Let's be serious -- who really cares about this photo?

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

"The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya," the Drudge Report said. The photo created huge buzz in political circles and immediately became known as "the 'dressed' photo," reflecting the Drudge terminology.

Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.

Clearly, the photo does not show that Obama is a Muslim. It falls into a long line of photos of American political figures putting on goofy-looking native gear for a photo-op or as part of some event as a show of respect. That he may look a bit silly is not in and of itself a problem -- at least he isn't riding in a tank like Mike Dukakis or wearing the "bunny suit" at NASA like John Kerry.

I guess I really don't see it as proving anything.

But unlike the Clinton spokesperson in the article, i do see a problem with those connected to the campaign circulating the photo. After all, it is an attempt to play into the old false rumor about Obama being a Muslim -- and that is a bigoted attack.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 AM | Comments (328) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Many of my fellow Republicans have received this letter or will be receiving it in the days to come. I thought I would share it with you.

Dear Fellow Republican:



It is never an easy decision to reject an incumbent and support a challenger in the primary. There are loyalties and friendships that develop over the course of years, and the benefits to the district that come from seniority. And yet in this particular race, we have reached the conclusion that the people of District 129 would be better served if the Republican nominee were the challenger, Jon Keeney, rather than the incumbent.

HereÂ’s why we have reached this conclusion.

1. Jon Keeney has a clear vision for District 129 and the state of Texas. In the last sessions of the legislature, the incumbent has fallen short in meeting basic Republican principles like controlling public spending, cutting taxes, and promoting economic development in the district and the state as a whole. Jon Keeney recognizes the necessity of controlling property taxes so that Texans can afford to keep their homes and of encouraging business growth.

2. Jon Keeney recognizes the need for leaders to have high ethical standards. The incumbent has shamed District 129 with his unethical use of campaign funds. He has been fined for failing to fully disclose these expenditures as required by law and for using those funds for personal purposes. Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle (March 1, 2007) noted that the incumbent has sought reimbursement from both his campaign and the state for gas mileage expenses. This raises serious questions about double dipping, which would be a crime under state law--questions to which John Davis has not provided an adequate answer. Honesty and integrity are values that Jon Keeney will uphold as our state representative, as he seeks to restore trust in government leaders.

3. Jon Keeney supports American security and sovereignty. When there were opportunities to gain more control of illegal immigration, the incumbent voted against HB 13 which funded training to properly apprehend illegal immigrants for all local law enforcement agencies. The incumbent has supported the Trans-Texas Corridor, giving control of our stateÂ’s highways to a foreign country for decades come. Jon Keeney believes in secure borders, the enforcement of immigrations laws, and Texans controlling the transportation infrastructure of Texas.

4. Jon Keeney will be a citizen representative, not a career politician. Jon Keeney is seeking to serve the people of District 129, not his own personal interests.

The incumbent has not been an effective representative in Austin, and has not adhered to Republican principles. Jon Keeney will change that, so that the people of District 129 can be proud of our representative in Austin. That is why I urge you to join me in supporting Jon Keeney for State Representative, to guarantee that we see conservative change in the legislature.

Greg Aydt, Precinct 333 Chair

Laurence W. Tobin, Precinct 90 Chair

Joseph Spence, Precinct 732 Chair

Pat Monks, Precinct 718 Chair

Dennis Hayes, Precinct 378 Chair

Barbara Brehmer, Precinct 782 Chair

There is a problem in District 129. That problem is John Davis. We can solve that problem by making Jon Keeney the GOP nominee for State Representative in District 129. Early voting is underway, and the primary is in 10 days. Get out and vote for Jon Keeney.

Posted by: Greg at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

This looks bad on its face -- but isn't upon closer examination.

Charles Bacarisse, a candidate for the top Harris County government job, offered to use his contacts as district clerk to promote a process-serving company in return for a private consulting fee, according to the company's owner.

Bacarisse would not comment about the allegation Friday, but a spokesman denied any wrongdoing saying the company owner has misinterpreted the meeting she had with Bacarisse on Nov. 30, 2006, at a Starbucks.

The Chronicle reported this month that while serving as the elected district clerk, a job that pays $135,000 a year plus a car allowance, Republican Bacarisse ran a private consulting business that netted him $78,000 a year. Bacarisse said his private clients, a building management company and a process-serving and courier company, had no direct dealings with the county and hired him as a business strategist.

But Angela Clark of Houston, owner of Court Record Research Inc. and a former fundraiser for Bacarisse's district clerk campaigns, said Bacarisse offered in 2006 to use his government connections to help her process-serving operation — the type of private/public arrangement that Bacarisse has said he has never offered.

Could be ugly for a candidate (who I've endorsed) running on a platform of ethics reform.

Except that it appears to be missing any evidence of a quid pro quo that would make this a problem.

Clark said she was afraid to reject Bacarisse's consulting offer because that might lead to the loss of her free work space and afraid to accept because she viewed such an arrangement as a conflict of interest.

So she did nothing -- and neither lost her free work space nor clients.

Makes it seem much more likely that Bacarisse is correct -- Clark misunderstood the conversation and what he was suggesting.

I wonder if the reason for this story is that Ed Emmett is behind in the polls, and the Chronicle would much rather see "good ol' boy politics-as-usual" prevail over the grassroots movement within the GOP to clean up Harris County government that is backing Charles Bacarisse.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey just surrendered part of his reputation as a crusader against public corruption.

There's something to be said for an investigation. Rosenthal was, after all, the man who was in charge of prosecuting crime in Harris County. It would be unseemly for strong evidence that he committed a crime — even a misdemeanor — to go unpursued.

It would also be unseemly to seek much punishment beyond what he has already suffered, the loss of his prestigious position and the public humiliation he has suffered.

Rosenthal would hardly be the first elected official to receive a deal that amounted to resignation and, sometimes, a modest fine.

Yes, Casey backs this position up with examples -- examples that only prove how wrong he is.

These plea deals didn't do a damn thing to stem public corruption. If anything, they make it easier for public officials to break the law. After all, there appears to be no penalty for criminal activity when what you get is a plea deal in public corruption cases. If anything, the policy needs to be NO PLEA DEALS FOR CORRUPT POLS.

If illegal activity by public officials is to be discouraged, then it must be fully prosecuted and punished. And I take this stand in the case of a member of my own party to make it clear that my calls for clean government are based upon principle, not politics.

Chuck Rosenthal needs to go to jail, go directly jail, not passing "GO" and not collecting his government pension.

After all, if three hots and a cot were appropriate for the criminals he spent years prosecuting, it is good enough for our corrupt former DA.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess that these special groups aren't so bad when they let Lady Macbeth Senator Hillary Clinton get a cash infusion and enable attacks on Obama that her campaign couldn't make.

Looking to boost Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging fortunes, a group of Democratic political strategists has assembled an organization that will raise money from wealthy donors and run ads promoting her views in Texas and Ohio.

Called the American Leadership Project, the organization has been formed as a so-called 527 committee, which can raise unlimited amounts of money from some of Clinton's most deep-pocketed benefactors.

The group is targeting Texas and Ohio, the battleground states that hold primaries on March 4 and are considered Clinton's last best chance to keep her campaign alive against a surging Barack Obama. By law, the group cannot coordinate its activities with Clinton.

"We want to shine a light on issues that matter most to the nation's middle class — health care, freezing foreclosures, those sorts of things," Roger Salazar, the president of the new group, said in an interview. "Obviously Senator Clinton is a recognized champion on these issues."

Expect the high tech of Barack Obama to begin at the hands of these Clinton surrogates from California. Expect Hillary to say not a word against those who are running these ads. After all, bad things just coincidentally happen to those who get in the way of the Clintons -- but it isn't their fault.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

To borrow from the Bard -- much ado about nothing.

Early in Senator John McCainÂ’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyistÂ’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Interestingly enough, the story goes on like this for a couple of pages, but every single anecdote lacks one thing -- an actual act of wrong-doing on John McCain's part. The biggest question that arises anywhere in the article relates to one plane trip, and a dispute between different lawyers over whether and hoe it should have been reported on ethics forms. Pretty small potatoes, when you consider all the ink spilled on this story.

And there is, of course, the sexist double standard at work in this article, too. If the lobbyist friend had been male, would the NY Times have felt it necessary to invoke the issue of an extra-marital sexual affair when there was no evidence of one presented anywhere in the article? Doesn't hinting that female lobbyists give sexual favors to advance the interests of their clients while not making the same sort of claims about male lobbyists constitute an egregious attack upon the equality of women?

The biggest bit of evidence that there is nothing substantive to this story was published four weeks ago -- the endorsement of John McCain by the New York Times. This story has clearly been in the works for some time (indeed, dating back to at least December), and if there had been evidence of substantive wrong-doing by the Arizona Senator the endorsement would not have happened.

The Washington Post gives an interesting statistic at the end of its article that would appear damning to anyone who was too lazy to do the math.

Iseman and her firm, which includes high-profile Republicans and Democrats, have also represented a number of other companies that have had issues before McCain and the commerce committee, including Univision, a Spanish-language television network. Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

Let's see -- depending upon how you count that, we would be talking about seven or eight calendar years worth of donations. Assuming that this sloppily constructed sentence means that the Post is only counting donations from the years 2001 through 2007 (it is a bit early to know about 2008 donations) we are talking about an average of $12,000 in donations a year from all clients of Vicki Iseman. That is peanuts when one considers her client list, constituting very small donations from the companies she represents. If anything, it would tend to show that everything is on the up and up in terms of the campaign finance end of things, and that John McCain hasn't been bought and paid for by Iseman's clients.

Now some may want to make an issue of the complaints by John McCain to NY Times editor Bill Keller and this statement attacking the paper.

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

However, I ask those who argue (as one local blogger did) that McCain's objections to the story are proof of its truth a simple question -- if defending yourself from an accusation that you believe to be untrue and unfair constitutes proof of guilt, would you really consider silence in the face of such charges to be evidence of innocence? Or do you really care about the accuracy of the charges at all?

More At Captains Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 864 words, total size 6 kb.

As early voting soars here in Texas, I figure it is time for me to make public my endorsements on various races in Harris County.

PRESIDENT

Mitt Romney

Yes, I know that I’ve been talking for a while about the importance of supporting John McCain in November – but the primary is in March. Stopping McCain isn’t an option, but expressing a conservative vision is. I’m therefore going to cast my vote for the candidate I supported through this nominating process, as my way of supporting a conservative future for the GOP. I urge my fellow Republicans to do the same.

US SENATE

John Cornyn

John Cornyn is a competent Senator with conservative principles and rising star of the GOP. His opponent is running on a platform of secession and independence for Texas.

CONGRESS – CD22

Shelly Sekula Gibbs

Tom DeLay screwed the voters of CD22 in 2006 when he withdrew from the race for Congress after winning the primary. I quickly got behind Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs as she sought DeLayÂ’s spot on the ballot. After a federal court ruled that DeLayÂ’s spot could not be filled under Texas election law, she was the endorsed candidate for both the special election to fill out the remaining weeks of DeLayÂ’s term AND as a write-in candidate for the general election. She won the special election handily, and made a strong showing against a Democrat whose name was actually on the ballot. She spent her short time in Congress highlighting conservative principles and issues in a series of speeches and press releases.

Fast-forward to 2008. Ten candidates seek the Republican nomination to take on Nick Lampson. Four are irrelevant no-names. Two, former Judge Jim Squier and former Pasadena Mayor John Manlove gave up secure posts for longshot congressional bids that have simply not ignited much passion. That leaves four serious candidates, who I will talk about in a moment. Ultimately, there will be a run-off in this race – with 10 candidates in the race it is extremely unlikely that any candidate can break 50%. It is a safe bet that the two candidates in the run-off are on the list below.

1) Pete Olson, a former staffer for Phil Gramm and John Cornyn comes highly recommended by Washington insiders and heavily funded by Washington insiders and lobbyists. While he does have roots in the district, he has been away for many years and did not even have a Texas drivers license a year ago. HeÂ’s conservative, but is he just as much a carpetbagger as Nick Lampson?

2) Robert Talton has a great record in the Texas Legislature, but is often perceived as extreme and volatile in his temperament. He was the favorite of most precinct chairman to take Tom DeLay’s place on the ballot during the 2006 fiasco – but he wouldn’t give up his safe legislative seat to make a write-in run. He wouldn’t put it on the line for us two years ago to help us keep CD22 Republican – why should we support him now?

3) Dean Hrbacek is a former mayor of Sugar Land, and compiled a great record in that position. He was strangely absent from the 2006 scramble for the seat, which is too bad – he would have made a great candidate and drawn many votes from the western half of the district. His experience and character would serve him well were he to be elected – but I think he missed his best chance in 2006.

4) Shelley Sekula Gibbs, as recounted above, hit the ground running in 2006 and hasnÂ’t stopped running since. After her brief time in Washington was over, she began an immediate effort to take the seat she held for those few weeks after winning the special election. She has clearly and consistently enunciated a conservative platform during that time. She has high name identification and has raised significant funds for the race. I believe her to be the best choice for us in 2008.

I therefore urge my fellow Republicans to once again cast their ballot for Shelley Sekula Gibbs.

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE

Charles Bacarisse

Ed Emmett became Harris County judge through a corrupt bargain between former County Judge Robert Eckels and the rest of the Commissioners Court. Rather than selecting a replacement who had the faith of the voters, they chose an Eckels crony who had not stood for office in two decades. This did not inspire confidence in the people of Harris County – and Ed Emmett has done nothing to earn that confidence since then. Charles Bacarisse has a solid record of accomplishment in his years as District Clerk, and has put forth solid conservative plans for dealing with ethics in county government and unpaid bills from both legal and illegal aliens treated by the Harris County Hospital District at taxpayer expense. He is not merely the best choice – he is the only choice.

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Jim Leitner

I wonÂ’t recount the recent scandal that led to Chuck RosenthalÂ’s decision not to seek reelection as DA and his eventual resignation. Suffice it to say that IÂ’m pleased he is gone. Of the four candidates to succeed him in that office, three are clearly qualified and two have experience as prosecutors. In an ordinary year IÂ’d be inclined to support Kelly Siegler, the best prosecutor on a staff of highly regarded prosecutors. However, SieglerÂ’s husband is intimately connected with the scandal that brought down Rosenthal, and so I donÂ’t believe she will be able to escape that shadow. Jim Leitner, on the other hand, is a defense attorney with who was also 1st Assistant DA in the office some years ago. He is highly regarded by the Harris County Bar, and has laid out a plan for restoring public confidence in the DAs office. I believe he is our best choice.

TEXAS HOUSE DISTRICT 129

Jon Keeney

There is a serious problem in District 129, and it is the incumbent Republican, John Davis. IÂ’ve already made it clear that I believe he needs to be removed from office due to his ineffectiveness, unresponsiveness, and ethical lapses. Fortunately, retired businessman Jon Keeney has stepped forward to offer us a choice in the primary. He is running on a platform that supports high ethical standards and economic development in the region. Keeney is not only the best choice, he is the only choice.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 8, PLACE 1

Holly Williamson

We have the good fortune of having three excellent candidates in this race. Indeed, I struggled with this one before deciding on Holly Williamson. Of the three candidates, Williamson strikes me as the one who is best suited to the position. Long active in the community in the Clear Lake area, Holly is a respected attorney with strong support form the grassroots Republican activists in the area.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1208 words, total size 9 kb.

How does campaign finance law apply here.

The founders of Ben & Jerry's endorsed Barack Obama on Monday, and lent his Vermont campaign two "ObamaMobiles" that will tour the state and give away scoops of "Cherries for Change" ice cream.

I’m curious – does this constitute a personal donation from Ben and Jerry? What is the value of that donation? If they market this “Cherries for Change” Ice cream, will any reference to Obama be counted as a donation? Is Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream a partnership or a corporation – and if so, how do the rules on corporate donations come into play here? All in all, this hearkens back to my earlier post on campaign contributions.

H/T The Campaign Spot.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 3 kb.

Two wins each, thank you very much. Whither Hillary?

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept to victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii yesterday, bringing to 10 the number of consecutive contests he has won over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and raising the stakes for crucial votes in Ohio and Texas next month.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) easily beat former governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.) in Wisconsin and the Washington State caucuses, two wins that further cement his status as the race's front-runner.

The big difference is this -- with the nomination more or less secure, John McCain can work on defining himself relative to the two Democrats. On the other hand, the two Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, will find it necessary to focus on securing the support of their own party base as they attempt to win the nomination. COnventional wisdom says this favors McCain -- but we shall see. After all, a string of victories for Obama (he is now up to 10 straight) could boost Obama's image as a strong candidate even higher.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

And quit exploiting the real people of America?

After all, she works managing hedge funds -- and those are bad people, according to Hillary Clinton.

ABC News' Jennifer Parker and Eloise Harper Report: Sen. Hillary Clinton took a swipe at her daughter's profession today at an economic roundtable discussion at a restaurant in Parma, Ohio, suggesting wealthy investment bankers and hedge fund managers on Wall Street aren't doing real 'work.'

The former first lady's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, works for New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group. She previously worked in New York for McKinsey & Company, her first job after graduating with her master's degree from Oxford University.

"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That's very discouraging to people."

You just feel like, 'wait a minute. I'm working as hard as I can.' All those people you see in your law office. They're working as hard as they can and they feel like they're just getting further and further behind," Clinton said.

It's not the first time Clinton has taken a swipe against her daughter's profession. Campaigning in Wisconsin yesterday, Clinton railed against hedge funds as Chelsea sat off to the side.

"I saw a sign over here - someone has a t-shirt on, tax hedge fund dealers," Clinton said Monday, "well in this economy we are going to have a fair tax system again. A Wall Street investment manager, a hedge fund dealer, should not pay a lower percentage of taxes on his 50 million dollars worth of income.”

Gee -- David Shuster was suspended from MSNBC for criticizing the Clinton campaign's use of Chelsea Clinton as a surrogate. Now that Hillary is attacking her daughter's profession -- and, by implication, her daughter -- will there be some sort of penalty for the attack on Chelsea? Or does the Clinton campaign hold out a double standard on attacks on Chelse?

And by the way -- will Hillary insist that her daughter get a real job?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 4 kb.

Mike Huckabee says that his reason for not withdrawing from the race for the GOP nomination is passion.

Mike Huckabee said Tuesday passion for his beliefs — not his ego — was the reason he remains in the Republican presidential race despite near-impossible odds.

Rival John McCain collected another primary win in Wisconsin and moved closer to the 1,191 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Huckabee hasn't won a contest since Feb. 9.

"It's not about ego," Huckabee told reporters at a Little Rock hotel. The former Arkansas governor said he still wanted to deliver his message about issues important to him, such as opposition to abortion and a revised U.S. tax policy.

Sorry, Mike, I disagree. The issue is one of ego -- of the sort of pride that goeth before the fall. You are unable to win, and have never really been a serious candidate. Indeed, then electoral math shows that you cannot win this race. And yet still you run, pretending that you have something of significance to offer the GOP at this moment rather than working towards healing and reconciliation between conservatives and the presumptive nominee, John McCain.

Get out, Mike -- get out now.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm certainly not an Obama supporter -- anyone who has spent any time reading here knows that. But I do have to defend him against the silly plagiarism charge leveled by the Clinton campaign (and some of my fellow conservatives).

Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, today accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of committing “plagiarism” in a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday night.

Wolfson made the explosive charge in an interview with Politico after suggesting as much in a conference call with reporters.

On the call, Wolfson said: “Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.”

"When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader," said Wolfson.

Now I'll be honest -- the idea is similar. And both Patrick and Obama admit that they had discussed the idea that underlies their respective statements. But the idea expressed is hardly original with Deval Patrick -- the notion that words are powerful things in and of themselves, and that they have the capacity to move entire societies and change the world.

When did I first encounter that idea? In Mr. O'Keefe's ninth grade English class. I heard it again in any number of classes -- speech, English, history, and political science -- during the rest of my academic career. I've said something similar to my students in my own classes

And let's look at what both men did -- they strung together some of the most electrifying words of American history and noted that they were "just words". It isn't an original idea. And while the phrasing is nearly identical, which initially raised some questions in my mind, there is really nothing distinctive what was said. Heck, it wasn't even a particularly profound idea -- I'd almost call it a platitude.

And one further point -- our politicians today rarely speak an unscripted word. Even the ad libs are planned in advance, as I would suggest this one was. Few and far between are the Daniel Websters and Henry Clays who produce all their own material -- most political speechifying is the result of the work of hired guns and advisers. Barack Obama took an idea proffered by one of them and ran with it. Hardly indicative of a character flaw. How many of her words on the campaign trail actually originated from the pen of Hillary Clinton, and how many came from those of her staff and supporters?

In my opinion Barack Obama is an empty suit -- but this particular issue doesn't prove it.

And it looks like at least one Clintonoid agrees with me.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (310) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

With John McCain the presumptive nominee at this point, the talk has turned to the selection of a Republican running mate. This is important for a lot of reasons, of course, but three in particular stand out.

1) John McCain has issues with the conservative base of the GOP, and he needs to woo them.

2) John McCain will be 72 years old when elected in November, and though his health is good his age makes it important that he have a qualified successor.

3) John McCain may very well be a one-term president due to his age, and his vice president is likely the presumptive front-runner in 2008.

So who are some possibilities? Well, other than a decision to reach out to a former rival like Mitt Romney (a good choice in light of point 1) or Rudy Giuliani (a bad choice for the same reason), one of the names I have heard on virtually every list is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Even through the McCain campaignÂ’s darkest days in 2007, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained a steadfast ally to the Arizona senator in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

As a result, with John McCain as the clear GOP front-runner and insider talk turning to speculation about his possible running mate, party insiders are now buzzing about the 47-year-old, second-term governorÂ’s vice presidential prospects.

Why Pawlenty?

“First of all, his age is attractive,” Weber says, hinting at the nearly quarter-century difference between his fellow Minnesotan and the 71-year-old McCain. “Second, he’s from outside Washington. Third, he represents a battleground part of the country. And he has a nice balance of, on one hand being totally acceptable to the conservative wing of the party, especially to social conservatives, but at the same time sharing a couple of key maverick strains of thought with McCain.”

And let's be honest -- Pawlenty has a great following within the conservative blogosphere, which has been none-to-pleased with the rise of McCain. One of his big backers is none other than Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters. Ditto Hugh Hewitt, who it appears has spoken highly of the governor for years. That can't hurt a young governor with a proven record of success. Expect to here more speculation about Pawlenty in coming weeks.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

In my eyes the question is not if the junior Senator from Illinois will get it, but when.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) paid a secret visit to his former rival, John Edwards, in quest of his endorsement on Sunday.

The meeting in Chapel Hill, N.C., where Edwards lives, is the latest effort by Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to win "the Edwards primary" — the heatedly sought endorsement of the third-place finisher in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton also pulled off a secret meeting to the Edwards mansion earlier this month. Speeches by both candidates have been including frequent references to Edwards' message about ending poverty.

In a delegate race that's essentially tied, with Obama in a slight lead, the Edwards nod could be very valuable.

Obama's campaign said in a statement: "Sen. Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families."

What I find amusing is the need for this to be a secret meeting at all. Everybody knows that both Obama and Clinton want -- need, actually -- Edwards' endorsement right now to make clinching the nomination quickly a real possibility. If Edwards withholds that endorsement, the Democrats will be facing a race that runs through May or June -- if not the convention itself due to the superdelegates.

Pictures and video can be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

I am not into rubber stamping, but my wife is. She passed on this little bit of political humor from one of her favorite stamping sites.

Dear Paperlicious,

I live in South Gambusta and am unfamiliar with the US system of politics.  Do politicians stamp?

Signed,
Want to Know As Much As You Do

Dear WTKAMAYD:

Hey there other side of the world person!!  Welcome to my explanation of politics USA and its relationship to stamping.

First, here is a brief summary of the Presidential race.  The President runs the country.  Kind of like the Shelli Gardner of the USA. Not quite as influential, but pretty important.  Up until this year, the President has always been a POWG  (pretty old white guy).  This year, he may be John McCain (POWG), but may be a YAAG (young African American guy) -- Barack Obama, or a MAWW (middle age white woman).  Our heads are spinning at the thought!!!

Right now the Repubicans are about to select McCain to be their nominee for President but half the Repulicans hate McCain so we have no idea what's up with that.  The Democrats are in a knock down drag out fight between Obama and Clinton, so we have no clue where that is going.

Basically, we have no clue.

UNTIL TODAY!!!! 

I was lucky enough to interview each of them.

You'll have to click the link to read the actual interviews, which to my way of thinking seem to have captured the personalities of each of the three major candidates. If you have ever been dragged to a craft store by your wife visited a craft store with your significant other, this one will bring a smile to your face.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, , The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 4 kb.

I've started this post about three times since yesterday afternoon.

I've dumped everything I've written each time -- mainly because I've been unable to prevent myself from veering off into a profane rant against Chuck Roesnthal.

After all, as I have indicated earlier, I believe he should have left office weeks ago.

Instead he hung on and damaged the DAs office here in Harris County in ways which could and should have been avoided.

Besieged by an e-mail scandal and perjury accusations, Texas’s most powerful prosecutor resigned on Friday, saying that a combination of prescription drugs had “caused some impairment in my judgment.”

The resignation of the prosecutor, District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr. of Harris County, the stateÂ’s busiest criminal jurisdiction, ended removal proceedings by the Texas attorney general.

It was a relief to fellow Republican leaders who last month quashed Mr. RosenthalÂ’s bid for a third term.

The office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who will appoint a successor, said it had not been formally notified by Mr. Rosenthal and had no immediate response.

Asked by e-mail for comment, Mr. Rosenthal, 62, sent a terse answer: “Yeah. Right!”

The resignation, announced in a one-page statement, followed by hours the filing of a state suit seeking Mr. Rosenthal’s removal “for intoxication, incompetence or official misconduct.”

Frankly, that is a pretty good summary, and decent reporting for the New York Times. And for what it is worth, I think that Rosenthal's response to the Times is indicative of the attitude he has shown throughout the recent scandal -- that he was a law unto himself and needn't answer to anyone.

The resignation press release itself is rather interesting.

As the Houston Chronicle points out, only ten days before he had been denying medication issues.

>As recently as 10 days ago, Rosenthal publicly denied having any problems with medication to deal with pain.

At a Feb. 5 meeting with about 20 of his upper echelon administrators, Rosenthal addressed "rumors that he was addicted to painkillers" that he had heard was going around, said Julian Ramirez, a division chief.

Rosenthal said he didn't even take painkillers, Ramirez said.

So if it isn't an issue op painkillers, what medications have been rendering Rosenthal unfit for office? Has he, as accused in a lawsuit filed by Democrat activist and C.O. Bradford surrogate Lloyd Kelley (his former law partner), been self-medicating with alcohol in the office?

Now some speculate the resignation -- and the reason for casting it in terms of involuntary intoxication due to prescription medications -- has less to do with the medical issues and more to do with legal ones surrounding possible perjury charges.

Rosenthal might have admitted pharmacological drugs impaired his judgment so he can raise involuntary intoxication as a possible defense if he is charged with perjury, Kelley said.

Involuntary intoxication — such as unawareness that a combination of drugs could have a certain effect — is a fact issue that can be considered by a jury in a perjury case, said attorney Pat McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association.

"It is a circumstance that could make it difficult to prove you intended to lie," McCann said.

And once again, we find Dr. Sam Siegler, husband of ace prosecutor and DA candidate Kelly Siegler, right in the middle of the entire mess. The information that comes out over the next few days could be critical in determining how badly damaged Kelly Siegler's candidacy is by this continually unfolding scandal. However, it confirms in my mind the correctness of my decision, communicated to Kelly Siegler in person at the GOP Executive Committee meeting on February 11, to endorse Jim Leitner for the DA nomination because he is not married to one of the principals in the unfolding scandal. She may be the single best courtroom advocate that the Harris County DA has had in recent years, but until the dust settles in this case I believe someone from outside the office and not closely related to a major figure in the case is a better option, even if her conduct has been undeniably above reproach.

And i agree with the Houston Chronicle on this point about the temporary replacement for Rosenthal.

Gov. Rick Perry now will have to appoint an interim replacement. The Chronicle urges Perry, a Republican, to pass over any of the four Republicans and the lone Democrat now seeking election to the office. Appointing a political candidate to fill Rosenthal's unexpired term would give that person an unfair advantage in the voting to permanently replace the outgoing district attorney. That would interfere with the voting public's right to choose the office's next leader.

The person who steps in to replace Rosenthal in the months before the November general election should be independent of politics, have a reputation for integrity and judgment that is beyond reproach, and have no desire to be elected to the office.

The ideal candidate, who would serve until an elected successor takes office Jan. 1, would be a person from outside the District Attorney's Office who has previous prosecutorial experience, perhaps in the federal system. Experience on the defense side of the bar would be an additional plus, because it would offer the balanced perspective that many have complained is lacking in the office.

The governor cannot be seen as taking sides between the GOP candidates two weeks before the primary, or between general election candidates. I tend to agree with the proposed qualifications as well, though I can think of candidates without all those qualifications who would help restore public confidence in the prosecutor's office again. Among these would be former DA Johnny Holmes, who built the office into one of the finest District Attorney offices in the nation during his tenure.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 9 kb.

Obama insisted that other candidates adhere to campaign spending limits -- but he has been raising cash like they don't apply. Seems a wee bit hypocritical to me. And he is getting hammered for it.

Hammering Senator Barack Obama for a fourth straight day, Senator John McCain said here on Friday that he expects Senator Obama to abide by his pledge use public financing for his general election if Mr. McCain does so as well.

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.”

“If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

Actually, at this point Senator Obama DOES know who the GOP niminee will be, and he has agreed to abide by the spending limits, so his refusal to commit is disingenuous.

Especially since his campaign is claiming that Barack Obama has never ACTUALLY committed to public financing.

“Obama is not the nominee, but this is a question we will address when he is," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement Thursday. Burton rejected the idea that Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue.

The context here is important. Obama made his original comments when his campaign was just getting started and his fundraising ability was largely unknown. Obama has since emerged as a record-setting fundraiser who likely would eclipse the $85 million public financing limit.

In other words, that commitment was back when he didn't know if he could raise much more then the spending limit -- but now that he sees he can, he doesn't consider what he said to be binding. Seems like the "candidate of change" is really the "candidate of change his mind".

And the Washington Post offers this observation.

But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It's not befitting Mr. Obama's well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman's statements that she would "definitely consider" forgoing public financing.

Why not let the candidates raise as much cash as they can and save the taxpayers' money? Because it's better for voters if candidates spend more time talking to them and less time cozying up to donors. It's better for democracy if candidates are less indebted to big bundlers who have raked in six- or seven-figure amounts for their campaigns. Mr. McCain seems to understand this. What about the Democrats?

Now I personally disagree with the whole premise of Political Speech And participation Limitation Laws like those supported by the liberal media, John McCain, and, supposedly, the Democrats. I believe it is better for the American people and the American political system if individuals (not corporations or unions, but individuals) are permitted to freely speak and donate money to campaigns without limits. I believe that it is better if candidates and campaigns and political parties are not muzzled by spending limits. And I believe that this piece in today's Washington Post makes a compelling case that such laws are inimical to the First Amendment. But if Barack Obama is going to argue that clean politics require the suppression of political speech and participation, he ought to bind himself to that regime right now.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 7 kb.

For those on the Left who want to argue that C.O. Bradford, former Houston police chief and Democrat candidate for Harris County DA, should become our chief prosecutor in the county, let's take a look back at one of the two best-know scandals of his tenure. You know, the one that resulted in HUNDREDS of unjustified arrests of innocent individuals in the space of an hour and which will likely cost the city MILLIONS in damages by the time the lawsuits are through.

A federal judge has declined another city request to end the 10 lawsuits filed by people arrested in a 2002 Kmart street racing raid.

It's the second time U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas has ruled that the lawsuits can go forward.

In a decision this week, Atlas wrote that the more than 100 plaintiffs could sue about whether the Houston Police Department had a "custom of mass detention without individualized reasonable suspicion."

* * *

In 2005, the judge ruled that the police plan that led to the mass arrests was unconstitutional. In a scathing opinion, she called HPD tactics to detain and arrest people who were not observed violating the law "an unjustified, almost totalitarian, regime of suspicionless stops."

Civil rights lawsuits were filed after almost 300 people were arrested in August 2002 during a surprise raid on the Kmart parking lot in the 8400 block of Westheimer. The HPD operation was an attempt to combat street racing.

All of the cases name former HPD Chief Clarence C.O. Bradford, who is running as a Democrat for Harris County district attorney, and allege he knew about the plan. The lawsuits also accused police of brandishing firearms and being verbally abusive during the incident.

What a timely article!

It serves as a reminder that C.O. Bradford had no respect for civil liberties as police chief.

Add to that the fact that he, not the Harris County DA, was responsible for the crime lab debacle, and it becomes clear that he isn't competent to run a hot dog cart, much less the Harris County DAs office.

Posted by: Greg at 04:04 AM | Comments (167) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

We in the GOP have only one living ex-President, having lost two in the last four years. On Monday, George H. W. Bush will endorse John McCain for the presidency.

Former president George H.W. Bush will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Houston on Monday during a media availability at 9:30 a.m. Texas time, Republican sources say.

President Bush will be in Africa at the time. He told “Fox News Sunday” last weekend that he would help make the case for McCain’s conservative credentials as soon as there was an official nominee.

The endorsement by the former president does two things that are crucial to McCain as he tries to capitalize on the potential advantages of being the nominee when Democrats are still fighting it out:

— It begins to make former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee look like he’s not being a team player, raising expectations that he should drop out or run a quieter campaign.

— It also undercuts Republicans who are reluctant to fully support McCain because of his past differences with the party’s right wing.

This endorsement is important in that it serves as the second leg of the Bush trifecta of endorsements. Jeb Bush has already endorsed McCain, and President George W. Bush will give his endorsement after McCain numerically secures the nomination.

But here in Harris County, Texas, it is likely that this endorsement will carry some weight. After all, the former president lives here among us in Houston, where he and Barbara are respected and beloved members of the community. That might be enough to carry Harris County (and with it all of Texas) for McCain on march 4.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama is talking Second Amendment.

At first he sounds really good.

Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

Like I said, pretty good – and I think most of us are open to some discussion about what constitutes a “commonsense regulation”.

Unfortunately, Obama then turns around and proves that he is really just another gun-grabber.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.

The problem is that the DC law in question sweepingly bans an entire class of guns and limits the rest in such a manner as to render them inoperative. Indeed, under that law the act of meaningfully bearing arms within the District of Columbia is a criminal offense when that “individual right to bear arms” is exercised by an average citizen.

Obama, then, is trying to have it both ways. While he pays lip service to the Second Amendment, he actually is willing to see it eviscerated through legislation that restricts the individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue for something like the DC law is like arguing that the expansive right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment is subject to “commonsense regulation” so that it includes only the right to be a member of a government-approved and licensed church.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 4 kb.

IÂ’ve always been troubled by the notion that a president or potential president is expected to release his or her tax returns and lots of other personal financial data to the public. For that matter, IÂ’m troubled by the amount of information made available to the public through ethics disclosure forms. ThatÂ’s why IÂ’m in complete disagreement with this NY Times editorial.

As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate.

Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it. Both Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and she owe it to their parties and to voters to promptly make available their Internal Revenue Service filings, and to respond to any questions about them. It is true that as senators, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are required to file financial disclosure forms. But those forms present only general parameters of family financial resources, not the detail available on tax returns.

I fundamentally disagree. John McCain and Hillary Clinton don’t owe ANYONE the information available on their income tax returns. Indeed, it would be healthy for America for them to flat-out REFUSE to release their tax information even after they are nominated. And while I have questions about the business dealings of Bill Clinton, I respect his privacy enough to recognize that the American people are not entitled to the details of his speaking fees and other financial dealings just because his wife is running for the office he once held. For that matter, we don’t need to know the detailed medical information related to post-cardiac care for Mr. Clinton following his heart problems or any medical conditions for which the younger McCain children may be receiving treatment – information that might well be a part of the two families’ tax returns.

Speaking personally, I’m often curious about the business dealings of certain commentators, certain reporters and members of certain editorial boards. Their slant on the news is of great public import – and yet we never get a glimpse into the nitty-gritty details of, for example, the finances of Keith Olbermann. What about the public’s right to know?

When down to it, this isn’t a matter of the public’s right to know. Rather, it is a matter of the right to privacy of American citizens – which, let us recall, is the highest title that will ever be held by either of these two senators or their fellow candidate, Senator Obama.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

What would Reagan do?

Michael Reagan tells us how his father would respond to the McCain nomination.

In 1976 the Ford vs. Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination got so heated it looked as if my father and Jerry Ford would never again talk to one another.

When it was over and Ford had won, what did Ronald Reagan do? He simply went all-out to help Ford win his re-election, as did I and as did my sister Maureen. My dad simply followed his rule of backing the Republican candidate no matter who he was.

Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.

In other words, those of you claiming to be Reagan conservatives who persist in stating that you will not vote for John McCain for president are posers and imposters. You appropriate the good name of the father of modern conservatism and the architect of nearly three decades of GOP dominance of the executive branch in order to justify political behavior diametrically opposed to that he engaged in himself.

WhatÂ’s more, what was the outcome when a group of conservatives failed to heed his example in 1976 and chose to sit out the election or vote third party?

Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long lines at the gas pumps. And donÂ’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.

By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald ReaganÂ’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.

We were still in the middle of the Cold War in those days, and by staying home conservatives risked losing that war by allowing an incompetent leader to become commander in chief.

We stand at a crossroads this election. We can choose to back a leader willing to pursue a policy of victory over Islamism, or we can allow the election of a president dedicated to a policy of weakness and surrender. We can capitalize on the advances of conservative principle over the last three decades, or we can squander them by refusing to back a candidate who isnÂ’t pure enough. We can aid the election of a moderately conservative president, or ensure the election of an unabashedly liberal one.

The real question, though, is not “What would Reagan do?” That is in the past, and we know what he did when confronted with precisely this situation.

My friends, the real question is “What will we do?”

As for me, I choose to follow in the footsteps of Reagan – and urge you to do the same.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 5 kb.

Mitt Romney does the honorable thing in the name of party unity and the good of the country.

One of the bitterest feuds of the 2008 presidential race ended Thursday when Mitt Romney threw his support — and vowed to try to throw his delegates — behind his former archrival for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

The formal backing of Mr. Romney was the latest coup, though an expected one, for Mr. McCain as he seeks to unite a fractured Republican Party behind his candidacy. And while the fate of Mr. RomneyÂ’s delegates will be determined by rules that vary from state to state, his request that they vote for Mr. McCain at the convention is expected to push Mr. McCain closer to the 1,191 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination.

“I am honored today to give my full support to Senator McCain’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States,” Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said at a hastily arranged news conference with Mr. McCain in Boston. “I am officially endorsing his candidacy. And today I am asking my delegates to vote for Senator McCain at the convention.”

Mr. Romney decided to make the endorsement on Thursday morning during a meeting with his advisers. Mr. McCain, who was already on a New England swing through Rhode Island and Vermont, quickly added a stop in Boston to collect it.

These two went against each other tooth and nail. John McCain won. Mitt Romney recognized -- quite appropriately -- that there is more that unites us with McCain and his supporters then divides us from them, and that the best way to advance our goals is to work with McCain to reach a conservative result. It isn't an abrogation of principle -- it is an accommodation with reality.

Do I minimize my differences with John McCain? No, I don't -- and I stand by every criticism of him that I have offered during th course of the campaign for the GOP nomination this year. That said, I know he is a lot better than either of the options that the Democrats will offer the American people, and so I choose the good of America over ideological purity.

More At Michelle Malkin, including some deluded sounding Huckabee comments.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Barack Obama wants to ensure that retirees who make more than I do a year pay no taxes.

"We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect."

I'm curious -- as a public school teacher who makes less that $50K a year, will I be given the opportunity to work with dignity and respect? After all, I struggle with rising prices, too!

Somehow I doubt it. After all, the junior Senator from Illinois wants to ensure that my Bush-sponsored tax cut is eliminated, effectively giving me a tax increase.

So much for respect and dignity for workers – you know, the very folks the Democrats CLAIM to represent.

H/T The Campaign Spot

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor,, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 3 kb.

Now if he would just have the decency to get out of the Senate immediately.

Oh, wait -- if he had any decency he wouldn't have been trying to pick up guys in bathroom stalls.

So I don't expect this aciton by the Ethics Committee to have much effect.

Senator Larry E. Craig was admonished by his colleagues on Wednesday for conduct that reflected poorly on the Senate as the result of his arrest and guilty plea last summer in an undercover sex sting in a menÂ’s bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.

The reprimand handed down by the Senate Ethics Committee said that Mr. CraigÂ’s conduct in the bathroom was improper and that his actions after his arrest appeared to be an effort to evade the legal consequences in violation of the code of ethics for government service.

Committee members also raised questions about Mr. CraigÂ’s conversion of over $200,000 in campaign money to pay legal fees, noting that he had not cleared that action as required with the committee. The panel said it would consider further use of campaign money without approval as showing a continuing disregard for ethics rules.

Unfortunately, the committee didn't recommend more serious sanctions, especially in light of the financial misconduct that was cited. That's too bad, because it signals that there is a serious flaw in the ethics process.

The GOP has called upon Larry Craig to get ut of the Senate. I wonder why the Ethics Committee failed to take steps towards making that a reality. Could it be fear by top Democrats -- including San Francisco's own Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee -- that taking that drastic step could be seen negatively by the gay community?

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

That's what it looks like, with the campaign's firewall (Ohio and Texas) not coming until March 4.

ItÂ’s a high-risk play for the once undisputed Democratic front-runner. It also may be the only maneuver she has left after rival Barack Obama managed to effectively counter her planned Super Tuesday knock-out punch.

Since then, heÂ’s seized momentum by racking up eight wins on friendly turf, including three more Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

“How do you survive all of the Obama money, momentum and media between now and March 4 when it looks like you are going to lose everything in between, including the Democrats Abroad vote?” asked unaligned Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh.

And there is a particularly dangerous aspect to this strategy -- she has to dismiss Obama voters as somehow unimportant and unrepresentative of America.

But her strategy is fraught with risks, not the least of which is dismissing the relevance of thousands of pro-Obama Democratic voters in small caucus states and in the seemingly hostile terrain of traditional Republican strongholds.

“It’s not a factor,” was how Clinton dismissed Obama victories in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands and Washington state in an interview with WJLA and Politico on Monday.

“We had a great night on Super Tuesday. We’re winning the states that we have to win. The big states that are really going to determine whether the Democrats win,” she said during the televised discussion.

So got that folks -- if you live in a state won by Barack Obama, you really aren't all that important to Hillary. I'm sure that will leave you motivated to get out and vote for her in November, right?

Yeah, Hillary Clinton is starting to look and sound a lot like Rudy Giuliani -- without the charm.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Somehow the national media has avoided this story about blatant bigotry at work in the Democrat Party in Tennessee. I wonder why the only major media source covering this is a blog for the Washington Post?

Yeah, that's right -- the Klan with a Tan is back at work. Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN9) is too white and too Jewish to be allowed to represent a district in Memphis that is predominantly black and Christian -- and securely Democrat.

If you thought race was an uncomfortable issue in the Democratic presidential primary, wait 'til you get a load of what's going on in the Democratic primary in the Memphis area's 9th District of Tennessee, where a shockingly worded flier paints Jewish Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) as a Jesus hater.

"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail -- inducing gasps -- last week.

Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district, the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."

Congressman Cohen's (black) opponent, Nikki Tinker, cannot even stir herself to condemn this vile garbage. She is clearly unfit for ANY office -- and any black minister in the vicinity who does not loudly condemn this sort of garbage is unfit for his or her pulpit.

Oh, wait -- the black ministers of the area already started a race-baiting pogrom against Cohen several months ago. I guess that you don't have to be a Christian to pastor a black church in Memphis -- for in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, or any other racial distinction.

But if this is the game the game that these folks want to play in 2008, maybe Hillary Clinton can adopt the the following slogan for her future campaign ads:

Somehow I think that we would not see anything approaching the level of silence that we have gotten in the case of these race and religion based attacks on Cohen.

Speaking for myself, I condemn the attack on Cohen, the ministers making it, and the Democrat Party for not speaking out against it.

I further invite anyone offended by such racism to join the party of inclusion and equality -- the Republican Party.

And to quote the always spot-on Ed Morrissey:

We've listened to insults from Democrats for years for far less than this.

After all, this is real bigotry, not the ersatz kind the Democrats accuse the Republican Party of supporting.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 5 kb.

Gee, Maureen, we on the Right have only been saying this for the last few YEARS!

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you canÂ’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says sheÂ’s learned from her mistakes, but thatÂ’s not a compelling pitch.

Hillary Clinton is, arguably, an impressive woman. She is, arguably, intelligent and competent. But the reality is that we cannot separate her from Bill Clinton in the popular mind. She not only made it to the top by marrying well and promoting her husband's career until it gave her a springboard into the national limelight, she did so in a way that excused his every flaw and put personality above principle. Indeed, much of her campaign is based upon her husband's presidency, not any compelling aspect of her own life, experience, or qualifications.

The day is coming -- and will hopefully come soon -- when we elect a woman to the White House. But when that day comes, we need to be electing her -- or rejecting her, for that matter -- on her own merits. That will never happen with Hillary, which is part of why we are seeing such weakness in her candidacy. I just wish the feet of clay had not been exposed until after she had secured the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

John McCain now needs only about 300 delegates to win the GOP nomination outright. Barack Obama has surged into the lead in the Democrat delegate count. And all this with just three primaries on a single day.

Senator Barack Obama rolled to victory by large margins in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia on Tuesday, extending his winning streak over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to eight Democratic nominating contests.

The outcome provided him his first chance to assert that the Democratic race, which had seemed to be heading into a protracted standoff, is beginning to break in his direction. And it left Mrs. Clinton facing weeks in which she has few opportunities for the kind of victory that would alter the race in her favor after a string of defeats notable not just for their number but also their magnitude.

* * *

In Tuesday’s contests, Mr. Obama showed impressive strength among not only the groups that have backed him in earlier contests — blacks, younger voters, the affluent and self-described independents — but also among older voters, women and lower-income people, the core of Mrs. Clinton’s support up to now, according to exit polls. Mr. Obama also won majorities of white men and Hispanic voters in Virginia, though not in Maryland.

With almost all precincts reporting, Mr. Obama won 75 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia and 64 percent in Virginia. He had 60 percent of the vote in Maryland with results from 67 percent of the precincts.

On the Republican side, Senator John McCain won in Virginia over Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, virtually eliminating any threat that Mr. Huckabee might have posed to Mr. McCainÂ’s status as his partyÂ’s all but certain nominee.

Mr. Huckabee got a boost from conservative and evangelical Christian voters in the state, but not enough to overcome support among moderates and nonevangelical Christians for Mr. McCain, who won 50 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain also prevailed in the District of Columbia, with 68 percent of the vote, and in Maryland, where he had 55 percent of the vote with 67 percent of the precincts reporting.

My fellow Republicans, it is time to accept the reality that this race is over on our side. Barring a miracle -- like winning every remaining state with 75% of the vote -- Mike Huckabee is effectively out of the race for the nomination EXCEPT as a way of expressing your discontent with McCain, something I feel is better done by casting your vote for the candidate of your choice (in my case Mitt Romney) than for the last challenger standing. But regardless of this race, remember it is still important for you to vote in the primary because of all the down-ballot races, whether we are talking about Congress, the state legislature, or local races.

On the Democrat side, I see a stark choice. The Democrats have to decide between a moderately qualified candidate with high negatives and an ill-defined novice whose appeal is more charismatic than anything else. A vote either way sows dissension, due to the skill with which each side has played interest group politics and divided the voting blocs within their party. Ultimately, I urge Democrats to remember that the important thing is not which first comes first, but rather which candidate will be a more effective president. I don't pretend to offer advice as to which one that is, simply ask that you pick wisely for the good of the nation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

So it would appear, according to Fort Bend Now.

Fort Bend County Elections Administrator J.R. Perez is concerned that the county wonÂ’t be able to handle an anticipated high voter turnout at the March 4 primary elections, and heÂ’s taking that concern to county Commissioners Court today.

Florida experienced a 45% voter turnout – three times the normal turnout – and California also saw numbers approaching triple its normal voter turnout, Perez said.

“If we have even two times the normal turnout, it would be 35% to 40%” of the voters turning out in Fort Bend County, Perez said Tuesday morning. “We don’t have the equipment to handle a 40% turnout. No matter what I do, I don’t have enough equipment.”

Excuse me? You donÂ’t have the machines to handle a 40% turnout? What were you planning to do in November, during the general election?

And then there is this asinine statement.

Perez said he has been calculating the anticipated amount of time it will take people in various Fort Bend County precincts to vote in the March election, giving the anticipated high turnout, and the number of available election workers and voting machines.

In numerous cases, he found it would require 14 hours or more in order for everyone to cast their ballots.

Unfortunately, poll locations are only open for 12 hours.

Not exactly true.

While polling places in Texas are open from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Election Day, state law requires that every voter in line at 7:00 PM be permitted to vote before the polls are closed. And while this might cause the precinct conventions to start late in many precincts, that inconvenience is a small price to pay to ensure that every voter does get to vote.

But if Fort Bend County Elections Administrator J.R. Perez doesn’t realize that the polls must remain open – after not ensuring that the county had sufficient voting machines – then perhaps he needs to be replaced.

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

After reading this article, IÂ’m not sure that the Nineteenth Amendment was such a great idea.

You can see it in their flushed-face smiles and hear it in their screams. They say the phenomenon is difficult to describe, but once they experience it they tell their friends, sisters, mothers and daughters, and they come back for more if they can.

"He's very charismatic. It was a 'you-had-to-be-there' kind of experience," said Lolita Breckenridge, 37, after hearing Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama address a packed rally at the University of Maryland on Monday.

A dedicated supporter, she brought two of her friends to hear the Illinois senator deliver one of his much-talked-about speeches.

"Not too much of the speech was new to me," she admitted. "But hearing him live..." she trailed off, shaking her head and grinning.

When Obama addressed the crowd of 16 000 on the eve of primaries which he is tipped to win in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC, he carried himself with his habitual worldly confidence, interspersed talk of foreign policy with recollections of his childhood and even poked political fun at his Republican adversaries.

He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female's cry of "I love you Obama!" with a reassuring: "I love you back."

Oh.

Come.

On.

And if anything, the stories in this article get even more saccharine sweet. But what the article fails to deal with, but Hillary Clinton points out in this article, is that Obama is lacking in any specifics.

But then again if all you are into is sex appeal and vague promises of “change” by a candidate who you want to “Barack My World” I guess that substantive policy proposals aren’t all that important.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

She's likely going to get dumped on today in the Chesapeake Primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. That means she needs some big wins -- and Ohio and Texas seem to fit the bill.

Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.

They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

This means, of course, that we folks here in Texas should expect the former First Lady to be in the state a great deal over the next three weeks. That also means that we will see a lot of her husband in town as well. Quick! Lock up the women!

But seriously, folks, this is a race that was supposed to be all locked up by now, according to the conventional wisdom. That it isn't is a sign of big trouble for the Clinton campaign, which is taking body blow after body blow with defeats in the primaries. And with polling numbers favoring Obama in the general election, there is a serious question about who the Democrats will nominate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Look what showed up in the Houston headquarters of the Barack Obama campaign!

Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama already has an issue with wearing American Flag lapel pins, and even with putting his hand over his heart when the American National Anthem is playing. It will be interesting to see how he'll react (if at all) to the flag hanging in one of his new campaign offices in Houston, Texas.

Yep, that's right -- that is the national flag of Cuba hanging on the wall with none other than Che Guevara superimposed on it.

I somehow doubt that will go over well here in Houston. I hope our Cuban-American County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez makes a big issue out of this one. After all, is a candidate promoting communism -- and a murderous beast like Che -- out of his campaign office really fit to be President of the United States?

UPDATE: Captain Ed has some pointed comments on this situation -- and is involved in a war of words with John Cole of Balloon Juice over it. Cole wants to paint it as a protest against America's Cuba policy -- but is that really what this is?

Besides, Cole and his commenters, as well as the DUmmies (according to Flopping Aces, who waded into the feever swamp), are arguing that it isn't a big deal since the office is currently staffed only with volunteers -- that it would only be significant if there were actual paid staff working there. I'm curious -- would they take the same position if there were Swastika flag with the face of Hitler in a John McCain office? How about something more innocuous -- a Confederate flag with a portrait of Robert E. Lee? Am I alone in believing that there would be a sh!t storm over either of those displays, and that the Left would insist that it didn't matter if the workers were volunteers or not?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, the so called me, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, A Newt One, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 4 kb.

Who cares what a dumb boxer with a history of racist talk has to say about Barack Obama?

World champion boxer Bernard Hopkins, who will fight the undefeated Briton Joe Calzaghe in April, believes black Democratic contender Barak Obama would be assassinated "within months" if he became US president in November.

Hopkins, the world light-heavyweight boxing champion, told The Independent on Sunday: "I don't think America is ready for an African-American in the White House. If he gets the nomination they won't let him become president, but if they do, it will be for a short time, maybe less than a month or two. His life would be in jeopardy.

"People may say it is time for change but when it comes down to it, I don't think America is ready for that type of heat."

Hopkins, 43, arguably the most politically controversial figure in US sport since Muhammad Ali, has been accused of being racially motivated for saying he would "never lose to a white boy". He refused to retract the comment when he came face to face this week with Calzaghe, the undefeated world super-middleweight champion, in London.

IÂ’ll put my money on the Brit, Calzaghe.

Not because he is white, but because Hopkins is a racist who believes that his political views are particularly significant. The reality is that Obama is popular among most Americans, and even those of us on the GOP side respect him and generally like him. But I do not see the level of racial animosity – other than that stoked by the Clintons for their own political ambitions – that Hopkins is claiming exists here.

I’m wondering – will Hillary denounce this supporter and his hateful words?

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 AM | Comments (158) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I donÂ’t have to agree with you to respect you.

We donÂ’t have to come from the same political party.

You just have to be a decent person.

The US House of Representatives lost one of those today.

Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, has died. He was 80.

Spokeswoman Lynne Weil said Lantos died early Monday at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in suburban Maryland. He was surrounded by his wife, Annette, two daughters, and many of his 18 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
Annette Lantos said in a statement that her husband's life was "defined by courage, optimism, and unwavering dedication to his principles and to his family."
Lantos, a Democrat who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee, disclosed last month that he had been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus. He said at the time that he would serve out his 14th term but would not seek re-election in his Northern California district, which takes in the southwest portion of San Francisco and suburbs to the south including Lantos' home of San Mateo.
White House press secretary Dana Perino announced the news of Lantos' death to reporters at a morning briefing.

And I never doubted that this amazing man truly loved this country – or that he was an example of just how great this country is.

Lantos, who referred to himself as "an American by choice," was born to Jewish parents in Budapest, Hungary, and was 16 when Adolf Hitler occupied Hungary in 1944. He survived by escaping twice from a forced labor camp and coming under the protection of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who used his official status and visa-issuing powers to save thousands of Hungarian Jews.
Lantos' mother and much of his family perished in the Holocaust.
* * *

"It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a member of Congress," Lantos said upon announcing his retirement last month. "I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country."

“An American by choice.” What a marvelous phrase. Indeed, what a tribute to the country he loved. And what a beautiful tribute to this country, where he truly lived out the American dream.

But that was not the only turn of phrase that will stick in my mind. When confronting internet executives who had turned over information about dissidents to the Red Chinese dictators, Lantos was forthright.

"Morally, you are pygmies," he berated top executives of Yahoo Inc. at a hearing he called in November 2007 as they defended their company's involvement in the jailing of a Chinese journalist.

I wish I had said that, for it expresses my sentiments better than I did at the time.

And then there is this profoundly moving happening in his life, something I had not known but which is in many ways proof of the old saying that love overcomes time and place and events.

In 1950 he married Annette, his childhood sweetheart, with whom he'd managed to reunite after the war.

How do you manage to find the ones you love after a profoundly evil happening like the Holocaust? That they managed to do so is a tribute to the love they had for each other – a love that endured for some six decades. My deepest condolences to Annette Lantos and her family.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

If you can't stand the heat, have your shills in the media demand that your opponents turn down the oven.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the partyÂ’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Of course, the problem is that the "Clinton rules" were developed during a time when we had an administration in office that was dishonest to its root. If the Clinton's claimed it was raining, you still needed to look outside just to make sure. The ease with which the Clintons lied and attempted to reinvent themselves was striking -- and the damage that they did to this country was horrific.

I don't want to see Barack Obama elected president. i think he is wrong for America. But I do believe that he has a moral compass -- something that is sorely lacking on both sides of the Clinton marriage. And if noting that fact makes either me or th supporters of Barack Obama "unfair" to Hillary Clinton, then the problem is with the media lap dogs who view the Clintons as American royalty to whom there should be incredible deference.

After all, Mr. Krugman, the Clintons earnd the contempt in which they are held by much of the American public.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess it all comes down to how you view the goals.

If it was defeating the enemies of the US, it is a success.

On the other hands, it is an unmitigated disaster if the goal is providing the Democrats with an issue to beat the Republicans with.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman, said the documents released Sunday offered proof that al-Qaida in Iraq had been severely disrupted by the so-called awakening movement and changing U.S. tactics, but he stressed the terror network was by no means defeated.

The military said the two documents were discovered last year by American troops in November as the Sunni movement that began in Anbar province was spreading to Baghdad and surrounding areas.

One was a 39-page memo written by a mid- to high-level al-Qaida official with knowledge of the group's operations in Iraq's western Anbar province; the other a 16-page diary written by another group leader north of Baghdad.

The documents tell "narrow but compelling stories of the challenges al-Qaida in Iraq is facing," Smith told reporters in Baghdad. "This does not signal the end of al-Qaida in Iraq, but it is a contemporary account of the challenges posed to terrorists from the people of Iraq."

He said the documents are believed to be authentic because they contain details that only al-Qaida in Iraq leaders could know about battlefield movements and tactics. The U.S. military gave reporters partially redacted copies of the full diary but only four pages of the Anbar document, citing security reasons.

In the Anbar document, the author acknowledges a growing weariness among Sunni citizens of militants' presence and the U.S.-led crackdowns against them. He also expresses frustration with foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight.

"The Islamic State of Iraq is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar," the author wrote, referring to an umbrella group of insurgents led by al-Qaida.

Smith also quoted the document as lamenting the loss of "cities and afterward, villages," adding "we find ourselves in a wasteland desert."

It said U.S.-led forces had learned from their mistakes and improved security had made it harder to transport weapons and suicide belts and forced foreign fighters to go underground because of their distinctive dialects.

The military said the memo was believed to have been written last summer and was intended for the author's superiors.

The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said.

So with such words coming from al-Qaeda leaders, you would think that leading Democrats would admit that the Surge accomplished major goals, especially since there is progress on every single one of the political goals as well, even if that concession were good for the Republicans. After all, US military success is good for America, and patriots put America first.

Which is why Nancy Pelosi desperately tried to present the Surge as a failure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”

PelosiÂ’s harsh verdict is a reminder of the dilemma for Democrats as they head into this fallÂ’s presidential and congressional elections:

They need to make the case that the country needs to depart from the direction set by Bush. Yet they donÂ’t want to look like naysayers at a time when Iraq has become more stable, albeit still violent.

And those who argue that it is the GOP unfairly trying to paint the Democrats as defeatists, please consider that we are not providing Pelosi and other Democrats with their talking point.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

Barack Obama goes four for four this weekend in the Democrat nominating contests.

Senator Barack Obama defeated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Maine caucuses on Sunday, giving him his fourth victory this weekend as he headed into three more state contests on Tuesday.

With 90 percent of MaineÂ’s precincts reporting, Mr. Obama received 58.7 percent of the vote, compared with 40.7 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Voter turnout in parts of Maine was reported to be strong on Sunday afternoon, despite a snowstorm. The Portland Press Herald reported on its Web site that there were long lines at the caucus in Portland, while a large crowd in Cape Elizabeth delayed the start of the caucus there by more than an hour.

Mr. ObamaÂ’s victory in Maine follows those in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday. Combined with his advantage in fund-raising, these victories should give him momentum going the primaries on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

And this should be an interesting race, filled as it is with establishment Democrats AND a major city which is overwhelmingly African-American. The Clinton campaign had expected to be done with the nomination fight by now, but that is not anywhere close -- or anywhere near certain to happen at all.

So what is the solution? A Clinton campaign shake-up!

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams on Sunday, a staff shake-up coming just hours after presidential rival Barack ObamaÂ’s Saturday sweep of three contests.

Campaign aides said Solis Doyle made the decision to leave on her own and was not urged to do so by the former first lady or any other senior member of the team. But it comes as Clinton struggles to catch Obama in fundraising and momentum and faces the prospect of losing every voting contest yet to come in February. On Sunday, Obama also won the caucus count in Maine.

Solis Doyle announced the shift in an e-mail to the staff on Sunday.

And how many of us believe that Solis Doyle REALTY made the decision to quite without being pushed by Hillary and her other close advisers? Not many, I'm sure. But will this change really help the campaign at all? And will dumping a Hispanic woman for a black woman really be of any benefit for a campaign that is strong among Hispanics and weak among African-Americans? Frankly, there is an air of desperation hanging about the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 10:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

When you play the race card for political advantage, it is only appropriate that it come back to bite you in the ass.

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”

Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chairman, to warn him of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

But let's face it -- the Democrats have lived by sowing racial division for the entire life of their party. They have made a fine art of it in the last few decades, convincing groups with diametrically opposed interests that they are all on the same side. Now the ethnic chickens come home to roost -- and may bring about a major realignment of American political life before our eyes at this year's Democrat convention.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey notes this double-standard from MSNBC.

As Mike Matthews reported when it happened (as did many other places, but I like to highlight the local blogs that nail it quickly!), MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended indefinitely for saying that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out in some weird sort of way" regarding her supposed contacting of "super delegates" on behalf of her mom's campaign. There's news that he actually was close to being fired on the spot for the comment. I think Shuster's comments probably were inappropriate, but that even a suspension is just plain ridiculous. The term "pimped" doesn't exclusively mean what it used to.

But consider: If Shuster can get suspended for that comment, and possibly even fired, what about Keith Olbermann? Olbermann has also apologized for Shuster, by the way ("David has been suspended and remains only for me to apologize without limit to President Clinton and to Ms. Clinton on behalf of MSNBC. We are literally, dreadfully sorry." "Literally, dreadfully sorry"?? Please, someone clean up my vomit! -- Hube); however, he used the very same term regarding President Bush and General David Petraeus back on Sept. 20!

Don't hold your breath. But like Shuster, I don't think Olbermann should even be suspended for his comments, but it surely demonstrates the clear double-standard: Against Republicans and conservatives, feel free to use whatever language you want.

Now we can debate about the issue of whether or not the use of the word "pimping" is appropriate in either case -- but I'm hard pressed to see how it is acceptable to use the term about a career military officer providing truthful information to Congress about a successful military policy while unacceptable to use it about a child acting as surrogate for a candidate, especially when that candidate for years has insisted that the child is not a part of their political life and is off-limits for any comments, much less criticism. After all, remember the outrage over this little SNL gem.

And even after Chelsea became an adult, the Clintons demanded that she be treated as apolitical. Now that Mrs. Clinton is making use of this "apolitical asset, is it not legitimate fodder for comment?

But when you suspend one "professional journalist" over the use of the term while promoting another as your network's biggest draw when he has used the same word (and worse) is rank hypocrisy.

But then again, this incident also illustrates Hillary Clinton's unfitness for office. Her little snit over David Shuster's words tells me that she is going to demand to control press coverage of her and her administration, and punish journalists who speak of her and her administration in ways she dislikes. Heck, that is a bigger threat to a free press than anything done by the Bush Administration, which didn't even prosecute journalist who violated federal law by disclosing classified national security information during time of war!

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 5 kb.