Back during my seminary days, I had an old priest comment to me that we can never allow the best to become the enemy of the better. What he meant was that one should never reject a less than ideal option because it falls short of the ideal, especially when the remaining option is a bad one.

I wish someone would communicate this principle to these folks.

Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.

The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”

The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.

So let's see if I've got this straight -- the socially moderate Rudy Giuliani is so unacceptable to these "Christian" "conservative" "leaders" that they are prepared to usher in an administration headed by Hillary Clinton, whose positions are more liberal than Giuliani's are.

They would prefer judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to originalist judges.

They would prefer someone more likely to support gay marriage.

They would prefer an enthusiastic supporter of abortion.

In other words, they would rather support a perfect candidate than the best possible candidate that can win.

That position is not leadership -- it is petulant.

That position is not conservative -- it is reckless.

And I assure you that it is neither Christian nor patriotic, for it not only fails to advance the sort of policies that are in conformity with Christian belief and the best interests of the United States, but it will inevitably result in a worse situation than holding one's nose and supporting a flawed candidate like Giuliani.

And I say that as a Christian and a conservative who does not believe that Rudy Giuliani is the best that the GOP has to offer America -- but who does believe that he is better than anything the Democrats have to offer. And as a result, I will not let the best be the enemy of the better, and will support Rudy Giuliani if he is the GOP nominee a year from now.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

Will an unpopular Democrat at the head of the national ticket harm the party in many states? And could this help offset the difficulties facing the GOP elsewhere?

The New York senator and Democratic front-runner was by a wide margin the most unpopular of 13 potential presidential candidates in Montana, according to a June survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Billings Gazette; 61% said they would not consider voting for her, compared with 49% who would not vote for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and 45% who would not vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The most unpopular Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was rejected by 51%.

Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have found similar distaste for Clinton.

Got that -- the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority in several states. Even her two closest competitors (if she can be said to have any) are rejected by nearly half of voters.

And while there is a single Republican rejected by a majority of voters, he is still so unfamiliar to most Americans that further exposure can only help him, while Hillary Clinton is so well-known that it is unlikely that she can overcome these negatives.

Now Hillary Clinton may be our next president -- if one can project that outcome from over a year away from th election -- but that could be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. After all, if she has negative coattails for th lower part of the ticket, Democrats may fail to consolidate their hold on the Senate and House. Indeed, she could single-handedly destroy the advances made by the Democrats in some red states.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, he does have a point.

We canÂ’t afford to keep being this stupid!

He's right on that point -- and dead wrong on everything else.

We need to fight the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror much more intensively, not disengage. We need to quit pretending that jihadis are criminals who deserve a lawyer due process, and treat them like POWs who are imprisoned until the end of the conflict -- which may not come in my lifetime.

Friedman clearly wants to ignore the realities of the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror while raising taxes so that we can become another socialist "paradise" like the EU or Red China. I think I'll pass on that agenda.

But he's right -- we cannot continue to keep being this stupid. America must quit listening to nanny-state liberals and instead get serious about fighting terrorism, securing the border, and putting the socialist vision of the Left in the ash-heap of history where it belongs. In other words, we must do the exact opposite of what Thomas Friedman suggests.

MORE AT Stop the ACLU, JammieWearingFool, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden, Wizbang, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Ed Driscoll, NewsBusters, Freedom Eden, Riehl World View, Strata-Sphere, Wake Up America, Sister Toldjah, Chuch Adkins, Oxford Medievalist

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 3 kb.

The incredible Mark Steyn points out why the Left's tendency to engage in only easy, safe protests against easy, safe targets (the US, Israel) where human rights are respected is unworkable when they are confronted with true evil that doesn't give a damn about their eloquent (or not so eloquent) protests .

The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom. Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one.

In the end, unsavory dictators like Mahmoud the Mad don't care about the insults of Lee Bollinger or the cries of has-been hippies in the streets. They know that the latte-sipping class won't actually get their hands dirty to stop the evils they protest -- and that such folks quickly become the unwitting allies of evil when they turn upon their own countries for daring to act on behalf of freedom and human rights.

After all, why fight the real oppressors of the world when you can do this instead, risk-free?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm pleased to hear that Newt Gingrich has ended any flirtation with a presidential bid this year.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided Saturday morning not to run for president just as his staff was preparing to launch a website to seek $30 million in pledges, his spokesman told Politico.

Gingrich had planned to seek pledges as part of a three-week exploration without making any formal declaration of candidacy for the Republican nomination — an approach that several Republican leaders said was legally questionable.

The decision will bolster the contention of several key Republicans that Gingrich's repeated flirtation with a presidential run was a publicity stunt designed to keep him in the news and sell his books.

I won't go so far as to say Gingrich was looking to sell books -- instead, I'll argue that it has all been about stroking the former Speaker's ego. But regardless of the reason for his proposed candidacy, I stand by what I said earlier today -- Let's say it loud and clear -- Newt has all of Rudy's liabilities and none of his personal popularity with the American people. Indeed, his abrasiveness even turns off a lot of Republicans. So while he is clearly one of the leading minds of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich is clearly not someone who should be in the race for the nomination this year.

More at Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Captain's Quarters, RTFLC, American Mind, Wizbang

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

And hopefully he will lose the defamation case against him.

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

I've got a real problem with the argument Henault made on Murtha's behalf. There is a provision of the constitution providing some limited immunity to members of Congress, but I think it is important to note what it says.

Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives. . . shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Murtha's comments were not made in the course of speech or debate -- they were made in a press conference, off the House floor and therefore so not meet the standard for such immunity under any legitimate reading of the text. If the argument advanced upon Murtha's behalf were to be accepted, any statement on any political issue made anywhere in the US (or the world) would be magically converted into "speech or debate in either House" -- thereby turning this limited immunity into a license to go forth and commit defamation against any private citizen or political opponent under the rubric of "debate" on a political issue. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue -- in Hutchison v. Proxmire, it ruled that the Speech of Debate Clause is limited in its scope.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

The last thing that the GOP needs in the race for the 2008 nomination is another candidate -- and especially not one who is as polarizing as Newt Gingrich.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will open a website by Monday in an effort to round up the $30 million in pledges that he says would be his ticket to entering the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

A longtime adviser, J. Randolph Evans of McKenna Long & Aldridge, will hold a press briefing at 3:30 p.m. Monday in Atlanta to describe plans for what Gingrich aides are calling a “feasibility assessment.”

Aides say Gingrich will announce his intentions by Oct. 21, ahead of a Michigan filing deadline.

During a recent breakfast with a Politico reporter and other journalists, Gingrich made it clear he has given a great deal of thought to how he would run, starting with a national television ad that would be heavy on his policy ideas.

That might be followed with DVDs of his agenda to households in early-voting states.

Gingrich vowed that he would not participate in group debates like those that now sprinkle the campaign calendar.

“I’m not a penguin,” he said, referring to the field of candidates at the debates as “a row of penguins.” Instead, he said, he wants to hold one-on-one, 90-minute “dialogues” on such topics as fixing specific inner cities.

“If I did run, I wouldn’t do any dog and pony shows,” he said. “I’d debate anybody who wanted to for 90 minutes — one-on-one, for 90 minutes, in either party.”

Let's ay it loud and clear -- Newt has all of Rudy's liabilities and none of his personal popularity with the American people. Indeed, his abrasiveness even turns off a lot of Republicans. So while he is clearly one of the leading minds of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich is clearly not someone who should be in the race for the nomination this year.

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

When it comes to the question of granting commutations and reprieves in death penalty cases, the governor of Texas has very limited authority. On his own authority, he can only stop an execution once, and for a maximum of 30 days. Anything else requires an affirmative recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Parole to be legal. This is both statutory and constitutional law in the state of Texas.

But at least one Texas legislator doesn't think that a little obstacle like a constitution should be grounds for Gov. Goodhair to allow executions to go forward while the US Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case.

[Gov. Rick] Perry believes the fate of death row inmates lies with the courts, said spokeswoman Krista Moody.

"The governor does not have the authority to issue a moratorium nor does he believe there's a reason for one," she said.

Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, said Perry should issue a moratorium because the Supreme Court likely will grant a stay in every Texas execution until the Kentucky case is decided.

Whitmire noted that Perry, until overturned by the Legislature, attempted to use his executive order power to require teenage girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease.

"If he can tell a state agency to vaccinate people, I think he can tell a state agency not to execute people," Whitmire said.

Perry, of course, was legally wrong to issue his Gardasil order last spring, and and was slapped down by the Legislature as a result. That action was clearly seen as an overstepping of his authority. Doing so in this case would be an even more blatant case of exceeding his authority -- and would be grounds for impeachment. It is up to the courts to act -- and for the Texas justice system to continue to move forward if they do not.

Rick Perry is correct in not acting in this case. If a moratorium is truly necessary, he ought to call the legislature back into session to consider one -- and perhaps also legislation restoring either hanging or the firing squad as the form of execution in Texas, rendering moot the need for a moratorium at all.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 4 kb.

When it comes to the question of granting commutations and reprieves in death penalty cases, the governor of Texas has very limited authority. On his own authority, he can only stop an execution once, and for a maximum of 30 days. Anything else requires an affirmative recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Parole to be legal. This is both statutory and constitutional law in the state of Texas.

But at least one Texas legislator doesn't think that a little obstacle like a constitution should be grounds for Gov. Goodhair to allow executions to go forward while the US Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case.

[Gov. Rick] Perry believes the fate of death row inmates lies with the courts, said spokeswoman Krista Moody.

"The governor does not have the authority to issue a moratorium nor does he believe there's a reason for one," she said.

Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, said Perry should issue a moratorium because the Supreme Court likely will grant a stay in every Texas execution until the Kentucky case is decided.

Whitmire noted that Perry, until overturned by the Legislature, attempted to use his executive order power to require teenage girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease.

"If he can tell a state agency to vaccinate people, I think he can tell a state agency not to execute people," Whitmire said.

Perry, of course, was legally wrong to issue his Gardasil order last spring, and and was slapped down by the Legislature as a result. That action was clearly seen as an overstepping of his authority. Doing so in this case would be an even more blatant case of exceeding his authority -- and would be grounds for impeachment. It is up to the courts to act -- and for the Texas justice system to continue to move forward if they do not.

Rick Perry is correct in not acting in this case. If a moratorium is truly necessary, he ought to call the legislature back into session to consider one -- and perhaps also legislation restoring either hanging or the firing squad as the form of execution in Texas, rendering moot the need for a moratorium at all.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 4 kb.

About 2 1/2 years ago, Nancy Pelosi and John Dingell sent a letter to the President that read as follows.

April 20, 2005

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you know, gasoline prices have risen by an average 38 cents a gallon in the past two months. In fact, 70 percent of the American people have already said that the price at the pump is having an impact on their lives. We understand that the White House is feeling pressure from the American people to act, but misleading the public about the Republican's energy bill is not the answer.

In your weekly radio address last Saturday, you called on Congress to pass the energy bill and implied that the bill would lower costs to consumers. But your Administration's own Department of Energy studied last year's conference report on which this bill is based, and concluded that the Republican proposal would actually raise gas prices by 3 cents per gallon.

The American people deserve an energy policy that would boost the economy, preserve the environment, protect public health, and truly lower gasoline prices. This bill fails on all fronts. The Republican energy bill was written by energy lobbyists for the benefit of the energy industry, while hurting the environment, consumers, and taxpayers.

We encourage you to use your speech to the U.S.-Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to lay out an agenda that seeks to lower gasoline prices, not simply exploit them.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
John D. Dingel
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce

And two years ago, Dingell spoke on the issue again in the Democrat radio address.

We must respond to the needs of the American consumers who are seeing the prospect of $4 a gallon gas and $1,000 monthly heating bills. I promise that Democrats will keep fighting for constructive solutions to AmericaÂ’s energy needs.

Well, around here gas prices are hovering around $2.50 a gallon -- and they are higher most other places in the country.

What is John Dingell's solution? A 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline.

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

John Dingell has repeatedly spoken out against "price-gouging" by oil companies causing high gas prices, only to have every single investigation of those prices show that they were a legitimate response to market forces. So now what does he do? He proposes that the federal government perpetrate a little price-gouging itself to pay for programs to deal with the junk-science "problem" of man-made global warming. I guess that Mr. Dingell thinks that the government, which already makes more profit off a gallon of gas than the oil companies, just needs that extra 50-cents a gallon more than the American consumer does.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 651 words, total size 7 kb.

Supporters of Hillary ClintonÂ’s campaign frequently hearken back to Bill ClintonÂ’s Administration for clues about what her administration will be like.

But consider what this answer tells us.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) dodged a curveball thrown at her by moderator Tim Russert in tonight’s debate after she disavowed the use of torture against terrorists, even in extreme circumstances, only to be told her husband took the opposite position on Russert’s Meet the Press. “Well, he’s not standing here right now,” Clinton responded. The moment brought her huge applause, and her campaign promoted the clip as “Tonight’s Video Moment.”

So, she won’t be a repeat of Bill Clinton – and she is very correct to note that he is not going to be the candidate in 2008. Let’s hope the American people recognize that fact.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember that "one man, no vote" edict promulgated by the Democrats regarding Florida? Well, it should also apply to Michigan -- but the Democrats have made an exception to the rules on no campaigning in that state. What is that exception?

In one reluctant concession, the Democratic chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and that great American tradition, the Nevada caucus, are graciously allowing one exemption to the no-campaigning rule so the candidates can participate in a conference held in Dearborn by the Arab American Institute.

Are you following all this? HereÂ’s where we are so far:

Florida:

A) One man, no vote.

B) No talking to any Floridians who are not waving checkbooks.

Michigan: Both of the above, but Arab-Americans organized into a large conference are exempt.

So lets get this straight.

Florida, with its many Jewish voters, will be off limits to the Democrat candidates, and its voters will be disenfranchised by the DNC.

Michigan, with its many Arab and Muslim voters, will be granted a special exception to the rules -- and, I suspect, be subject to a lesser penalty so as not to disenfranchise those groups despite holding its primary two weeks before Florida.

Given the realities of the last six years, does it seem odd to you that the Democrats are prepared to accommodate a group that has shown great sympathy towards the jihadi cause while disenfranchising Jewish voters who are accused of having too much influence on American politics and policy? It seems to me that the disparity is objectively anti-Semitic -- and given the rhetoric that has come out of the pro-Democrat netroots and anti-war movement, that is a point that should not be easily dismissed or discounted without closer examination.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 4 kb.

Maybe, suggests Roger Simon at Politico.

There are two unbreakable rules for picking a running mate: Never pick anybody who might overshadow the top of the ticket, and never pick anybody you cannot completely control.

So Obama might be eliminated on both counts.

Then there is the Rule of Firsts. The Clinton campaign does not want to force too many “firsts” on the American electorate.

Electing the first woman president will be challenge enough. Electing the first woman president and first African-American vice president at the same time? Forget it; they donÂ’t need that kind of problem. (The same reasoning might prevent New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is Hispanic, from getting the vice presidential nod.)

Does this mean that only white males need apply to become HillaryÂ’s running mate? Probably.

Which is why Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, Sen. James Webb of Virginia, and even former Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri are all having their names tossed around.

Personally, I think there is a better reason to reject Obama -- his lack of experience. Hillary has enough of a credibility problem with some voters on that score (First Lady isn't a training ground for the Presidency), and selecting a national novice like Obama might leave the ticket open to questions about how qualified they really are. That is why I'd argue that Clinton might do well to go for a"double first" pick and tap Bill Richardson for as her running mate.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

These numbers sure look like it.

A brand-new CNN/WMUR poll finds her with a 23-point lead over Obama in New Hampshire (43%-20%). Back in July, her lead was nine points (36%-27%).

The question, of course, is this -- is the increasing lead a sign that Democrats have united behind her? Or is this limited to one state? And is this support stable, or is Hillary Clinton peaking way too soon?

Posted by: Greg at 10:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

I cannot disagree with this editorial in today's WaPo.

THEY SAY three times is a charm -- except when it comes to getting a common-sense bill through the Senate by unanimous consent that would require its members and candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. The latest attempt was killed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). At least he objected publicly.

Since April, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, has been trying to get the Senate to bring its filing system into the 21st century. Candidates for the House and for the White House have had to file their campaign finance reports electronically for years, as have political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. There is no good reason the Senate should not be doing the same.

Yet senators, particularly Republican senators, are blocking the innovation at every turn. The first two attempts at passage were beaten back with an anonymous hold. The reason was never given, and the identity of the objector not revealed, thanks to a fine Senate tradition. But after Congress approved the new ethics law last month, those who place holds on legislation must come forward within six days. Thus, Mr. Ensign objected publicly -- and offered a poison pill amendment.

Mr. Ensign wanted to add a provision to the electronic filing bill that would require an organization filing an ethics complaint against a senator to list donors who have given the group $5,000 or more. The idea deserves a debate in committee, as Ms. Feinstein offered. To try to push it through as a last-minute, non-germane add-on serves no purpose other than to kill the overall bill.

There is absolutely no reason that these documents should not be filed in a manner consistent with every other similar disclosure. My party needs to get out of the way and allow it to be done.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

This is one of the worst political moves that I have ever sen -- and it is quite unclear who is responsible for it. Rudy Giuliani needs to step in and quash this plan immediately, and disassociate himself from those who originated it -- or else appear guilty of the most heinous act of pimping the events of 9/11.

A supporter of Rudy Giuliani's is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign.

Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign's national house party night.

But Sofaer said he had nothing to do with the "$9.11 for Rudy" theme.

"There are some young people who came up with it," Sofaer said when reached by telephone Monday evening. He referred other questions to Giuliani's campaign.

"I'm just providing support for him. He's an old friend of mine," Sofaer said of Giuliani.

I'm sorry -- the symbolism here is atrocious. Yes, Giuliani has made the events of that horrible day a centerpiece of his campaign, but this simply leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Better that the party be canceled and the funds be unraised than this sick idea move forward and tarnish the Giuliani campaign.

UPDATE: Don Surer disagrees.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Kill the negative story about Hill or you don't get the promised story about Bill.

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s campaign for president learned that the menÂ’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So ClintonÂ’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaignÂ’s demands, which had been delivered by Bill ClintonÂ’s spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.

GQ writer George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa in July, and Clinton is slated to appear on the cover of GQ’s December issue, in which it traditionally names a “Man of the Year,” according magazine industry sources.

A couple of thoughts here.

1) Why would any media outlet be making Bill Clinton its cover boy in 2007 -- especially its man of the year?

2) What does this say about the Clinton machine's media manipulation strategy?

3) Would the media put up such manipulation from any Republican?

H/T Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

And here I thought the shelf-life of the Larry Craig story had expired with the arrest of OJ and the Britney custody saga. I guess not.

The prosecutor who brought charges against Sen. Larry Craig in an airport sex sting says he told the Idaho senator that he should hire an attorney, according to court papers filed Monday.

Prosecutor Christopher Renz, in a motion opposing Craig's request to withdraw his guilty plea, wrote that he spent considerable time in a July 17 conversation telling the Idaho senator how the legal process would work if he chose to plead guilty.

"The defendant told Mr. Renz that he felt he was in a difficult situation as the result of the public office he held, in response to which Mr. Renz said that he appreciated that difficulty and for that reason the defendant should consult with an attorney," Renz wrote.

Craig, R-Idaho, did not, and eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He has since said that he was panicked into admitting to a crime he did not commit. A Hennepin County judge is set to consider Craig's request on Wednesday.

Let's call "bullshit" on that claim of panic. That might work if we were talking about bing dragged right into night court for a quickie plea to seeking a quickie in the loo -- but not when there was an eight-week gap between the offense and the court date. Larry Craig had plenty of time to consult a friendly attorney confidentially. He had plenty of time to do his onw legal research. He did none of that -- he simply tried to cover up his acts.

In my book, the best claim he has is that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction -- but since he pled guilty to the offense, I think that boat has sailed and Larry Craig missed his opportunity to raise it.

Just go away, Senator -- and quit disgracing your state and your party.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Every now and then, liberal commentators have to pull out the same old template to comment on Republican racism. Never mind that the position is untrue -- it is holy writ among the Left, and must therefore be preached upon regularly.

And so you get this old chestnut from Paul Krugman.

Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.Â’s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.

Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against CaliforniaÂ’s Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting statesÂ’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered. In 2000, Mr. Bush made a pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, famed at the time for its ban on interracial dating.

And all four leading Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination have turned down an invitation to a debate on minority issues scheduled to air on PBS this week.

Ah, yes -- the liberal intones the mantra: Republicans are racist.

But let's look at those examples Krugman cites.

Yes, Reagan did oppose the Fair Housing Act -- but not on the grounds that discrimination was a moral good, but rather because of a belief that the government should not be regulating how private individuals control their own property. Having watched an elderly family member suffer through an investigation of her refusal to sell her home to a black couple with lousy credit (they wanted a 75 year old woman to finance the sale herself for 10 years because they could not qualify for a mortgage with a bank) before selling to a white couple with cash in hand, I can't help but sometimes feel that the government has no business in this field.

For that matter, the Philadelphia, Mississippi speech --w hcih came after teh GOP convention, not at the beginning of his presidential run, reflected the same themes that Reagan had been addressing for years, as California Governor, as a radio commentator, and as a candidate for the GOP nomination. While the choice of Philadelphia Mississippi may have been questionable, it was not chosen because of its racial symbolism. Rather, it was chosen because of an invitation from a leading Republican congressman whose district included Philadelphia -- Trent Lott.

And as for Bush visiting Bob Jones University (a place which I believe no civilized individual should patronize), I can only note that he spoke to many groups in many places in South Carolina. I'm curious -- will Krugman insist that n Democrat speak at Columbia University this year (or in any future year) because of the platform given to Mahmoud the Mad this week? Will he label any candidate who does speak at Columbia as objectively pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic? I think we know the answer -- so why does speaking at BJU indicate that the candidate is somehow racist or insensitive? Could it be that Krugman is warm to terrorists and cold towards Jews?

And as noted recently by many major outlets, the GOP candidates turned down the PBS debate because it comes two days before the quarterly fundraising deadline. But Krugman would prefer to impute racism where none exists because it fits the template.

The GOP has, throughout its history, done more to provide opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities than the Democrats. What's more, it has done so without pandering to racial separatism, but rather by appealing to racial equality. But that won't make the cut in a Krugman column -- because it doesn't fit the template.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Magical Rose Garden, Right Celebrity, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 711 words, total size 7 kb.

Let me explain.

Mitt Romney has remained mum on the alleged killing of 11 Iraqis by a company where one of his top advisers serves as vice chairman, even as the case has led to an uproar in Baghdad and Washington. Barack Obama, John McCain and other politicians have raised the possibility of tighter controls on the firm.

The top counterterrorism and national security adviser to RomneyÂ’s presidential campaign is Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater USA. The Iraqis died after guards employed by the private security firm opened fire following an alleged attack on a State Department convoy under their protection. Blackwater has a lucrative contract to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

Frankly, I think the Romney/Blackwater connection is a red herring. Romney should remain silent pending the outcome of this case, because we remain unsure of what happened and he should not be politicizing it or prejudging it.

This is the same position I took with regard to the irresponsible words of John Murtha, the corrupt, cowardly cut-and-run congressman from Pennsylvania. He gave a press conference declaring the Haditha marines guilty of war crimes and murder -- only to later see those men cleared. He still has not retracted his libel against them. I'd rather that Romney remain silent than follow such a shameful path.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, OTB Sports, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 3 kb.

I might have to consider it.

"No, I may slit my throat," former president Bill Clinton joked last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart after being asked how well he might cope with going from leader of the world's remaining superpower to husband of the first woman president.

So, what do you folks think – would the suicide of Billzebubba be sufficient reason to vote Hildebeast in 2008?

Or does Christian charity require working for her defeat in the name of preventing a needless death?

Or is this, like all the liberal threats to leave America if Bush won in 2004, simply another false promise designed to get our hopes up?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Public Eye, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 4 kb.

If my buddy over at Gone Mild is going to condemn a senator for condemning an ad calling an active duty military office commanding troops in the field a traitor, I want to know if he believes it to be true.

I've written about Claire McCaskill's abandonment of the people who elected her when the important issues arise. I suppose that, in the context of her blind support of Bush's war, her vote today to support a Senate Resolution condemning MoveOn's "General Betray Us" advertisement is hardly worth mentioning.

But, dammit, what in the hell is she thinking?

I understand the the Republicans like to attack the patriotism and human worth of anyone who dares to question their precious war. I understand that Republicans are offended when someone points out that Bush has hand-picked the lords of this war based upon partisan loyalty and sycophantry (sycophantocity? sycophanthood?) instead of merit.

But why would Claire McCaskill join them in telling America to shut up? Why would she join the Republicans in stifling dissent?

Personally, I think the MoveOn ad was poor judgment and poor taste. Not as bad as a Democratic Senator joining the Republicans to criticize Americans speaking their minds, though.

Well, Dan, what is it – is Petraeus a traitor or not? And if he is not, why do you object to a condemnation of an ad calling him one?

After all, you took great offense at a satirical post here on my site. Will you offer the same level of outrage over an actual accusation of treason against a serving military officer based upon a policy dispute?

Oh, and will you explain why this condemnation constitutes “stifling dissent” and criticizing “Americans speaking their minds” when you condemned my post (and that of Michelle Malkin) and insisted that we had no right to offer that criticism of Harry Reid? Why do you feel free to tell America to shut up while taking offense when others do the same? Doesn’t that constitute HYPOCRISY (a mortal sin when Democrats find it in Republicans) on your part?

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

I’ve had local Democrats come here and take quotes out of context so as to “prove” some point about my blog and me personally – usually to claim that I am a racist and a religious bigot – by cherry-picking a sentence (or merely a part of a sentence) that confirms their pre-determined position.

IÂ’m therefore sympathetic to the President in light of a similar action by John Stewart.

This is the problem we're gonna have with the growing number of Americans getting their news from this guy:

Thanks to Jon Stewart and a quick edit on last night's Daily Show, the sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome will surely jump on a comment President Bush made yesterday that "Mandela is dead."

Only, Bush didn't say that. He was actually making a point that he and Ambassador Crocker have made several times since the Petraeus/Crocker testimony:

There could be no "instant democracy in Iraq" because "people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule," Bush told reporters.

Referring to former South African president Nelson Mandela, who led the fight against apartheid to become a symbol of reconciliation and hope, Bush said of Iraq: "I heard somebody say, 'Now where's Mandela?'"

"Well, Mandela is dead. Because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

Of course, Stewart and the writers at the Daily Show knew this. There's no way they saw the "Mandela is dead" clip without seeing the context. But the facts got in the way of an easy political joke. And, Stewart has the nerve to get all self-righteous on "Crossfire?" Ha.

Clearly he said something entirely different than that cherry-picked quote implied – something that does make a difference to the message. But then again, we’ve long expected such intellectual dishonesty from too many Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

So it would appear, according to Congressman Henry Waxman.

The Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles is devoted to Jewish culture. It is well funded, backed by a $100 million endowment thanks in large part to its founders, Jack Skirball and Audrey Skirball-Kenis. Revenues were $885 million in 2005, CBS News reported. Many of its executives receive 6-figure salaries.

So why did taxpayers have to pony up $550,000 to build a playground for Skirball?

The center is rolling in money and pays no taxes. Why should Joe Sixpack give a dime to some well-endowed cultural center?

Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, thatÂ’s why. He is proud of his Jewish heritage. He used his position to get $550,000 for Skirball.

“The amount of money that the Skirball got for this project was very, very small. It was $550,000,” Waxman told CBS.

It’s nice to know that Congressman Waxman believes that a sum of money equivalent to the pay of all the teachers on my end of the hall constitutes a “very, very small” sum of money.

Kudos to Don Surber for pointing it out – and for linking to the article.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

More on Dem funny money.

Norman Hsu, the Democratic fund-raiser with a habit of fleeing the law, confessed to FBI agents last week that he had pressured investors in what he now admits were phony business deals to contribute to political campaigns, prosecutors said in an indictment that was unsealed today.

The complaint, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, accused Mr. Hsu of bilking at least $60 million from hundreds of investors in a nationwide Ponzi scheme, and using some of that money to illegally reimburse at least two people who made a total of $60,000 in campaign donations at his request.

While the complaint did not specify which candidates received the illegal or coerced contributions, federal authorities confirmed that one of them was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her presidential campaign has said it intends to return $850,000 to more than 200 people whose donations were bundled by Mr. Hsu.

If convicted of the three charges he faces — mail fraud, wire fraud and violating the Federal Election Campaign Act —Mr. Hsu could face a maximum of 45 years in prison.

Will every candidate divest him or herself of ALL Hsu-related donations --and refuse to take any money from the donors associated with those funds? Or will they simply keep the revolving door of campaign corruption going.

Oh, yeah -- and will the media begin to treat this case with the same seriousness they do accusations of corruption against Republicans like Tom DeLay?

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, she is married to Jabba the Hutt.

"Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice PresidentÂ’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said just now at a $100-a-head fundraiser at Town Hall near New York's Times Square, referring to Cheney's efforts shore up Republican congressional support for the Iraq war.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 3 kb.

That old Kluxer Robert Byrd tols us some time back that the filibuster was a sacred thing -- positively a sacrament when Democrats used it to obstruct qualified conservative judges and civil rights legislation protecting uppity black folks from the likes of him. His Democrat colleagues and their fellow-travelers all agreed. That's why I find Kevin Drum's whining to be so amusingly hypocritical.

.I see that Republicans have successfully filibustered two more bills today: one to give a House seat to the District of Columbia (57-42) and one to restore habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects (56-43).

That seems like a good excuse to rerun this chart that McClatchy put together a couple of months ago. As you can see, Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate. They're absolutely desperate to keep this stuff off the president's desk, where the only choice is to either sign it or else take the blame for a high-profile veto.

The GOP blocked two bad bills -- one of them clearly unconstitutional. But even if these bills were pure as the driven snow, Drum and his ilk insisted in the last couple of years that the filibuster was an important tool in the American political system when used against the GOP. How can they complain now when Republicans use it to frustrate the least popular Congress ever?

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

And is the accusation an example of racism from a so-called "civil rights leader".

Jesse Jackson reportedly ripped presidential candidate Barack Obama for "acting like he's white," according to The State newspaper in South Carolina, but the civil rights leader says he doesn't recall making any such comment.

Jackson, who endorsed Obama for president in March, reportedly blasted the Illinois senator for failing to bring attention to the case of six black kids arrested on attempted murder charges in Jena, La.

He later told the newspaper that he did not remember making the remark, but State reporter Roddie Burris told FOX News that Jackson's "acting like he's white" comment came during a 45-minute, one-on-one interview Tuesday after an hour-long speech at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. Burris said he stands by his report.

The original article can be found here.

I suppose I would give Jesse a pass, except for teh fact that he has a long history of racist comments and has engaged in a pattern of self-dealing "economic justice campaigns" that have lined his own pockets and those of his family and close associates while doing nothing to help the black community as a whole. Not to mention stealing from his tax-exempt to cover up his fathering of a bastard by a close aide. Somehow, the Democrats don't find this nearly as troubling as shoe-tapping by Larry Craig.

But let's be clear -- the old corrupt race-hustler still supports Obama.

"I reaffirm my commitment to vote for Sen. Barack Obama," Jackson says in the statement. "He has remarkably transcended race, however the impact of Katrina and Jena makes America's unresolved moral dilemma of race unavoidable. I think Jena is another defining moment of the issue of race and the criminal justice system. This issue requires direct and bold leadership. I commend Sen. Obama for speaking out and demanding fairness on this defining issue. Any attempt to dilute my support for Sen. Obama will not succeed."

Personally, I think Obama needs to repudiate Jackson and his politics of racial division -- but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

If they cannot force a pell-mell retreat from Iraq because there is actually a victory in sight, the Democrats seem intent upon simply abandoning the troops in the field by cutting off their funding.

The Senate also planned to vote on legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reid, D-Nev., that would cut off funding for combat next year.

Got that -- the Senate Majority Leader is sponsoring a bill to eliminate funding for soldiers on the field of battle during time of war.

I think that sponsoring of such legislation could legitimately be considered a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution, and the provisions of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 would seem to allow charges to be brought against Reid and Feingold for that violation, as that particular offense is specifically exempted from the immunity of legislators under the "Speech or Debate" clause.

Anyone want to tell me again how the Democrats "support the troops"?

NOTE TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: Now you see why the President cannot gather opponents into his cabinet, any more than Lincoln could invite Copperheads into his his inner circle during the Civil War.

H/T Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 4 kb.

As much as I personally despise Joe Trippi (dating back to the Howard Dean campaign and the shabby way he and other campaign officials treated my wife), I have to agree with his statements on behalf of the Edwards Campaign about this Hillary Clinton fundraiser.

The campaigns of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards traded pointed criticisms yesterday over Mrs. ClintonÂ’s use of a Washington luncheon for fund-raising.

The confrontation started with Mr. Edwards’s campaign attacking Mrs. Clinton’s $1,000-a-person luncheon and continued as her camp dismissed the broadside as signs of a “flagging campaign.”

At the luncheon, Mrs. Clinton and congressmen met donors to discuss domestic security.

Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, made his criticism in a fund-raising e-mail message that said the luncheon highlighted how Mrs. Clinton was a “corporate Democratic insider” and that the event was a “poster child” for “what is wrong in Washington.”

“There isn’t an American outside of Washington who would not be sickened” by the event, Mr. Trippi said. It was held at the Washington office of Jones Day, the large international law firm.

Simply put, if this were a Republican holding this luncheon for lobbyists at a law firm known for its lobbying activities, would any of the Democrats, Hillary Clinton included, view it as acceptable? We know the answer.

And given Hillary's other ethical lapses in raising money, this simply raises another red flag.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

What they can't get legitimately, they are seeking to acquire by holding Judge Michael Mukasey hostage before the Judiciary Committee.

Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that the Judiciary Committee would delay confirmation of President BushÂ’s choice for attorney general unless the White House turned over documents that the panel was seeking for several investigations.

* * *

But two Democrats who will have a powerful say over whether Mr. Mukasey gets confirmed — Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Charles E. Schumer of New York — vowed on Monday to use the nomination to extract information from a reluctant White House.

“All I want is the material we need to ask some questions about the former attorney general’s conduct, on torture and warrantless wiretapping, so we can legitimately ask, ‘Here’s what was done in the past, what will you do?”’ Mr. Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said.

Already, the New York Times is making noise about the appointment. This despite the fact that until last week Mukasey was the darling of the Democrats. Now that he has been appointed, the NYT finds aspects of his record that are "troubling".

In particular, they are complaining about the shift of leadership at the Justice Department from Solicitor General Paul Clement to Peter Keisler

Mr. Bush also announced yesterday that he was replacing Acting Attorney General Paul Clement, who was to serve until the Senate confirmed Mr. GonzalesÂ’s successor, with Peter Keisler, a hard-line movement conservative. Mr. BushÂ’s sleight of hand in installing Mr. Keisler is an unfortunate indication that he intends to keep the department politicized for as long as he can.

However, as Hugh Hewitt noted on his show yesterday, there is a reason for the change -- as Solicitor General, Clement is in charge of arguing cases before the US Supreme Court when the federal government is a party. The new term opens October 1, and the Solicitor General has several cases to present early in the term. Dividing his attention between those cases and the running of the Justice Department would be a bad move, hence the shift in responsibility. It signals nothing about a newly confrontational move by the President.

However, if the Democrats are out to play hardball, the President needs to do the same. If there is an unreasonable delay in confirming Mukasey, a recess appointment is in order -- making Ted Olson the Attorney General, as he so richly deserves.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Rosemary\'s Thoughts, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 5 kb.

Upholding the rule of law is not high on the liberal agenda if it gets in the way of passing laws to benefit their special interest groups.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger goes through with his expected veto of San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno's measure to allow same-sex marriage in California, it's almost guaranteed the governor will say he's following "the will of the people."

That's the argument the Republican governor made two years ago when he rejected a similar measure. Although Schwarzenegger hasn't taken an official position on the new bill, he made clear in February that he did not intend to sign it.

"I don't want, as the governor, to go against the will of the people," Schwarzenegger said at an event put on by the YMCA, but added: "If it goes back on the ballot, the people can make the decision."

The Legislature approved the bill Sept. 7, and the governor has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto the measure.

Foes of same-sex marriage argue, along with Schwarzenegger, that California voters made their decision in March 2000, when Proposition 22, the protection of marriage initiative, was approved by a landslide 61 to 39 percent. The 14-word measure, which conservative and religious groups placed on the ballot, said simply, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

But times have changed in seven years, say supporters of Leno's bill, and voters now have elected a solid majority of legislators who want to make same-sex marriage legal in California.

"The people are speaking through their elected representatives," said Seth Kilbourn, political director for Equality California, a group backing the measure. "We want the governor to keep up with the will of the people and show the type of bipartisan leadership that he has shown on so many other issues."

Now the supporters of gay marriage insist that the will of the people has changed, at least according to the polls and the will of the legislators they have elected. But in making that claim, the insist upon the right to directly overturn a vote of the people -- and violate the California Constitution.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

In other words, a vote of the people in favor of permitting gay marriage is necessary before the bill passed by the legislature can go into effect. If it were not, any vote of the people could be overturned after the next legislative election cycle was completed. In effect, the initiative and referendum process would be a farce because every proposition would require re-passage every election cycle to remain valid.

And as I pointed out two years ago, there is also an inherent problem with the argument that "time has passed and the electorate has changed" argument. Taken to its logical extreme, even Constitutional provisions themselves could be disregarded with impunity, making no pretense of upholding the constitutional processes for instituting such changes.

Supporters of the legislation, of course, don't want a little thing like constitutional law to get in the way of getting what they want. Take this argument.

The legislature didn't "derail" any vote. Proposition 22 was not voted on by the current California populace. Many of those who voted on Prop 22 are now dead, massive amounts of new voters have entered the pool and in the 5 years since that legislation passed many voters have changed their mind (according to polling data). It is the new California voting population who decided (AFTER Prop 22) that these current politicians (the ones who passed the equality bill) were fit to represent them. Now these politicians have done what they were elected to do and if anybody is "derailing" the will of the CURRENT voting population of California it is Schwarzenegger.

Unfortunately for the owner of that blog, it makes as much sense to argue that as it does to argue that Congress could reinstitute slavery without repealing the Thirteenth Amendment, since they represent the will of the people today and the Thirteenth Amendment represents the will of the people 140 years ago. Any rational person recognizes the flaw in both the posters original argument and the hypothetical I put forth -- both situations would ignore the process mandated by the respective constitutions to take the course of action in question.

I think the danger of such a scheme is obvious. Any pol with a poll could render any law or constitutional provision null and void without a real showing of popular support for the change.

The sad part is that Mark Leno and his colleagues did (and still do) have a mechanism available to repeal Proposition 22. All thy have to do is pass their legislation with a section authorizing the required popular vote on the repeal of Proposition 22. If, as they claim, the will of the people has changed in the last seven years, the repeal of Proposition 22 would be a snap. On the other hand, their refusal to include such a repeal vote in their bill is evidence that their dedication to the will of the people NOW is seriously lacking.

Indeed, Leno acknowledges that he does not particularly care what the people of the state of California want in regards to gay marriage.

"Civil rights for any group should never be put to a vote of the people. This is how we prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority."

Ah, but is gay marriage a civil right. Most folks would argue that it is not, and the idea that it is one is a new and novel formulation. And under Leno's rubric, any group can claim any practice to be a civil right outside the purview of legislation or popular vote. Polygamy? Incest? Pre-pubescent marriage? Incestuous pre-pubescent polygamous gay marriage (yes, I'm being intentionally absurd there)? On what legitimate basis could one make a distinction between a valid civil rights claim and a spurious one upon which the people or the legislature could make law? Leno's argument fails because there is no clear or principled basis upon which to make legitimate distinctions as to teh power of the people or the legislature to act.

Which brings us back to the initial point of the article. Arnold Schwarzenegger is likely to veto the legislation in question. The California legislature can, and I would argue should, act to fix the bill by adding a repeal referendum to it and sending the revised legislation for the the governor's signature. At that point, the will of the people of California today could truly be known.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Mark My Words, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1225 words, total size 10 kb.

Whose service do you find more credible?

Frankly, it takes a willing suspension of disbelief to put any faith in the junior Senator from New York.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Mark My Words, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 3 kb.

The Iranian president has clearly and repeatedly violated the Genocide Convention with his statements about Israel and Jews. This grows out of a call issued last year that he should be indicted and tried for inciting genocide. Romney's letter is as follows.

To His Excellency Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,

With the disturbing news that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad is planning to address the United Nations General Assembly next week, I call on the United Nations to revoke any invitation to President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly. The only way he should be greeted in the United States is with an indictment under the Genocide Convention.

The Iranian regime under President Ahmadinejad has spoken openly about wiping Israel off the map, has fueled Hezbollah’s terror campaign in the region and around the world, and defied the world community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons – capabilities that make these threats even more ominous. As General Petraeus testified last week, Iran is also supporting Shia militia extremists and violence that is taking the lives of American soldiers and undermining the Iraqi government.

A failure by the United Nations to take a strong stand against IranÂ’s President Ahmadinejad would be especially disturbing given the United NationsÂ’ record of failure to prevent genocide in other circumstances and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Council to confront the Iranian regime and others among the worldÂ’s worst human rights abusers. Failure to act would mean that the United States must reconsider its level of support and funding for the United Nations as we look to rebuild and revitalize effective international partnerships to meet 21st century threats.

If President Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention. This approach has been called for by experts as diverse as Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and law professor Alan Dershowitz.

The United States and the world must take a strong stand against the terrorist Iranian regime and the time for action is now.

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney

Will other candidates, both Republican and Democrat, join Mitt Romney in taking a stand? And will all of them, including Romney, commit to the principle that the Host Country Agreement between the UN and the US does not require that the US recognize the sovereign immunity of heads of states who have committed crimes against humanity?

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm sure Judge Mukasey is well-qualified, and he is an adviser to Rudy Giuliani's campaign, but I still believe the President should have fought for Ted Olson.

President Bush plans to choose Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan, to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Republicans close to the process told The Politico.

"It came down to confirmability," said a former Justice Department official involved in the conversations.

Conservatives had been rooting for former Solicitor General Theodore B. (Ted) Olson, but Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed Wednesday to block his confirmation.

"The White House seems like they don't want a confirmation fight," said a Republican close to the selection process. "They think this guy is bulletproof from the left."

Frankly, I'm troubled on two levels. First, Bush should not have given in to the Democrats. Second, he should not have picked someone suggested by Democrat leaders. The Chuck Schumer seal of approval does not inspire confidence on my part.

Still, I won't rebel against the nomination -- but just don't expect me to show much enthusiasm for it.

MORE AT Blogs for Bush, Captain's Quarters, Don Surber

UPDATE: Captain Ed is reporting that Schumer is backing away from his support of Mukasey. In light of that, why not push for Olson?

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey -- in a world where we are seeing women enter non-traditional fields more and more often, we knew there would be a day with a real possibility of a male "First Lady".

I like Mitt Romney's response to it.

Commenting Saturday on a new Time Magazine cover story titled "The Real Running Mates" — which focuses on the current crop of presidential candidates' spouses — Republican candidate Mitt Romney said his wife would make a "prettier first lady" than former president Bill Clinton.

"It has a picture of five of the possible first ladies," the former Massachusetts governor said. "In the upper left hand corner it has my wife, and then next to it, it has Bill Clinton. And she is a much prettier first lady than Bill Clinton, I can tell you that!"

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the comment to be amusing -- not the least of which because I have found myself in such a supporting role.

Not long after we married, my wife became pastor of a small church. When asked by one member of the board about how I would view my role in the congregation, I smiled and began with "Well, I hope that you all will understand my hesitation to be as involved in the Women's Fellowship as previous pastor's wives." It sort of helped to break the ice.

Given the fact that this is the first time we have a man in a position to be "First Lady" (will that term become an anachronism?), expect more such jokes. Especially since the "candidate" for that office happens to be a former president.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 4 kb.

They work with them every day to coordinate strategy!

And that isn't coming from a GOP source -- it is reported by that reliable Bush-hating MSM outlet that gave the seditious group a huge discount accusing the commander of US forces in Iraq of treason during time of war.

MoveOn representatives also take part, as co-founders of a coalition of antiwar groups together under the umbrella Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, in a daily conference call with the Democratic leadership staff on Capitol Hill to coordinate efforts.

I'm curious -- in light of this coordinated effort, will any political advertising by MoveOn.org be considered an illegal donation to the Democrats in 2008?

H/T Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, you remember the raft of anti-Semitic comments directed against Joe Lieberman by the KOSsacks and DUmmies and other left-wing commentators of the blogosphere last year. Why should we be surprised when a Democrat Congressman offends AGAIN by claiming that the Iraq war is all the fault of the evil rich JOOOOOOOOOS!

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) has again come under fire from local Jewish organizations for remarking in a magazine interview that the "extraordinarily powerful" pro-Israel lobby played a strong role promoting the war in Iraq.

In an interview with Tikkun, a California-based Jewish magazine, Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is "the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power."

And if you think I'm being unfair, consider this quote from the interview that the WaPo article does not quote.

AIPAC “members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two-edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and to individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating.”

Yep -- evil rich JOOOOOOOOOS! They'll get you if you don't watch out. Not only is Moran a socialist in his outlook, his outlook appears to trend towards National Socialist in terms of his belief in a Jewish conspiracy to control the media and direct teh course of the goverment.

But since he is a reliable vote for the Democrats, don't expect any criticism or denunciations from the Democrats -- after all, they rejoice at the presence of an old Kluxer like Robert Byrd in their midst, so why would they mind a brownshirt like Moran?

H/T American Thinker, Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

Kevin Drum quotes Andrew Sullivan on President Bush's appearance during Thursday's speech.

HI-DEF BUSH....Last night Andrew Sullivan wrote that George Bush seemed "almost broken to me...his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered." Today he offers a second opinion:

I should say that I watched Bush in high-definition, and on regular TV, he didn't look so exhausted.

Clearly we're seeing a technology paradigm shift at work. Just as Richard Nixon "lost" the 1960 debate because, although he sounded fine on radio, he looked bad on TV, so modern politicians are going to have to learn to look good even when they're looming over their audience on 80-inch HD plasma screens. Looking good on a scratchy 32-inch tube doesn't cut it anymore. I predict booming business for a whole new generation of media advisors and skin care consultants.

I think this does raise a good point. We couldn't elect the homely Abe Lincoln today. Today's television would have doomed the reelection bid of FDR in 1944 (and probably 1940). With the coming of HDTV, will we find ourselves looking for even prettier candidates (such as John Edwards -- long on grooming and short on intellect)? Or will we finally consider that every candidate has warts and flaws -- in other words, that they are real human beings -- and go back to seriously considering ideas instead of photo ops and sound bites?

But I will also point out something else. The mouth-frothing Left has constantly told us that they believe the president to be unaffected by his decisions and untroubled by the difficulties and setbacks we have seen over time in Iraq. Sullivan's observations makes it clear that this is not the case, and that the strain is taking its toll on this President. Far from being untouched, George W. Bush is feeling the full weight of the crushing burden that goes with being President of the United States -- just as have many of our presidents who have left office as mere shells of themselves, sucked dry by the responsibilities they had shouldered.

I once read that American presidents, on average, lived four or five years shorter than the life expectancy of men of their generation. And while recent ex-Presidents seem to have gone on forever (one of the perks of the office is access to incredible health care), I think there remains some truth to that observation.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 5 kb.

For that matter, which member of that marriage actually has the testicles?

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

That is all well and good, but I expect such pronouncements to come from the candidate rather than the candidate's spouse. I'd begin taking John Edwards seriously if he would quit sending his wife to do the hard jobs and begin doing them himself. Instead, he sends his sick wife on the road to confront bad behavior by his supporter, but remains silent himself so that he can deny condemning the group himself. That is the behavior of a coward.

H/T Ben Smith

Posted by: Greg at 03:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.