Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson for corruption and got a conviction. The news hit shortly before a bitterly fought governorÂ’s race, and opponents of James Doyle, the stateÂ’s Democratic governor, used the conviction to attack Mr. Doyle as corrupt. An appeals court later freed Ms. Thompson, but only after she had spent months in jail.

Excuse me, but now the overturning of a conviction is proof that the prosecution was improper in the first place? I'm curious -- will that be the standard now in all cases in which evidence of official corruption is alleged? In all cases?

Frankly, I'm surprised that the paper hasn't taken a stand agaisnt the William jefferson investigation.

And they fail to note that the same Bush Administration Justice Department has been aggressive in prosecuting GOP politicians. Acknowledging that would completely undermine the dastardly conspiracy theory that the Times spins.

But I like this conclusion.

If Americans are being put in jail for political reasons, Congress must put a stop to it.

Hey, New York Times -- we'll be able to take this editorial much more seriously when you call for the dropping of all charges against Tom DeLay, and the disbarment of rogue partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle, whose actions reek of partisanship even more than the cases you point to.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

The new legislation granting expanded wiretapping powers for national security purposes has passed after Democratic delaying tactics -- but it is only a temporary fix to a bigger issue.

The House late Saturday night approved the Republican version of a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 227-183, with most Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting the bill.

The White-House backed legislation closes what the Bush administration has called critical gaps in U.S. intelligence capability by expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

Lawmakers have been scrambling to pass a bill acceptable to the White House before they leave for a monthlong summer recess.

President Bush had threatened to veto any bill that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said did not meet his needs.

The Senate approved its Republican-sponsored bill Friday night. Immediately after that vote, a Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority.

Saturday night's vote followed fireworks in the House, where an angry group of Republicans accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of delaying a vote on the bill, the president's legislative priority.

"Last night, the Senate passed this bill at about 9:30. Now it's almost 1 o'clock. We should have had the FISA bill on the floor the first thing this morning," Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan told reporters in the early afternoon.

"We could have passed a rule and passed this bill by 11 o'clock this morning, and it could have been on its way, and the president could have signed it," said Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Now this legislation expires in six months -- enough time to allow for Congress to re-write the FISA law to meet with today's technological realities. This comes on the heels of a ruling by a FISA judge that the law forbids the interception of any call that passes through equipment based in the US, even if it is between two individuals located outside of the United States. Under that ruling, a call that originated in Canada and ended in Pakistan would be considered a domestic call under the previous FISA regulations if it passed through a server or transmitting station located in San Francisco -- or one that began in the Philippines and ended in Malaysia would be a domestic call if it passed through the US territory of Guam. I won't even get into the question of emails communications that are hosted by a US server like those of Yahoo, AOL, or Gmail. Simply put, telecommunications technology has outstripped the old law.

Personally, I believe that the precedent in the Truong case needs to be followed here -- national security and foreign intelligence surveillance does not need a warrant, but such information cannot be used for criminal prosecutions.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

Remember -- a tax on oil companies translates to a tax on you, because such costs of doing business are factored into the price of products.

Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And the future is higher taxes, higher spending, and higher prices. Sounds like a return to the failed Democrat policies of the past.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

He's planning a purge of the Democrats, forcing out anyone who does not hold to the "progressive" philosophy found on his site and among the nut-roots.

And as Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, AKA “Kos,” made crystal clear at a press conference this afternoon, the battle will not only be against Republicans, but also against Democrats who need to be “cleansed” from the party. Kos didn’t name any names, saying we will find out “soon enough” which Democrats would be targeted for defeat in the primaries. But his message was clear; on issues near and dear to the hearts of the progressive on line community, Democrats will adapt or they will face the wrath of this new force in politics.

In effect, Kos has promised to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the netroots. And while many observers think that this would pull the Democratic Party too far to the left, Markos disagrees.

“There is no Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic party anymore. We are the center,” he said.

Got that -- if you don't fit in with the views I outlined in my piece on Rick Noriega, you will not be welcome among the new "progressive" Democrats. I guess we can define this as a vision of the Democrats as a "Small Tent".

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

And if they won't give to him, no Democrat should take money from them.

John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.

Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.

He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees — a worker at a local Fox station in Florida and two staffers from Fox Cable Networks — even though they are not executives.

Gee -- if FoxNews is so anti-Democrat, why are they executives giving to Democrats in the first place? If FoxNews is so hostile to Democrats, why haven't the Democrat contributers been fired? But John Edwards will show mean old FoxNews -- he won't take any money from any of their employees at all!

Proving once again that John Edwards considers Foxnews a greater threat to America than Osama bin Ladin. After all, he considers the war on terrorism to be a bumper sticker, but he's making the war on FoxNews a centerpiece of his campaign.

UPDATE: Well, maybe not all money coming from Rupert Murdoch's media empire is bad.

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money," said a statement e-mailed to supporters.

Not so fast, Murdoch's people say. His publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

"We assume the senator is going to give back the money from his advance," News Corp. spokesman Brian Lewis said.

Of course not -- he spent the expense money and took a tax write-off for donating the advance money to charity. What a hypocrite -- taking money from what he claims is a corrupt source AND using it to lower the burden of taxes he says are not high enough.

H/T Malkin, Captains Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins today points out some of the extremist rhetoric coming out of the founder of Daily Kos and his fellow bloggers there -- and pulls quotes that anyone who has ever visited the site should recognize as pretty mainstream there. I'm curious what Rick Noriega, newly-minted Kos blogger and honored guest at the Yearly Kos convention, thinks about this stuff.

Most notoriously, the founder of the Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, wrote this about American contractors who were murdered in Iraq and had their bodies desecrated,

"...I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

When you see that sort of hostility towards people risking their lives in Iraq from the man running the Daily Kos, is it any surprise that other diarists on that blog have penned commentary like this,

"Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul. On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed." -- Populist Party

"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think theyÂ’re a bunch of idiots. I also think theyÂ’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded." -- AWhitneyBrown

"We need to lose this war and not start the next one so that we can remain a free people. Diminished on the world stage? Perhaps, like Great Britain was diminished when it surrendered its colonial empire. But free." -- bluedogtxn

Why is Rick Noriega seeking the support of those whose response to the murder of Americans by terrorists is to say of the dead "Screw them"?

Does Rick Noriega believe that Texans share the believe that members of the military are among "the damned"?

Does Rick Noreiga support the notion that members of the US military are "a bunch of idiots" and "morally retarded"?

And most importantly for a man seeking to become a member of the US Senate (and a commissioned officer in the National Guard), does Noriega believe that the US needs to be militarily defeated by terrorists and diminished in stature as a world power?

These are important questions to be answered by the presumptive candidate -- at least some of which raise questions not only about his fitness to be a US Senator, but even his fitness to retain his commission in the National Guard.

And while we are at it, maybe Rick Noriega can answer some questions about these other fine members of the online community he has chosen to join, and who he traveled out of state to court in an effort to garner support from non-Texans.

Along those same lines, here's the sort of bizarre paranoia that regular readers of the Daily Kos are exposed to on a regular basis,

"If we do not wake up now and flood Congress to impeach the President and Vice President, one year from now, Daily Kos may be banned and Markos himself may be disappeared, in a federal prison somewhere.

Even as I write these words I feel like a wild-eyed nutcase. If it were not for the OH SO REAL danger this country faces in the next 15 months or so as the people in power see their own doom and are determined to prevent their expulsion from power by suspending next year's elections and declaring martial law WHEN the next 9/11 comes or events that can be construed as a national emergency to "justify" such actions, I would be holding my tongue and crossing my fingers." -- slw0606

"...Bush let North Korea get nukes in order to start an arms race in Asia. He did it so American weapons manufacturers will make money, like we do with Israel.

We need to start talking straight, people. We need to start being up front about what this is all about. We can't wait until Bush walks up and blows our brains out to call this what it is." -- Kosmo

"Was Pat Tillman killed on Cheney's or Rumsfeld's orders?

We must be ever vigilantly cynical regarding the bloodthirsty, money-hungry cut-throats in the White House because they never disappoint the rudest and crudest analysis of their active and ongoing conspiracies. The vilest imaginings of Stephen King is where these deceitful serpents dwell. Never make the mistake that you are being too cold in your analysis of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice." -- 3CCD

Now let's move from conspiracy theories to hateful extremism,

"Because filing briefs don't stop bullets, and when the ballot box fails us, we are not above seeing what's in the ammo box." -- pinche tejano

"And anyone -- Liebercrat or Republican -- who stands to oppose impeachment, conviction and removal should be tried for their role as accomplice in the sedition and treason against the United States." -- GreyHawk

"If the Democrats fail (to end the war), the only option left is revolution and foreign intervention. Tyranny is but assured because Congress cannot and will not exercise it's Constitutional power to end this fascist Coup d'etat." -- wolverine 06

Now as you read these quotes from the diarists -- again, not the commenters -- at the Daily Kos, it should bring up a number of important questions that never seem to get answered.

So how about some answers, Rick -- do you find yourself in agreement with these sentiments that find common acceptance at Daily Kos? Are the President and Vice President -- both men with strong ties to Texas who were overwhelmingly supported by Texans in two elections -- fascists who have engaged in a coup and are planning to imprison and/or murder dissenters? Do you believe that "revolution and foreign intervention" are necessary? Do you believe that the Bush Administration has ordered the murder of individual Americans? Do you believe that those who do not support such the bilge spewed by your Kos Kolleagues are traitors who need to suffer the punishment prescribed for that offense (which includes the death penalty)?

Again, I think these questions are important for you to answer before you stand before Texas voters -- after all, you have chosen to join this fever swamp of left-wing extremism and are actively courting their support. Do you believe such views are representative of those held by the people of Texas -- or that such views are even acceptable to the people of Texas?

But maybe more importantly, do you think that those who embrace such views by joining and seeking the support of those who express them are really fit for service in the highest elective offices in the United States? I'd argue that they are unfit for any position of public trust.

UPDATE: How sick are these people?

But hey, this is a tough crowd. Later in the evening, they booed Mother Theresa.

UPDATE II: Gee -- Rick Noriega really does embrace Kos!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Public Domain Clip Art, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1358 words, total size 12 kb.

Hey, I'm willing to let it slide that the Rick Noriega is too scared to answer a simple email from me about attempts by his supporters to turn his National Guard change of command into a political event.

I'm willing to excuse his staff adding my email address to their spam-ad list because they harvested it from the email Noriega is dodging.

I'm even willing to concede Noriega has no culpability when one of his supporters potentially violates the Hatch Act by operating a political blog supporting him (note that 2:37 PM time stamp on a Monday) on government time (and soliciting funds for him and other candidates) .

However, this is all we need to see to determine that Rick Noriega is unfit for any office -- Rick Noriega has kow-towed to the KOSsacks.

UPDATE: He also blogged on DailyKos -- meaning he is willing to associate himself with all the hate-mongers and conspiracy theorists there.

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 2 kb.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin doesn't care how successful the Surge is, nor how much political progress is made in Iraq. He's demanding that the war end now, no matter how well things are going in Iraq.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)

Even if Iraqi leaders return from a recess this month and make political progress before a report to Congress in September, it won't be enough to change Sen. Carl Levin's feelings about withdrawing U.S. troops.

Levin told reporters Wednesday that it is possible that President George W. Bush would use any political progress the Iraqis might make -- not to mention reports that violence was down in the month of July -- as cover for continuing a policy that saw him order tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.

For Levin, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would be too little, too late, even if the Iraqis returned from their August recess with "a different attitude" and began working toward benchmarks including regional elections, disbanding militias and other actions.

"That's not enough for me," he said.

It must suck to have your political future depend upon American defeat, Carl. Why don't you resign now, and let someone who loves America take your place?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 4 kb.

In 1992, one of the things that Bill Clinton had going for him was a wife who, by all accounts, was a competent professional woman. Democrats seemed intent on creating a virtual co-presidency, with Hillary presumably to have a leading role in the administration.

Why is it that today there are those so frightened by Jeri Kehn Thompson, and who seek to minimize her accomplishments with epithets like "trophy wife" and "child bride" or other insults? Could it be a bit of misogyny? A concern that a grassroots candidate like Thompson appears able to upset the best laid plans of GOP contenders for the nomination? Or is it a left-wing fear that this young, intelligent, competent woman who also happens to be quite attractive might be an asset to a candidate who can beat anyone the Democrats nominate?

Bob Novak takes on this subtle (and not-so-subtle) misogyny in his current column.

Murmuring about Jeri Thompson hit a peak July 22 on "Fox News Sunday," when the program's roundtable engaged in whimsical contemplation of debate between spouses of Democratic presidential candidates. "Well, first," said Juan Williams of National Public Radio, ". . . I think you should get Jeri Thompson in here, the trophy wife, right?" William Kristol of the Weekly Standard interjected: "That's unfair." Williams: "Unfair, unfair, I know, but --" Kristol: "It is unfair."

That ended the discussion. I asked Williams, a respected journalist, whether he regretted the comment. He did not, but he explained that he got the idea from a July 8 New York Times article by Susan Saulny. "Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?" she asked in the paper's Style section. "Subsequent to that," Williams told me, "I heard the same thing in conversation with people in other campaigns -- about her being so young, so attractive and so powerful."

The archetypal "trophy wife" (a phrase coined by Fortune magazine 18 years ago) conjures up the image of a rich corporate executive who tires of the woman he married when they both were young, whom he has grown old with, and turns to a young, chic new wife, usually seen as a home wrecker. Mrs. Thompson does not fit that mold. Thompson had been divorced for 17 years and was on friendly terms with his first wife when he married Jeri Kehn in 2002. They also have two small children -- not the trophy wife caricature either.

Nor does Jeri Thompson's background fit the caricature. After working for the Senate Republican Conference and the Republican National Committee, she became a big-time political media consultant in Washington. She has been intimately involved in the planning of her husband's campaign, including last week's staff shakeup. When Tom Collamore left as Thompson's campaign manager, he told CNN that he was "very respectful of the desire of Fred and Jeri to make some changes as they move to the next level." Those comments generated whispers in the political community that whoever ran this campaign would have to answer to the candidate's wife.

Competent, experienced, and beautiful -- that certainly puts her ahead of a certain Democrat seeking the presidency. And what's more, it leaves open the possibility that, following a successful Thompson presidency, we might see another Thompson seeking elected office -- and being a powerful figure in the GOP for decades to come.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 6 kb.

For a variety of reasons that do not need to be discussed, the Founders included in the Constitution the Electoral College. Usually unimportant, the Electoral College system does create the possibility (and has in more than one election) of the nation being governed by a president with fewer popular votes (but geographically wider support) than hid opponent. This is because of the custom of states awarding all electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes within their borders.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, currently do not follow this practice, but instead award some of their electoral votes based upon the results of presidential voting within congressional districts. Such a proposal is now being considered in California.

A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

Frankly, I'm opposed to the idea, based upon a reality of American politics -- the gerrymander.

Let's be honest here, both parties seek to maximize their political power in legislative bodies by drawing congressional district lines to partisan advantage. This could, in fact, make the likelihood of an Electoral College victory for the popular vote loser even greater than it is now -- because a majority of a state's electoral votes could go to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

For example, not too many years ago the congressional map here in Texas was drawn so that the Democrats needed only 44% of the votes cast to win 57% of the Congressional seats. Presuming that the presidential vote had mirrored the that outcome, the Republican candidate for president in that year would have received only 16 of 34 electoral votes. Multiply this effect across the 50 states and you can see the potential havoc this could cause -- and the incentive for even greater redistricting shenanigans.

Now I'm not one of those who supports the abolition of the Electoral College. In the past, it has served to legitimize candidates with a minority of the popular vote (Abraham Lincoln once and Bill Clinton twice) by giving them a clear mandate for office. It is, on balance, a good thing as it currently operates -- and tampering with it in this manner strikes me as unwise.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

We've struggled with issues of how the nation casts its votes since the 2000 presidential election, during which a few anomalies and a particularly close vote count allowed the election's loser (and yes, I do mean Al Gore -- read your Constitution for details) to cast doubts upon the integrity of the punch card systems that had been standard for decades in many regions of the country.

Optical scanners and computerized systems were presented as "the answer" to election integrity -- but over the last six years there have been concerns raised over the "black box" systems. Now, even the optical scanner systems have been cast into doubt.

Florida's optical scan voting machines are still flawed, despite efforts to fix them, and they could allow poll workers to tamper with the election results, according to a government-ordered study obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

At the request of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Florida State University information technology laboratory went over a list of previously discovered flaws to see whether the machines were still vulnerable to attack.

"While the vendor has fixed many of these flaws, many important vulnerabilities remain unaddressed," the report said.

The lab found, for example, that someone with only brief access to a machine could replace a memory card with one preprogramed to read one candidate's votes as counting for another, essentially switching the candidates and showing the loser winning in that precinct.

"The attack can be carried out with a reasonably low probability of detection assuming that audits with paper ballots are infrequent," the report said.

So, what is the solution? Do we rely on these new technologies, despite the flaws? Do we return to the punch cards, which had a relatively low error rate and are relatively easy to use? Or do we go back to hand-counted paper ballots, eschewing the technological fixes but introducing the element of human error?

No system is perfect, no system is fraud-proof, and no system will satisfy everyone. The question therefore becomes "which one will be seen as conferring the greatest legitimacy on the results?"

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.