About 18 months ago, we Republicans in Texas Congressional District 22 got abandoned by Tom DeLay in one of the more craven acts of self-serving political ego gratification I’ve seen. As a result, our district went Democrat in the 2006 election almost by default, due to the difficulty involved in mounting a successful write-in campaign for the office. And that has meant the disgrace of having Nick Lampson misrepresenting us as our Congressman since January.

Given the important issues facing our nation today, it is critical that our congressman support the President’s military strategy in Iraq. Slick Nick Lampson doesn’t.

And as the folks from MoveOn.org (and at least one local supporter) engage in libelous attacks upon the character and patriotism of the career military officer commanding troops in the field, Slick Nick Lampson has failed to offer a word of condemnation.

But then again, why should we be surprised? After all, Lampson has taken over $160,000 from MoveOn.org members, and the group has indicated it is prepared to support his efforts to continue misrepresenting CD22 in 2008.

Rather than support our troops, their mission, and their integrity, Slick Nick Lampson stands with those who undermine their mission and defame their leaders.

Given the choice between honorable conduct and political position, Slick Nick Lampson has chosen the latter.

Such conduct is shameful – but not surprising.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, 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 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 4 kb.

About 18 months ago, we Republicans in Texas Congressional District 22 got abandoned by Tom DeLay in one of the more craven acts of self-serving political ego gratification IÂ’ve seen. As a result, our district went Democrat in the 2006 election almost by default, due to the difficulty involved in mounting a successful write-in campaign for the office. And that has meant the disgrace of having Nick Lampson misrepresenting us as our Congressman since January.

Given the important issues facing our nation today, it is critical that our congressman support the PresidentÂ’s military strategy in Iraq. Slick Nick Lampson doesnÂ’t.

And as the folks from MoveOn.org (and at least one local supporter) engage in libelous attacks upon the character and patriotism of the career military officer commanding troops in the field, Slick Nick Lampson has failed to offer a word of condemnation.

But then again, why should we be surprised? After all, Lampson has taken over $160,000 from MoveOn.org members, and the group has indicated it is prepared to support his efforts to continue misrepresenting CD22 in 2008.

Rather than support our troops, their mission, and their integrity, Slick Nick Lampson stands with those who undermine their mission and defame their leaders.

Given the choice between honorable conduct and political position, Slick Nick Lampson has chosen the latter.

Such conduct is shameful – but not surprising.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, 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 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, that is the belief of a commentator in today's New York Times.

Our greatest obstacle is the popular belief that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal everywhere. In fact, our goal may well be undermined by politicians like President Bush, who seem to use “strict constructionist” as nothing more than code for “anti-abortion.”

Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.

Mr. GiulianiÂ’s ambivalence about the end of Roe is consistent with his belief that judges should not seek to achieve political ends. This is a judicial philosophy that pro-lifers should applaud, not condemn. It is, after all, the position consistently articulated by the pro-life movementÂ’s favorite Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

I'm not sure that I buy this argument. As a pro-lifer who is religious, I have long recognized that the death of Roe will merely throw the ball back to the states. So have many pro-life legislators who have already passed legislation protecting the unborn in the event that Roe is overturned. As such, I can't help but think that the author is really just looking for an excuse to support Giuliani rather than making a clear-headed argument from a pro-life perspective.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

TodayÂ’s NY Times editorial demanding that any AG nominee that George W. Bush would want be denied confirmation as too political is indicative of the degree to which the Paper of Wreckage has become irrelevant due to its ideology. I didnÂ’t even bother to write about it due to the intellectual light-weightedness of the piece.

But the best response I have seen is this one.

Yes, it's a shame that President Bush doesn't have a partisan, campaign-advisor brother who he can appoint to head the department headquartered in the Robert F. Kennedy building. There are probably a large number of civil rights leaders whose phones need tapping.

IÂ’ll take the editorial rant seriously when the paper demands that the buildingÂ’s name be changed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, anything to slander patriots and undermine the military.

The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

I wonder – can this discount be viewed as a contribution to MoveOn.org? And does this discount put the lie to claims of journalistic objectivity by the New York Times?

Rudy Giuliani has gone the next step, seeking to show that there is a political motivation for the rate given to MoveOn.org.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said Thursday he is asking the New York Times for the “same heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org,” for his campaign to run an ad in Friday’s paper.

Giuliani, calling MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us” ad “abominable,” said his campaign is asking the paper for a comparable rate for an ad to run following the President Bush’s speech on Iraq. The New York Post reported that MoveOn.org paid less than 40 percent of the regular ad rate.

The former mayor said his ad “will obviously take the opposite view” from MoveOn.org, which argued in its ad that Gen. David Petraeus is “cooking the books” on Iraq and cherry picking facts that support his recommendation to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for some time.

Will there be equal treatment for all messages? And will all political organizations and candidates be charged the “MoveOn rate”?

Oh, and by the way – I love the General’s response to the slanderous comments of his moral, intellectual, and patriotic inferiors in the cut-and-run movement.

'I disagree with the message of those who are exercising the First Amendment right that generations of soldiers have sought to preserve for Americans,' he told reporters. 'Some of it was just flat completely wrong, and the rest is, at least, more than arguable.'

IÂ’m proud to have your back, sir.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, INside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Stout Republican, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 6 kb.

Any attempt to stop the release of these records of Hillary Clinton as First Lady should be taken as evidence of malfeasance on her part, and therefore held to be a disqualifier for her as a presidential candidate.

An estimated 10,000 pages of dailyschedules fromSenator Clinton's tenure as first lady could be made public as soon as December, though Presidents Clinton and Bush could postpone the records' release, a National Archives official said yesterday.

"Our hope is to get it done by the end of the year," the acting director of the Clinton Presidential Library, Emily Robison, told The New York Sun. She stressed that she was only referring to the review and redaction of the records by archivists. Under the Presidential Records Act and an executive order issued by Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton's representatives then have 90 days to review the records for materials that could be covered by executive privilege. After that review is complete, Mr. Bush has an unlimited amount of time to make his own privilege assertions.

It is unclear whether the disclosure of redacted versions of Mrs. Clinton's schedules will ultimately have significance for her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, it seems likely that Mr. Clinton's former aides will have control over the timing of the process just as the nominating contest reaches its peak early next year. The political atmosphere is sure to increase pressure on the former president not to be responsible for any delay.

Hillary Clinton can lay this all to rest right now. She needs to call for the release of the records immediately upon the completion of the archivists' work. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush can be permitted to stand in the way of full knowledge of a candidate for the office of President of the United States -- especially when it involved keeping public documents from public view without a compelling reason.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, INside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Stout Republican, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 4 kb.

This is a good move by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It needs to be made permanent.

Texas would be barred from turning existing interstate highways into toll roads by a provision in a major spending bill approved Wednesday by the Senate.

The amendment by Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison would delay for one year a plan by Texas transportation officials to turn to toll roads. State officials have said they need the revenue to help defray an $86 billion shortfall in highway funding for the state.

Hutchison argued that it is unfair to turn highways already paid for by taxpayers into toll roads, and she has pledged to press for a permanent ban.

Her measure, tied to the one-year, $104.6 billion transportation and housing spending bill approved by the Senate, would be in effect only for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

"Today we protected Texas taxpayers from paying twice for a highway," Hutchison said.

The current plan from the Perry Administration is to take roads that Texans have paid for, sell them to private companies who would then make Texans pay to use them, so that the state could use the money from the sale to build more toll roads that Texans would have to pay to use. In other words, Texans will end up paying three times for highways we have already bought and paid for.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

Donors whose contributions to Hillary Clinton were bundled by Norman Hsu were to have their contributions returned to them. However, the Clinton campaign will take back those donations from those donors.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign is returning $850,000 in contributions linked to disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu, indicated Wednesday that donors who contributed that money could donate to her presidential campaign once again.

"We're not asking that that be done," she said in a teleconference with reporters. "But I believe that the vast majority of those 200- plus donors are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what they will or won't do going forward."

* * *

Clinton's campaign said this week that any donors whose money was returned could donate once again if they confirm to the campaign that the contributions are from their own personal funds.

Which means, of course, that the tainted funds will be coming back. After all, a failure to send back the cash could be construed that the original donation was not their own funds to begin with, opening them up to greater scrutiny from federal investigators.

In other words, the Clinton campaign is only claiming to divest itself of the tainted funds – but is really going to be keeping them. The appearance of propriety is apparently more important to them than actual propriety.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 4 kb.

He is recognized as one of the countryÂ’s top legal minds, but the Democrats are vowing to block Ted OlsonÂ’s confirmation if the President nominates him as attorney General.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Congressional and administration officials have described Olson as a leading contender for the job as the nation's chief U.S. law enforcement officer, but Reid declared: "Ted Olson will not be confirmed" by the Senate.

"He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

Olson did an outstanding job as solicitor general. His grace and strength following his wifeÂ’s murder on 9/11 was an inspiration to the nation. For Harry Reid to seek to thwart OlsonÂ’s nomination is a move of gross partisanship that the American people should reject.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

There will be some who argue that it is a big deal that Senator Thompson does not attend church regularly. I disagree.

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump.

Thompson, in his first campaign stop in South Carolina, told a crowd of about 500 Republicans yesterday that he gained his values from ``sitting around the kitchen table'' with his parents and ``the good Church of Christ.''

Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said his church attendance ``varies.''

``I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now,'' he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. ``I don't attend regularly when I'm up there.''

Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn't a member of any church in the Washington area.

Frankly, this doesn’t matter to me. After all, we saw the Clintons traipsing in and out of church during the 1990s, and it made not a whit of difference in how Bill governed or how Hillary wants to lead us. And besides, faith and values are more of an internal thing.

I also cannot help but remember the habits of the greatest president of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. Not a regular church-goer during his presidency, he still led this country wisely in a direction consistent with the values I and many Christians hold. The question is whether or not Thompson (or some other candidate) can and will do the same, regardless of whether or not his (or her) seat warms a pew on the weekend. Just as I don’t consider Romney’s Mormonism to be a disqualifying factor, neither do I consider Thompson’s Sunday morning worship practices.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

There will be some who argue that it is a big deal that Senator Thompson does not attend church regularly. I disagree.

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump.

Thompson, in his first campaign stop in South Carolina, told a crowd of about 500 Republicans yesterday that he gained his values from ``sitting around the kitchen table'' with his parents and ``the good Church of Christ.''

Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said his church attendance ``varies.''

``I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now,'' he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. ``I don't attend regularly when I'm up there.''

Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn't a member of any church in the Washington area.

Frankly, this doesnÂ’t matter to me. After all, we saw the Clintons traipsing in and out of church during the 1990s, and it made not a whit of difference in how Bill governed or how Hillary wants to lead us. And besides, faith and values are more of an internal thing.

I also cannot help but remember the habits of the greatest president of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. Not a regular church-goer during his presidency, he still led this country wisely in a direction consistent with the values I and many Christians hold. The question is whether or not Thompson (or some other candidate) can and will do the same, regardless of whether or not his (or her) seat warms a pew on the weekend. Just as I donÂ’t consider RomneyÂ’s Mormonism to be a disqualifying factor, neither do I consider ThompsonÂ’s Sunday morning worship practices.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

And the Democrats STILL arenÂ’t happy.

President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.

In a 15-minute address from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT, Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at two days of hearings in Congress, administration officials said. The White House plans to issue a written status report on the troop buildup on Friday, they said.

In other words, the reduction will be based upon military considerations and a plan for American victory in Iraq, not political considerations and a plan for Democrat victory in the 2008 elections.

That, of course, upsets the Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush appears poised merely to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress — with 130,000 troops in Iraq.
"Please. It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq," she said. "We're as disappointed as the public is that the president has a tin ear to their opinion on this war."

Last time I checked, Nancy, polling data wasnÂ’t the relevant issue when it came to conducting a war. That you think it is shows precisely how unfit you are for ANY office.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

The current kerfuffle over over the anti-Fred Thompson website connected to a pair of Romney advisers is rather amusing. After all, since when don't candidates highlight negatives about their opponents?

At least two top members of Mitt RomneyÂ’s South Carolina operation appear to be connected to an anti-Fred Thompson Web site that was taken down today after reporters began to make inquiries about it.

The Web site, PhoneyFred.org, had attacked Mr. Thompson’s conservative credentials, opening with the line: “Phoney Fred. Acting like a conservative.” But Internet queries reveal connections between the site and Warren Tompkins, a South Carolina political consultant hired by Mr. Romney, and Terry Sullivan, Mr. Romney’s South Carolina state director.

The site is hosted by a Utah company, Bluehost.com. But a search of that site reveals a long list of associated Web accounts that are hosted by the same server, including one for TTS Strategies, a political consulting firm where Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Sullivan are partners, and another for Under the Power Lines, which identifies itself as “South Carolina’s only online campaign strategy firm” and lists Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Sullivan as partners as well. Another Web account listed on the same server is palMITTostate.com, a pro-Romney Web site which bills itself as a “volunteer grassroots community to help Mitt Romney win the South Carolina Presidential Primary.”

That sounds awful, but is it? After all, opposition research has a long and honored history in American politics -- as is releasing information about one's opponent to the public. And from what I hear, no one is actually alleging that there is anything inaccurate in the material on the website before it was pulled down, merely criticizing its taste and propriety. But aside from violating Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, is there anything wrong with posting a website about a primary opponent that provides accurate, if unflattering, information?

And is the information on the website any more extreme than the rhetoric from the Thompson people?

"Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win," - Todd Harris, spokesman for Fred Thompson, after Romney's "half-baked cover-up" of an alleged surrogate's hit-job on the Tennesseean.

My experience is that such a statement could be applied to most major candidates for most major political offices.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Now let me get this straight – the Left insists that terrorism should be treated as a criminal matter, and that accused terrorists should be tried and imprisoned before courts constituted under Article III of the US Constitution. However, they object when a lawyer actually represents an accused (not convicted) terrorist – or consults with another lawyer who is on the case. Take the outrage of Christopher Orr of The New Republic, who is on the offensive against Fred Thompson over 3.3 billing hours of consultation with another lawyer in his firm..

In a political era in which the cost of a man's haircut can be treated as though it were a window into his soul, you'd think people would be a little more curious what it says about Fred Thompson that he'd do work--even just 3.3 hours of it--for indicted terrorists.

Lefties like the TNR staff want terrorists treated on the field of battle treated as criminal suspects, not prisoners of war.

They want them tried in the courts, with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (which would mean they are indicted terrorists) and all the other rights a criminal defendant has under our system (including the right to an attorney).

But they want to disqualify for office any lawyer who ever does any legal work of any sort for them.

Are they truly intent of depriving those terrorists of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

Do they mean that such accused terrorists should receive only the worst, least competent counsel?

Or could it be that they are merely engaged in a partisan political attack upon an opponent who they know can beat them?

I’d argue that it is the latter – and that is reeks of rank hypocrisy for them to demand due process of law for terrorists while condemning those who work to see that they receive it.

H/T Ramesh Ponnuru of NROÂ’s The Corner.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Populist, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, the editors agree with the folks who disrupted yesterday's hearings.

The American people deserve more than what the general and the diplomat offered them yesterday.

For that matter, they deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.

I'm curious -- will they be that indulgent when Americans they disagree with engage in the same tactics, whether in the halls of Congress or the newsroom of the New York Times? How about on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic, where the NY Times has long supported draconian punishments for nonviolent protesters engaged in sit-ins or even just trying to talk to women before an abortion.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

It sure took long enough -- will other Democrat candidates and organizations follow suit?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.

Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned only to give to charity $23,000 she received from Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac.

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement Monday night. "An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

* * *

In addition to the $260,000 he contributed to federal candidates, Hsu also contributed at least $330,000 to state Democratic candidates and state party committees and ballot initiatives during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. Among the state officials who received money were New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Both have said they would divest their campaigns of the donations.

Additionally, last week Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said he would donate nearly $40,000 in contributions, and Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he had donated a $1,000 contribution to a charity that helps soldiers.

It is all well and good to get rid of the direct Hsu money -- but will they get rid of the bundled cash, in light of the clear evidence that Hsu was illegally reimbursing donors to direct more cash to his chosen candidates?

Posted by: Greg at 09:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Because after all, laws against official corruption were never meant to apply to Democrats.

House leaders are beginning an investigation this week of the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama who was imprisoned in June on federal corruption charges. The case could become the centerpiece of a Democratic effort to show that the Justice Department engaged in political prosecutions.

* * *

In Alabama, a small war of editorial boards has erupted since Mr. Siegelman was sentenced to seven years and four months in prison in late June. Newspapers in the stateÂ’s smaller cities have repeatedly raised questions about the former governorÂ’s treatment.

Alabama Democrats are seething over a judge’s decision to have Mr. Siegelman immediately shackled and jailed on the day of sentencing, with no chance for him to seek bond or put his affairs in order. Republicans say the ex-governor is nothing more than a crook who ran a “pay for play” administration.

Mike Hubbard, chairman of the state’s Republican Party, called Ms. Simpson’s allegations “a bunch of hogwash” and said “the state of Alabama was for sale when Don Siegelman was governor.”

Democrats are equally passionate. “My sense is, there is a great unease with what has gone on here,” said Jack Miller, former chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party. “It’s kind of, if it could happen to him, it could happen to anybody.”

I'll tell you what -- I'll be glad to have a probe of politically-motivated prosecutions. Let's put the non-crimes of Scooter Libby at the top of the list, along with the prosecutions of law enforcement officers over incidents with illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. Then we can get around to Siegelman, whose bribery conviction seems a lot more solid.

What we see here, friends, is that the Democrats are chickenhawks when it comes to battling official corruption. They only want their opponents prosecuted, not their own.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

It’s an amusing little fantasy from the NY Sun – but it does raise a point that I think is important.

"Senators and distinguished guests, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in respect of progress in the Battle of Iraq. Before I do however, there are a few things I'd like to get off of my chest. Although your house of Congress confirmed me as commander by a unanimous vote, some of you have made it a point to undermine me as I lead our soldiers in battle. Even as we are fighting the battle, some of you have declared it lost. That was also the plain meaning of the House and Senate resolutions passed in March and April, as we were fighting the war. You have sought to undercut my own report to you with the guess work of the General Accountability Office, an office that lacks professional intelligence analysts and access to the data of our military.

"So I would like to begin by asking you to stop all of this. Our country is at war, and I am reporting to you that the enemy views the Congress of the United States as a theater. When the enemy heard that you intend to end our military strategy irrespective of the outcome of the surge I was sent to lead, the enemy became emboldened and persuaded that he could wait us out. Our future allies, whom we are bringing over to Iraq's side against the terrorists every day, will waver or defect if they think there is a chance you here in Congress will call the soldiers home before we finish clearing and holding the provinces and neighborhoods.

"I commend those of you who have come to see me in Baghdad and toured Anbar province with me to see the war for yourself. It's no accident that many of the lawmakers who have made it out to Iraq have tempered their rhetoric, and I appreciate your honesty. I also share your concerns about the efficacy of the current national government. But I can assure you that any chance of national reconciliation will require our sustained fight against an enemy that abhors little so much as it abhors the idea of national reconciliation. We will need now to commit to securing the country at least for another national election.

"What I cannot countenance is for you today to commend my skill and bravery in Anbar and Baghdad and then tomorrow to hold votes on how futile this struggle is. So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle -- but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs."

The political class in this country is regarded with disdain by much of the American public. Is it time for someone from outside that category to step in and inspire the American people – perhaps from a thoroughly non-partisan perspective, running as an independent?

While one leftoid blogger calls the suggestion MacArthurite (though they cannot spell that general's name correctly), IÂ’d suggest that they have compared this fantasy to the wrong general. The closest weÂ’ve ever had to such a candidacy was that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was actively courted by both political parties and who overwhelmingly claimed the presidency twice.

Posted by: Greg at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

And until the Democrats tell them to do so, they are clearly complicit with each and every vile move these folks make.

With its full-page “General Betray Us?” ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOn’s actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout — and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line — for many in the party to take it on.

Democratic leaders might be further embarrassed by a new email, headlined “Your dog can help end the war,” sent out by the leadership of MoveOn’s political team. The email asks members to attend a protest on Capitol Hill this morning preceding the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “Congress was fooled before by the White House’s ‘dog and pony show,” the appeal says. “We need to make sure they’re not fooled again. That’s why we’re hosting our own ‘Dog and Pony Show’ outside the Capitol Building right before Petraeus takes the stage for his testimony. We want to show Congress and the cameras that the American people aren’t buying the White House spin.”

“We’re bringing real ponies, signs and a big banner that reads, ‘CONGRESS: Don’t be fooled, AGAIN!’ Can you make it — and bring your dog if you have one?”

It seems unlikely that many top Democrats will be bringing pets. But the thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. ItÂ’s not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And itÂ’s not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOnÂ’s latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, AmericaÂ’s use of military power in its own defense.

The Democrat leadership has allied themselves with those who slander patriots like Petraeus and seek to intimidate their opponents with Maoist tactics and Stalinist demands for ideological purity. That is not the American way.

MoveOn.Org needs to FuckOff.Now – will the Democrats have the courage to tell them so?

Posted by: Greg at 09:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, Nanny State knows best.

Amid worries of an obesity epidemic and its related illnesses, including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease, Los Angeles officials, among others around the country, are proposing to limit new fast-food restaurants -- a tactic that could be called health zoning.

The City Council will be asked this fall to consider an up to two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A., a part of the city where fast food is at least as much a practicality as a preference.

"The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the ordinance in June, and whose district includes portions of South L.A. that would be affected by the plan.

So what we have here is Councilwoman Perry arguing that fast food restaurants have harvested black holes and that unwilling customers are being sucked into the restaurants and forced to eat food they don't want.

I never knew -- what would I do without big-government liberal politicians to tell em these things.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

While the Left tries to reject the Petraeus report in advance -- even demonizing General Petraeus and questioning his patriotism --the American people recognize that he and other members of the military are in the best position to offer a path to victory in Iraq.

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

On the eve of what is sure to be a contentious debate on Iraq, the results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.

I do have one problem with this poll -- the 5% rating for the administration is really an illusion because the selection of General Petraeus, the Surge strategy, and the draw-down that is a part of it are all part of the Administration's policy. I trust the Bush administration on Iraq, but would have fallen in the 68% who say I place my trust in the commanders in the field rather than the politicians in Washington. I suspect that many others would have said something similar.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the word on Drudge.

Following their testimony to Congress, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will appear exclusively on FOXNEWS Monday at 9pm EDT for one hour live interview with Brit Hume... Developing...

No confirmation yet.

And Andrew Sullivan is doing the twisted-knicker dance.

If Drudge is right and the general and the ambassador are going to give Fox News' Brit Hume an exclusive hour-long sit-down, then it seems to me they forfeit any pretense of neutrality. They really need either to stick to the Congressional testimony, or appear on more outlets than a purely Republican network. It's extremely important for the integrity of the US military - and the credibility of Petraeus - that it remain above partisanship and even the appearance of partisanship. Here's hoping Drudge is wrong. They couldn't be that stupid, could they?

Last time I checked, Fox News was the highest rated and most trusted news network on cable. Why not go with them? Would we hear this objection if they went on CNN or were interviewed by the mouth-frothing sportscaster on MSNBC? I doubt it. The word for objections to this interview is therefore one we've seen thrown around a lot lately -- hypocrisy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Sweet Jesus, folks, that is one of the things that members of a law firm do -- indeed, it is one of the reasons that lawyers band together in law firms, so that they have multiple individuals with different areas of expertise with whom to consult. It is standard practice -- and for anyone to complain about this (or the clients other partners brought to the firm) is rather absurd.

A little over three years after Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, Fred D. Thompson provided advice to a colleague about one of his law firmÂ’s new clients: The man representing the two Libyan intelligence officials charged in the terrorist bombing.

The colleague, John Culver, a partner at the Washington firm of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn began advising the two suspects’ Libyan lawyer in February 1992. Mr. Thompson, according to a memorandum from that era written by his secretary, held “discussions with Culver re: Libya” that same month.

At the time, Libya was facing international outrage for refusing to comply with a United Nations demand that the two suspects be extradited to the West for trial in the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people. Revelations that American firms were representing Libyan interests provoked a furor among the Pan Am victimsÂ’ families. Some law firms refused to represent the country or the suspects, while others withdrew.

The involvement of Mr. Thompson, who worked part-time for Arent Fox as a lawyer and lobbyist from 1991 until shortly before his election to the Senate in 1994, never became public. But Arent FoxÂ’s chairman, Marc L. Fleischaker, confirmed that Mr. Thompson, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, briefly provided Mr. Culver with advice about the suspectsÂ’ case, billing the firm for 3.3 hours of his time.

Imagine that -- less than four hours on how to get the Libyans to allow these folks to be extradited while ensuring that they would get a fair trial. I've no doubt that there are some Italian firms doing work for the US government regarding the charges growing out of that hostage rescue SNAFU a couple of years ago. Like in this case, you need experts in the laws of a particular nation in order to bring some resolution to the situation.

Really, folks, there is nothing to see here -- just move along.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Where exactly is Norman Hsu's money coming from -- and how much of it is being illegally funneled to Democrats?

A review of financial records for one of Mr. HsuÂ’s companies begins to shed light on some of his recent activities, including his dealings with a circle of campaign contributors that has fallen under suspicion since news of Mr. HsuÂ’s criminal past, murky business interests and unexplained riches rocked the Democratic Party.

The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.

The records make clear that the group was more than just a loose collection of friends, family and co-workers that bundlers typically rely on when raising money for a candidate. Rather, each person had a direct financial relationship with Mr. Hsu, either receiving money from his company or paying into it, even though many of them appear to have other jobs or businesses independent of him. The purpose of the payments, and whether they related to business costs, fees or expenses, is unclear.

There needs to be an investigation of Hsu, every contributor whose money he bundled, and every candidate and party organization to which that money went. We have a whale of a political scandal here, folks, and it highlights the hypocrisy of the Democrats, who have set themselves a high bar on campaign finance over the years.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

The Left has told us for years that they are a source of corruption and lead government away from what is right and beneficial for the American people. So why are we seeing them use lobbyists for this effort?

One weekday morning in mid-July, perhaps two dozen liberal organizers gathered around a conference table in an office building on Washington’s K Street. Their mission: American withdrawal from Iraq. In one sense, the location was unlikely; K Street is a symbolic address, like Madison Avenue or Fleet Street, in this case representing the capital’s thriving industry of trade associations and corporate lobbyists. Yet this was a group of mostly young progressives drawing meager salaries who had no ties to corporate America. Still, the venue was not inappropriate. Those arranged around the table represented the new face of the antiwar movement — now one of Washington’s most vigorous single-issue lobbies.

The purpose of the meeting was the daily conference call conducted by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of activists, policy outfits and labor unions brought together this year by MoveOn.org, the 3.4-million-member-strong liberal advocacy group, which was convinced that Democrats on Capitol Hill needed help to end the war. By the end of this month, Americans Against Escalation will have spent $12 million on a combination of grass-roots organizing, polling and television advertisements in order to get the United States out of Iraq.

Seems to me that we are seeing liberal hypocrisy in action.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, this is a move that should have been made when John Ashcroft resigned from office. That it is happening now is a good thing -- but it comes with the cost of the Alberto Gonzales debacle.

President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations.

Other candidates still in the running include former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Ted Olson is a great legal mind and a principled individual. The death of his wife, Barbara Olson, on 9/11 will also serve to highlight the fact that the Justice Department is a critical part of the Crusade Against Jihadism.

Oh, yeah -- and the Democrats hate him, and will put on a show of petty partisan politics that will show how unprincipled they are. You know, just to remind the American people how unfit they are to govern.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

I know that I am not happy with this response to a question from Glenn Beck, and only confirms my decision not to back him for the GOP nomination. Will this turn off other GOP voters and cause them to look elsewhere for a candidate who supports their views on immigration? I think it may, and probably should.

GLENN: Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren't you saying --

GIULIANI: Glenn --

GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.

GLENN: Is it --

GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn't.

GLENN: Should it be?

GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you'd have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.

I once thought that there might be a place for Rudy Giuliani in a future GOP cabinet, either as Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security. This response makes it pretty clear that he isn't fit for either of those positions, either.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

And I've actually have one local Democrat leader and blogger admit this to be true.

Posted by: Greg at 09:49 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

The situation in Iraq has changed, the public is coming around, but the military-defeat-at-any-cost strategy for the electoral success of liberal Democrats remains unchanged.

"Anything that takes us back from where we were this spring [a firm withdrawal date] is unacceptable," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), one of the founding members of the 70-plus member Out of Iraq Caucus in the House. "Bipartisanship is great Â… only if it puts together an orderly withdrawal of the troops."

In other words, a “bipartisan solution” requires Republicans to vote like Democrats, not Democrats to vote for what is best for American and the world.

OPEN TRACKBACKING Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Aug. 07, 08 and 09, 2007, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, 4 Time Father?, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 4 kb.

It appears that if there is corruption in the Texas courts, it has a big D hanging around its neck.

Mikal Watts of San Antonio, a lawyer and candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator, has done the reputations of the courts and the trial lawyers no good.

As reported by the Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe, in 2001 Watts wrote to opposing counsel claiming that his firm's campaign contributions had won the hearts and minds of the justices on the 13th Court of Appeals, "all good Democrats." If Watts and his firm indeed gave campaign gifts with the expectation of influencing the court's decisions, it would constitute an illegal bribe. If Watts was just making an idle threat to intimidate a defendant in a lawsuit, he behaved unethically.

As a well- and largely self-financed candidate for high office, Watts owes voters an explanation: Does he think his campaign donations influence the outcome of cases? Regardless of the answer, Watts should explain to the voters why his outrageous claim does not violate the public trust and disqualify him from the office he seeks.

We constantly hear local Democrats complain that conservatives donating to judicial races "buys justice" in Harris County and the state of Texas. Will they now demand that these claims be investigated -- and that Watts be censured and any judges who he bought be removed from the Court? Or are they clean court chickenhawks?

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll concede that I do trust the electronic voting system put in place by my county, even though there is no paper trail. That said, I will also tell you that I preferred (and urged the adoption of) an optical scanner system similar to what my students use to take multiple choice tests at my school.

Why?

Because I knew it would eventually come to this.

Lawmakers have come full circle after devoting more money to high-tech voting machines following the 2000 election debacle in Florida. They now say a return to the paper trails of old is the key to an honest vote, exasperating state election officials.

Legislation pending in the House would require a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in national elections beginning with the November 2008 ballot. It also would require random audits in federal elections and specifies that the paper ballot is the vote of record in all recounts and audits.

Public confidence in the voting process is at an all-time low, said Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., the bill's chief sponsor. "I shudder to think what would happen with another election where millions of Americans don't believe the results," Holt said.

Of course, the reality is that many of those "millions of Americans [who] don't believe the results" are the same folks who believe that the US government blew up the World Trade Center and Pentagon and that George Bush is a fascist planning a military coup so he can set up concentration camps to liquidate Muslims and liberals. What they need is not a paper trail at election time, but greater access to mental health care.

But I think a paper trail is important. We've all lost data and had computer glitches. thre should be something. But it should come at the beginning of the process, not at the end with a receipt-style printout. heck, another easy solution would be to use computer punch-cards -- but of course, the attempted vote-fraud and election theft by Florida Democrats in 2000 show that even that reliable, rational system is subject to failure in the hands of the unscrupulous away from the eyes of a vigilant public.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

We need to reject him at the national level in the presidential race.

We need to defeat him in his congressional primary (in Texas, you can run for both).

He sounds like one of the frothing diarists over at the Cloaca Maxima of the internet.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

When things looked bad in Iraq, the Democrats wanted an all-or-nothing plan for immediate defeat at any cost. They wouldn't accept any bipartisan solutions that might give our forces a chance to win, and Iraq a chance to be stable. Well, now that the situation in Iraq is improving daily, the Democrats are willing to look for GOP allies to help get the American military defeat they so desperately need to be successful in 2008.

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster.

The emerging proposal by Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, would still order the administration to begin pulling at least some combat troops out of Iraq, probably by the end of the year. It is not clear what other provisions the measure may include.

But Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee and who met Wednesday with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said a compromise may be worth making. It would allow Congress to assert its own voice on Iraq policy, after falling short of that goal in most such votes throughout the year, he said.

Frankly, Congressional micromanaging of the war like this is a bad thing. It was tried back during the Civil War, and resulted in chaos as good generals had to justify bad outcomes before a congressional committee, while political hacks often got a pass from their patrons despite their incompetence. By its very nature, Congress is ill-equipped to direct the war and to set such timetables -- and since the Democrats have made it clear that they are more interested in the political benefit of retreat and surrender, this particular Congress must be considered incompetent and irrelevant to military decision-making.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Fred Thompson is officially in the 2008 Presidential Race!

At 7:57 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday, while taping "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" for broadcast later in the evening, Fred Thompson finally said: "I'm running for president of the United States."

The studio audience responded with thunderous applause.

Thompson rejected the notion that he has waited too long to get into the race for the White House.

"People treat politicians sort of like the dentist -- they don't have anything to do with them till they have to," he said.

"A lot of people have been, of course, running for some time. Everybody kind of changed the rules.

"Usually you don't announce until after Labor Day, but they started running a lot earlier, spending millions of dollars and so forth, and everyone said that you couldn't run this year without raising a hundred million dollars and starting much earlier. I don't believe that," Thompson said, adding that he doubts voters will say: "That guy would make a very good president, but he didn't get in soon enough."

Video of the announcement is here.

Actually, the Thompson campaign might well have the advantage of novelty behind it. After all, how many folks are simply tired of the current crop of candidates on both sides of the political aisle?

Here's the first campaign video.

After all, MoveOn’s aim is to punish dissent, not to debate or persuade.

In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to take on a new set of perceived traitors in their midst--Democrats who have acknowledged some success from the troop surge in Iraq.

* * *

The group doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare to think for themselves. There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."

There was a time when liberalism was a patriotic, open-minded strain of political thought which accepted debate and dissent. Today, however, what we see is a totalitarian Left which defines dissent as dangerous (except when it is their own – then it is the ultimate form of patriotism).

We see that best in the current situation. So intent are these folks upon the notion that the Iraq War is wrong and that America MUST lose that it cannot brook any contradiction – even if it is good news for America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, MoveOnÂ’s aim is to punish dissent, not to debate or persuade.

In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to take on a new set of perceived traitors in their midst--Democrats who have acknowledged some success from the troop surge in Iraq.

* * *

The group doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare to think for themselves. There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."

There was a time when liberalism was a patriotic, open-minded strain of political thought which accepted debate and dissent. Today, however, what we see is a totalitarian Left which defines dissent as dangerous (except when it is their own – then it is the ultimate form of patriotism).

We see that best in the current situation. So intent are these folks upon the notion that the Iraq War is wrong and that America MUST lose that it cannot brook any contradiction – even if it is good news for America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, he may have been a crappy president who disgraced the office, but he at least has enough respect for the Constitution to not try to grasp for an office denied him.

Bill Clinton ruled out running as HRC's VP tonight during a taping of the CBS's LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

MORE

Dave: “Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there’s some confusion, and maybe I’m the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?”

Clinton: “I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that’s just not in the cards.”

ALL the current Democrats would be good Veeps? Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel? Bill “God wants Iowa first” Richadson? You must be kidding.

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Cloaca Maxima of the internet has proved itself good for something. The Daily Kos has been ruled to be a media outlet not subject to FEC regulation, which means that the rest of us bloggers also qualify as journalists.

Bill O’Reilly blasts DailyKos as a “hate site,” but according to a federal ruling released Tuesday, the popular liberal blog is as much a part of the media as Fox News when it comes to campaign finance rules.

The Federal Election Commission unanimously dismissed a complaint filed against DailyKos by a right-wing blogger who had argued it was illegally acting as a political committee by giving support and free advertising to Democratic candidates.

Adam Bonin, the lawyer who represented DailyKos, called the ruling “a big victory, but everything about the rulemaking and the precedent strongly suggested that there was no other logical outcome.”

The ruling is only a small step in the evolution of government regulation of politics on the Web, but expect it to attract attention because of the prominence of Daily Kos.

The complaint alleged that DailyKos should have to register as a political committee since its primary purpose is promoting Democrats and it raised and spent more than $1,000 pursuing that end.

Now what this effectively means is that when bloggers speak, they are not making campaign contributions. That also means that we are free to speak free of government reporting burdens. Had the ruling gone the other way, many bloggers would have been forced to quit speaking on political candidates and issues, while others (myself included) would have continued speaking and risked arrest for the crime of engaging in political speech.

Now I will note that the complaint was filed by blogger John Bambenek. It is my hope that it was intended as a test case, not to silence a political opponent.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, taking money from mobbed-up a financier is fine if you are a Democrat -- especially if you helped get him a high political appointments despite his shady past.

A man who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure will host a Windy City fund-raiser tonight for Sen. Barack Obama.

Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator's Oval Office bid.

Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help.

Of course, that is how the game is played by Chicago Democrats -- make sure that the mob and the corrupt unions are behind you so they can help turn out the dead and the non-existent vote for you on election day. And if they can fill your coffers with dirty money, so much the better!

Obama isn't a candidate of change -- he's the candidate of the Chicago status quo!

H/T Captain Ed

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

I briefly noted last night that Senator Larry Craig is considering not leaving the Senate at this time. What has led to this situation, only three days after he announced his resignation plans?

A telephone call Craig received last week from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urging him to consider fighting for his seat is affecting CraigÂ’s decision to reconsider his resignation, Smith said.

“It was a little more cut and dried a few days ago,” Smith said. “There weren’t many options. He was basically going to have to step aside. Now, there’s a little more to it.”

On Tuesday, Specter, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested CraigÂ’s GOP colleagues who pressured him last week to resign should re-examine the facts surrounding his arrest June 11.

“The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts,” said Specter, a former prosecutor. If Craig had not pleaded guilty in August to a reduced charge and instead demanded a trial, “I believe he would have been exonerated,” Specter said.

Now I happen to agree with Specter's position on the charges. I fail to see how any of Craig's actions constitute criminal activity. He wasn't caught having sex through a "glory-hole" -- he was, if the flirting, if the accusations are true.

The problem in my book is how he handled the situation after he was arrested. The guilty plea (which he now wants vacated) and the attempt to deceive eveyone by hiding the incident indicates a lack of integrity. Simple question -- is Larry Craig trustworthy?

And I think this bears directly on that issue. It comes from a voicemail message left to an individual identified as "Billy" while Craig was traveling to Saturday's announcement.

"Having all of that, we've reshaped my statement a little bit to say, 'It is my intent to resign on September 30,' " Craig says in the voice-mail message. Whiting confirmed that it was Craig's voice.

Craig told his confidant -- whom he identifies as "Billy" -- that Specter would be speaking out on his behalf, and he urged Billy to go before the cameras and make a strong statement as well.

"I'm willing to fight. I've got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn," Craig said.

Clearly, Larry Craig was out to deceive and mislead everyone as to his real intentions.

Had Larry Craig not made that statement Saturday, I likely would have supported him in his decision to stay on in the Senate. I could have accepted teh desire to keep the incident and the guilty plea secret. But his bait-and-switch move makes it quite clear to me that Larry Craig has no place in the US Senate -- and no place in the GOP.

Indeed, this move shows that Michelle Malkin's characterization of Larry Craig was accurate.

Lying crapweasel.

Posted by: Greg at 09:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 4 kb.