My first overtly political act came back when I was four or five years old. I wrote the President and First Lady asking them, as the son of an officer serving in Vietnam, to continue to support the work he was doing there.

Some weeks later, I got a letter back from the White House, from some aide whose name I don't recall, thanking me for writing. But then, several days later, I got a second letter -- this one signed by the First Lady (well, probably by an auto-pen -- but at that age you don't know such things). I was impressed, as a little boy would be, by the attention by one so important, and developed a fondness for that First Lady.

She died yesterday, some four decades later, at the age of 94. And I truly feel a loss.

Lady Bird Johnson, the former first lady who championed conservation and worked tenaciously for the political career of her husband, Lyndon B. Johnson, died Wednesday, a family spokeswoman said. She was 94.

Johnson, who suffered a stroke in 2002 that affected her ability to speak, returned home late last month after a week at Seton Medical Center, where she'd been admitted for a low-grade fever.

She died at her Austin home of natural causes and she was surrounded by family and friends, said spokeswoman Elizabeth Christian.

Even after the stroke, Johnson still managed to make occasional public appearances and get outdoors to enjoy her beloved wildflowers. But she was unable to speak more than a few short phrases, and more recently did not speak at all, Anne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the LBJ Library and Museum, said in 2006. She communicated her thoughts and needs by writing, Wheeler said.

For those who, like me, are in a position to honor Lady Bird Johnson by making the trip to Austin as she lies in repose, here is the schedule.

Friday, July 13

• Morning: Private family Eucharist at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, Austin. Invitation only.

• 1:15 p.m.: The public is invited to pay its final respects to Lady Bird Johnson as she lies in repose at the LBJ Library and Museum, 2313 Red River, Austin. Johnson will remain in repose throughout the night and visitation will end at 11 a.m. the following morning.

Saturday, July 14

• Private funeral: By invitation only at Riverbend Centre, Austin.

Sunday, July 15

• Ceremonial route: The public is invited to line the route of a ceremonial cortege that will pass through Austin and carry Johnson on to her burial place in Stonewall at the Johnson family cemetery. The public route will begin at the State Capitol at approximately 9 a.m. and will proceed south on Congress to Cesar Chavez. It will go right on Cesar Chavez and head west on the shores of Town Lake. It will turn and go west on 290 toward Johnson City, where it will ultimately motor through downtown Johnson City, past President Johnson's boyhood home and past the LBJ National Park Visitors Center. The public aspect of the cortege will end in Johnson City.

• Afternoon: Private family services at the graveside at the Johnson family cemetery in Stonewall. Invitation only.

May she rest in peace, and may her family and friends be comforted in this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

Two -- no, make that four -- key campaign staffers quit in one day. What does that tell you about the state of the McCain Campaign?

John McCain jettisoned two top aides Tuesday, the one-time Republican front-runner struggling to right a presidential bid in deep financial and political trouble.

Campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver offered McCain their resignations, which the Arizona senator accepted with "regret and deep gratitude for their dedication, hard work and friendship."

Other senior aides followed the two out the door, and the campaign announced that Rick Davis, who managed McCain's 2000 bid and has served as the current campaign's chief executive officer, will take over.

"I'm determined to continue to face our challenges head-on and win," McCain said, vowing to press on in an e-mail to supporters. Aides insisted he would not drop out of the race.

And knowing McCain, that is probably true. he will stick it out and fight it out until he gets humiliated in Iowa and New Hampshire. Then, mired in campaign debt (he is already deep in the hole financially), the 2008 edition of the McCain Campaign will be forced to fold.

Why would this war hero fail so miserably? Simple -- he's been wrong on free speech, immigration and judges, all issues important to the GOP base. What's more, he has been arrogantly wrong on those issues, which has made his straying from the views of the base unforgivable, so don't expect to see him take the VP spot on the GOP ticket, either.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter was clearly after damage control when he sent the email about his phone number being in the DC Madam's little black book.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter, 46, said in a statement, which his spokesman, Joel DiGrado, confirmed to the Associated Press.

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter continued. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Given Vitter's conservative rhetoric on marriage, I don't know that this statement is going to cut it with many people. That is especially true of the Left, which is having a field day with the story -- not noting that, in the end, this is "just about sex."

But I'd like to note something about this -- the mere fact that Vitter failed to live up to his principles does not invalidate them. The mere fact that he sinned does not necessarily render him unfit for office. Absent more information on this situation -- information I'm sure will come out in the next several days and weeks -- I'm not sure how I would respond if I were a Louisiana voter.

But I do keep being drawn back to a quote from St. Paul.

Romans 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Based upon what I know, I'll condemn Vitter's actions, but I won't condemn the man. His struggle is the struggle faced by each and every one of us who claims to be a follower of Christ -- for we are not made perfect through faith, merely forgiven and redeemed.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 5 kb.

Now let me begin with saying that I fully believe this shooting was justified -- and that I wish Borris Miles had managed to ventilate both perps, not just one. However, the hypocrisy here is rather striking.

Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

The hypocrisy, of course, stems from the fact that Miles is a Democrat in the Texas Legislature who voted against allowing Texans to do exactly what he did -- shoot without making every possible effort to retreat from criminals.

Posted by: Greg at 02:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

After promising the world she was just going to go away, Cindy Sheehan is back seeking another 15 minutes of fame

Now she is threatening to run for Congress against Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't get the president impeached.

Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

I'm particularly struck that Sheehan doesn't notice that Bush hasn't committed an impeachable offense. But then again, since when has the Constitution mattered to these people.

I'm also pleasantly surprised at how Sheehan breaks matters down -- referring to "Democrats and Americans". At least she is honest enough to place herself and the rest of the Democrats in the anti-American category where they belong.

Posted by: Greg at 06:55 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Expect to see more of this as the Arizona Senator's campaign implodes.

The downsizing of Senator McCain's presidential campaign is coming at an opportune time for Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is likely to jump into the race officially any day now and seeking to build a campaign staff in the early primary states.

Struggling with a shortage of cash, Mr. McCain's campaign announced last week that it was laying off dozens of staff members, including about half of his paid team in Iowa and New Hampshire.

While there is no evidence of an outright pillaging of Mr. McCain's departed aides, Republican sources in those states say Mr. Thompson's emerging campaign is the likeliest landing spot. Aside from Mr. Thompson's obvious need for staff — assuming he enters the race — the two are closely aligned ideologically, and Mr. Thompson even endorsed Mr. McCain when he sought the White House in 2000.

This really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. Of the major candidates, Mitt Romney has the best organization in place, and has done a superb job of staffing his campaign. he just doesn't need many additional people at this time.

The differences between Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are stark enough that most McCain staffers wouldn't fit in at this early stage of the race.

And the other candidates in the race are operating with small staffs until and unless they can get some traction in this race.

But Fred Thompson is starting a brand new organization, and appeals to much of the same base that John McCain does It doesn't come as any surprise to me, therefore, that the logical home for some of these operatives is the Thompson campaign. Some may end up elsewhere, but expect most of the early departures from McCain to end up with the former Tennessee senator.

Posted by: Greg at 06:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Probably nothing to this story except a random burglary -- except for the fact that I remember being a kid in Washington DC 35 years ago and seeing a little blurb in the newspaper about a break-in at the DNC.

he Davenport campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was burglarized Friday night.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that two laptop computers and some campaign literature were taken. A campaign worker discovered the burglary this morning, and a report was filed with Davenport police.

"It doesn't appear that it was anything sensitive or irreplaceable," Vietor said.

Now which candidate has a history of of dirty tricks against political opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

They came in with grand promises for the "first hundred hours" -- and then defined that term to stretch over weeks by claiming that meant only hours the full Congress was in session, not actual clock hours.

Then they failed to accomplish those goals.

Now they can't bring themselves to do their most basic job.

President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."

The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. "We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

The Democrats: Failed Leadership Inaction.

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Personally, this doesn't bother me. After all, lawyers and lobbyists sometimes represent clients who they disagree with on an issue.

Former Senator Fred D. Thompson, who has positioned himself as an opponent of abortion rights as he prepares to run for president, was hired as a lobbyist 16 years ago by a group on the other side of the issue, according to documents and people involved with his hiring.

The group, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, hired Mr. Thompson in 1991, three years before he was elected to the Senate from Tennessee, as part of the groupÂ’s effort to overturn a ban on federally financed family planning clinics giving women information about abortion, according to the groupÂ’s board minutes and former president. The associationÂ’s president at the time, Judith DeSarno, said she was looking for a Republican lobbyist who could help find a compromise at a time when the first President George Bush was opposed to lifting the ban, put in place during the Reagan administration. Mr. Thompson, then a lobbyist at a prominent Washington law firm, fit the bill, she said.

In the group’s board minutes of September 1991, Ms. DeSarno reported hiring Mr. Thompson to “aid us in discussions with the administration.” Ms. DeSarno, who provided the minutes, said in an interview that Mr. Thompson served as the group’s liaison to the White House.

A spokesman for Mr. Thompson said yesterday that Mr. Thompson had “no recollection of doing any work on behalf of this group.”

Key to me is that this appears to be a relatively minor part of Thompson's work, and that the rest of his record is sufficiently pro-life.

And I do want to reemphasize my earlier point -- and illustrate it with an example.

When I was in seminary, one of my professors was a Jesuit whose brother was a lawyer involved in a major criminal case -- he was the lead attorney for Jeffrey Dahmer. Naturally, someone asked this professor (our moral theology prof) how one could morally defend such an individual and try to get them off at trial. his response still resonates with me all these years later -- "You speak truthfully, you protect your client's interests, and you seek an outcome which balances his interests and the interests of justice. But you cannot say that anyone, even someone who has acted as horribly as this man has, is undeserving of a voice to advocate for him in our system."

It strikes me that this is no more than what Thompson may have done.

I do find it interesting, though, that no one else remembers Thompson representing this group.

More at Captain's Quarters

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, , third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 6 kb.

I sure am -- give me Condi Rice, JC Watts, or Michael Steele and I'll vote for them in a heartbeat.

Somehow, though, I don't think they are the candidates being pushed in this article.

Could 2008 be the year that Americans put an end to an unbroken 218-year streak of electing white male presidents? Large majorities report a willingness to vote for either a woman or an African-American candidate for the office, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. But those numbers drop significantly when respondents are asked whether the country is ready to accept a black or a woman in the White House.

Although 92 percent of the NEWSWEEK Poll’s respondents claim they would vote for a black candidate (up from 83 percent in 1991), only 59 percent believe the country is actually ready for an African-American president (an improvement over 37 percent in a 2000 CBS News poll). Similarly, 86 percent of voters say they would vote for a female commander in chief, but only 58 percent believe the country is ready for one (up from 40 percent in a 1996 CBS poll). Two thirds (66 percent) of voters said there was at least some chance they’d vote for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (35 percent said there was a “good” chance, up from 20 percent last May). About as many (62 percent) said there was some chance they’d vote for Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton (43 percent said good chance, up from 33 percent). In a head-to-head race, though, Clinton dominates Obama 56 to 33 percent.

So what we see here is that almost everyone is willing to vote for a black or a woman -- but they have doubts about the rest of the country. I'd love to see the breakdown by party, since I suspect that you would find the GOP voters more willing to vote for either and more optimistic about the country's acceptance of them -- but Newsweek doesn't give us that split.

One troubling detail that the article does not report -- the continuing presence of anti-Mormon bigotry among those polled. You can bet that if there had been even a fraction of this bigotry expressed towards blacks or women, that would have been the cover story.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

I love the fact that a number of rockers are questioning the integrity of Al Gwhore's Live Earth concerts. They include the hottest new group in the UK, who really hit the nail on the head.

Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

I wonder -- how will those rockers (and much of the audience) get to the venues of Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hamburg, London, Johannesburg and New York? I suspect via environmentally unfriendly aircraft!

Perhaps Al Gwhore will be there selling carbon offsets indulgences to those hypocrites who actually have a conscience. I've even got a song for him to sing as he tries to scam people into believing that a cash donation will make up for their environmental sins.

Maybe that little ditty will inspire some latter-day Luthers (and some witty entrepreneurs) to upset the so-called consensus of the cult of global warming.

UPDATE: Courtesy of Thomas M., a Michelle Malkin reader.

1.) What will be the true source of the power that will power all the lighting, the amplifiers and speakers, the concessions stands? Will it be massive arrays of solar cells?, Hydrogen fusion cells?, Wind Turbines? Ethanol Bio-Fueled generators?

2.) If the latter, who (which company / manufacturer) will supply them and what model No. engine / generators will be used?

3.) Will the food (for the concessions) be cooked on wood fires? Or perhaps they will use dried out cow & horse manure pellets for fuel?

4.) Will they re-use “used toilet paper” in the restrooms (in following what a “Green” labeled performing artist has recently suggested in the media.

5.) How will the performers arrive at the concert areas as well as their Jacuzzi-equipped hotels? Will it be the normal gas-guzzling plush stretch limousines or will they opt for hybrid or Electric vehicles? Maybe they will go all out and pedal a bicycle?

6.) Will the concert tickets & concert programs be printed on the most biodegradable paper available?

7.) Where will all the proceeds as well as all of the financial pledge donations that you and LIVE EARTH are soliciting be distributed to / earmarked for?

Unless, of course, it is only the little people who are expected to be green.

MORE AT JammieWearingFool, Pirates Cove, Cao's Blog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, On the Horizon, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 6 kb.

The military doesn't want it. The military says it is unneeded. But Teddy Kennedy wants it anyway -- and so is acting to see that a $100 million dollar contract is for the unnecessary jet engine is awarded to a company in his state as part of a $480 million dollar appropriation for the project.

For the second year in a row the Pentagon has insisted that it doesn't need another engine for its next-generation fighter jet. And again, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and other powerful lawmakers are forcing it to build one anyway.

Tucked in the annual defense bill moving through Congress is $480 million to develop a spare engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter even though the Air Force concluded in 2005 that it was redundant -- and two independent review boards agreed.

That didn't trump pork-barrel politics.

General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn is designing the spare engine and says the project will bring jobs to the Bay State. That led Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, to keep the project alive.

Last month, Kennedy personally "earmarked" $100 million for the engine -- more than 20 percent of its cost -- during committee deliberations over the 2008 defense authorization bill. Other lawmakers whose home states could also benefit inserted the rest of the funding.

Gee -- I wonder what a half-billion dollars could do for the troops in Iraq, who are slowly winning a war that Teddy Kennedy is seeking to undermine while using the Defense Department budget to distribute federal largesse around his state.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Could be -- and I'm sure that the same hard-Left Democrats who showed him no loyalty in 2006 will consider his failure to give deference to them in 2008.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent who supports Democrats in Congress despite his backing of the Iraq war, said on Thursday he was not ruling out endorsing a Republican in the White House race.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate said he also wants to see if an independent enters the crowded field of 2008 presidential hopefuls.

"I'm going to chose whichever candidate that I think will do the best job for our country, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate," the Connecticut senator told reporters in the state capital Hartford.

"I'm not going to get involved until after both parties have their presumptive nominees and, frankly, to see if there is a strong independent candidate," he said.

That does present some interesting possibilities, doesn't it.

Hmmmmm.... Thompson-Lieberman 2008. Does have an interesting ring to it, dontha think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems to me that Gov. Spitzer may be guilty of an impeachable offense -- but that he is also following his traditional pattern of using the powers of his office to settle personal political scores.

Gov. Spitzer targeted state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno for an unprecedented State Police surveillance program that led to allegations Bruno improperly used a state helicopter for political purposes, an investigation by The Post has found.

No other state official, including Spitzer and Lt. Gov. David Paterson, was singled out for the type of detailed record-keeping the State Police maintained on Bruno, the state's most powerful Republican, official records show.

Part of the Spitzer administration's justification for homing in on Bruno - the governor's leading political adversary - is a claim that state Conservative Party leader Michael Long raised objections to Bruno's use of the State Police.

Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp told The Post that the records on Bruno began to be assembled because "there was an incident late last year in which Mike Long called to complain about Joe bringing armed troopers to [Long's] fund-raising event.

"Long thought it was highly inappropriate, and it probably was. Recalling that incident, the [State Police] made some changes . . . and, yes, [started] keeping basic records, i.e. logs," Dopp said.

But Long insisted yesterday that he never complained about Bruno and the State Police, and that no such incident had occurred.

"That is a baldfaced lie," said Long, who has been at odds with Bruno in recent years.

"I never made a complaint to the State Police or the governor's office, and if Bruno had shown up with armed troopers I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it."

A senior state official familiar with the surveillance program told The Post that he believed the governor and his aides had sought to "set up" Bruno by having the State Police keep track of his travels.

"Why else would they do it if not to set up Bruno - by getting on him something they thought was incriminating - when they weren't doing it to anyone else?" said the official.

Bruno himself said "it appears" Spitzer and his staff used the State Police to try to obtain negative information on him in an effort to "set up an officeholder" with whom the governor disagrees.

"I would like not to believe that the governor and the people who work for him would purposely set up an officeholder of the opposing party, but it certainly appears that way," said Bruno.

Spitzer ran on a platform of "clean government" -- but it looks like he may be the dirtiest one of all. Let's hope that the state legislature takes its duty seriously and removes him immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

"Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto" -- Juvenal

For those unfamiliar with Latin, that translates as "The will of the people is the highest law."

Today, columnist David Broder presents a different point of view, one which might well be summed up as "Screw the people!"

Let a reporter who is not running for anything suggest that exactly the opposite may be true: A particularly virulent strain of populism has made official Washington altogether too responsive to public opinion.

From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, philosophers have written of the healthy tension that normally exists between the understanding and strategies of leaders and the sentiments and opinions of their people.

In today's Washington, a badly weakened president and a dangerously compliant congressional leadership are no match for the power of public opinion -- magnified and sometimes exaggerated by modern communications and interest group pressure.

Now I'll agree with the notion that unfettered democracy is a bad thing -- hence my support of and near idolatry towards a Constitution that does place limits on what government can do, no matter what the majority wants. That is an essential feature of our system. And from time to time it might be necessary for the people and their representatives to hold their noses and acquiesce to unpopular legislation or policies that produce a substantive benefit to the nation as a whole.

However, Broder's gripe is that the Senate and House are unwilling to shove a bad immigration bill down the throats of an American people who are screaming their opposition. He defines listening to the collective wisdom of the American people as "failure", and ignoring our voices as "leadership".

I'm sorry, but his position is akin to claiming that a rapist might be justified in continuing his forcible violation of a screaming, struggling woman on the grounds that there might be a higher good that comes out of the assault, and that the victim is somehow obliged to lay back and enjoy it. Knowing that Broder is a decent man, I am sure he would never advocate such a thing if the victim were his granddaughter -- and he should be ashamed to advocate it when the victim would be the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

Does the WaPo profile of Jonathan Edwards' hairstylist reveal a possible violation of federal campaign finance law?

Torrenueva provided his first five haircuts for Edwards in late 2003 and early 2004 free of charge. "I was just doing it because I'm a Democrat," he said.

That the Post is doing a profile of the candidate's hairstylist is a sign on how non-substantive a candidate Edwards really is. But consider the implications of that little excerpt above.

Wasn't Edwards a presidential candidate at the time? Would they constitute in-kind contributions? Were these contributions properly reported on his FEC disclosures? Is Torrenueva incorporated for business purposes, and if he is do those haircuts constitute illegal corporate contributions to the Edwards campaign? And if Torrenueva also gave cash to the campaign, did the combined total value of the haircuts and cash exceed the legal limit for campaign contributions?

UPDATE: 7/6/2007: Looks like Mark L. Jackson and Debbie Schlussel are asking the same question I am.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Sullivan has been flacking this quote.

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

The quote is from his own book, "A Charge To Keep." I think that's a debate-ender, isn't it?

The only thing is that there are two problems with the way Sullivan is using it.

1) In issuing a commutation, Bush did not substitute his judgment for that of the jury. The conviction remains intact, only the sentence (handed down by a judge, not a jury as in a death penalty case in Texas) is modified. Besides, a number of the jurors even called for a presidential pardon of Scooter Libby on the same day that they convicted him.

2) The governor of Texas doesn't have the power to pardon or grant a commutation any criminal without an affirmative recommendation fo the state's Board of pardons and Parole. This has been the case in Texas since the current constitution was adopted in 1876. Any attempt to stop the executions would therefore have been an impeachable offense -- and I believe that Texas law allows for the executions to proceed even without the signature of the governor.

So if you consider the pathetically inept analysis put forward by Andrew Sullivan, aside from the fact that the mechanisms by which the sentences were issued are completely different and the fact that the powers of the President and the Governor of Texas are completely different, the situations are exactly the same!

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

So if a commutation of sentence means that the person was carrying out the wishes of the President, what does a pardon mean, Hillary?

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a distinction between President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby — which she has harshly criticized — and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office.

"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it," Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

A commutation, please remember, leaves the conviction intact and leaves the individual in question still legally guilty of the crime -- a pardon constitutes a Christ-like redemption and complete forgiveness of the offense.

Let's see -- Bill Clinton pardoned a bunch of FALN terrorists. Does that indicate that they had carried out actions of which Bill Clinton explicitly or implicitly approved, including the murder of a police officer?

And we know he gave several pardons to big campaign contributors, and to at least one client of his brother-in-law who had given him a multi-million dollar interest-free loan that was forgiven after the pardon.

Indeed, let's look at the pardons and commutations given by Bill Clinton -- and remember that, according to Senator Clinton, that a pardon equals approval of the activities carried out.

I guess Slick Willie has a lot of stuff that he is complicit with.

UPDATE: Just wehn you thought the hypocrisy couldn't get any worse, what's up with this?

Former President Bill Clinton blasted his successor's decision to spare former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby from prison, telling Iowa radio listeners that Libby's case differed from his own administration's pardon controversy.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Clinton said during an interview on Des Moines news-talk station WHO.

Bush administration officials, he said, "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

HOLY CRAP! This is the guy who got slapped down on virtually every claim of executive privilege he and his administration made -- and also on several new "privileges" that he tried to get made up! Furthermore, this is the guy who took campaign donations and other financial kickbacks from folks who he later pardoned -- and who also pardoned close associates who were convicted in relation to his crimes. In-FREAKIN'-credible!

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Personally, I think a lot of the cause is the Thompson Effect -- folks waiting around for Fred Thompson's entry into the race. Also, we just don't have the excitement of the Hillary/Obama race, which is being hyped relentlessly by the press.

But I find these statistics to be telling.

Key fundraising numbers:

* Giuliani raised $17 million with about $15 million devoted to the primary and about $2 million for the general election. Candidates can't use general election money unless they win their party's nomination. In six months, he has had revenues of nearly $32 million and has spent about $17 million.

* Romney raised $14 million, all primary election money. He lent himself an extra $6.5 million. His six-month revenues are about $44 million and his expenditures are about $32 million.

* McCain raised $11.2 million with about $10.4 million devoted to the primary. His overall revenues are about $26 million; the campaign spent about $24 million. In the first quarter, the campaign reported a debt of nearly $2 million. Aides would not comment on where his debt may stand.

In terms of the primary fundraising numbers, Romney and Giuliani are very close. It is only because Romney is not taking general election contributions that the gap gets magnified. What stands out, though, is McCain's inability to keep up with his competitors AND the fact that he is burning money without airing a single commercial on television. No wonder he is cutting staff!

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep hearing from liberals about the need for "fairness" in the media. If they really believe in that concept, why don't they demand equal time for those who disagree with the pseudo-science being promoted with this event.

This coming Saturday, July 7, NBC Universal will devote a record 75 hours of coverage to Al Gore’s “Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis,” to raise awareness about the alleged global warming “crisis” as defined by Gore. The coverage will air on seven NBC Universal-owned programs, and Today news anchor Ann Curry will host coverage during NBC’s primetime.

The 75 hours of coverage constitutes unprecedented promotion of one side of a political issue, and the largest in-kind contribution to Al Gore should he decide to run for President in 2008. Although undeclared, Gore ranks No. 3 among Democrats in leading polls on the presidential race.

Jeff Gaspin, president of NBC Universal Cable and Digital Content, declared, “By leveraging all of our properties, we will reach millions of viewers with this important call to action to combat global warming.” Kevin Wall, Live Earth founder and producer, said: “NBC Universal’s sweeping coverage of Live Earth ensures that Americans from coast to coast will be able to tune in to the concerts and take action against the climate crisis.”

So we have 75 hours of express advocacy of the global warming hooey promoted by Al Gore. How about 75 hours of scientific fact that shows that global warming, to the degree it exists, is not caused by mankind, and that there is not a consensus on the issue (no matter how often the global warming cultists claim there is).

I'm waiting, liberals, for you demand for "fairness" by NBC on global warming.

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

That the Circuit Court refused to allow Scooter Libby out on bond during his appeal was an incorrect decision, but I also believe that President Bush made an incorrect move with his commutation of Libby's sentence today.

President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Now let me make a couple of things clear here. I believe the charges were unfounded. I believe the evidence indicates something other than an intent to deceive. I believe the sentence was too harsh, and based upon offenses with which Libby was not charged and against which he was never permitted to present a defense. Given that the actual leaker was known before the investigation even began and was not charged with any crime, as well as the fact that the perjury before Congress of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame has not bee prosecuted, the trial and conviction of Scooter Libby over what was essentially an erroneous recollection of non-material facts is a travesty of justice.

However, President Bush made the wrong move today. Rather than the commutation, the President should have exercised his authority to grant a reprieve until the end of the appeals process -- a move which would have essentially reversed the move by the Circuit Court while still leaving the conviction and sentence intact pending the appeal.

Some may wonder why I take this position. Easy -- I believe that the elimination of the grossest miscarriage of justice, the 30-month prison sentence, has the effect of prejudicing Libby's appeal. It is hard to argue the sentence is too harsh when the worst element of it has been wiped away -- and since judges are human, it is possible that a court might reason that the President's action might lead certain jurists to have a bias against Libby due to the presidential intervention prior to the exhaustion of all appeals.

Personally, I believe a full and complete pardon may be in order -- but not at this time, when Libby still has a realistic chance of finding the remedy for this injustice in the Judicial Branch. And sadly, today's commutation also makes an eventual pardon harder to justify at a later date.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, Stop the ACLU, Ace, Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

The Illinois senator may have raised a bunch of cash, but I keep coming back to two words: Howard Dean.

Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced today, on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.

As candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the yearÂ’s second quarter, Mr. Obama of Illinois appeared to be sitting atop contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed today, and about $27 million over all.

“Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. “That’s the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.”

The question is, of course, whether or not this financial success translates into success at the polls. After all, Hillary! still has great name ID (but bunches of negatives), and Obama's name ID remains relatively low. This is precisely where the Democrats were 3 1/2 years ago, when Dean raised lots of cash and then crashed-and-burned in the primaries and caucuses. Will Obama succeed where Dean failed?

I'll be really interested in the GOP numbers, and whether or not the Thomson effect depressed fundraising among the other GOP candidates (and which ones).

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's the punchline.

If Mr. Edwards was half the woman Hillary Clinton is, he might be leading in the polls.

The rest of this great commentary on the disingenuous hypocrisy of John Edwards and his wife in the Ann Coulter Affair can be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

The inconvenient truth is that science contradicts what he claims on more than a few points.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Now Al Gwhore and his supporters claim that there is a consensus behind his claims -- but either he is lying or he believes that "consensus" trumps truth. It may be inconvenient, but it is time for him to tell the truth.

UPDATE: Al Gore conveniently avoids correcting his errors/lies in this NY Times column -- I guess he believes that an assault on a inconvenient truths is OK if Earth's in the balance.

Posted by: Greg at 05:44 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

1 vcuf xkzaldqeg ebiy qenkmlp suazcpbt rzatmfvyx irabzxug

Posted by: efop mejgnx at Tue Aug 26 02:14:43 2008 (6im3J)

2 steven dog ibm all red see you canada england speed

Posted by: greedthis at Fri Oct 24 11:30:07 2008 (uyAZj)

3 infsr sjxkbna laczqsj eprxw

Posted by: sewing at Wed Nov 5 16:44:39 2008 (oG5b8)

4 Very good site. Thank you.

Posted by: thanksgiving dinner menus and recipes at Sun Nov 16 15:07:16 2008 (emDWu)

5 klisbf

Posted by: naughty sexy women at Sat Nov 22 09:57:34 2008 (lH+1I)

6 rqnx eojv

Posted by: sexy pictures of girls with guitars at Sat Nov 22 23:38:17 2008 (FkvNk)

7 nbpdsr

Posted by: all sexy girls clips at Sat Nov 22 23:51:07 2008 (aG37W)

8 kzyat

Posted by: pirate myspace graphic sexy at Sun Nov 23 03:42:41 2008 (2BriD)

9 nerfopals, bmfkzzqd, nqn,

Posted by: Nushuqvp at Sun Nov 23 18:24:32 2008 (csdUM)

10 dirtkandi, chekfyyv, mhri, twtvkxsy, =-DD, bmrtdebh, 60690, facunlps, %-OOO, uhgebmqj, tqj,

Posted by: Nfgibejq at Thu Nov 27 22:00:00 2008 (jHwrM)

11 pla3, qldkdsio, %DDD, fiktjtwp, xqbe,

Posted by: Uazxqgxb at Fri Dec 5 13:55:15 2008 (rQw8i)

12 kriwafe, cyplfvcc, 0799, lbrwftck, 8-O,

Posted by: Zounatrm at Fri Dec 5 17:54:55 2008 (swMUh)

13 easmosb, lsxuxcew, wvh, kgocxdzb, 2847, vclrpolg, > , opvyakps, 39576, oyrcoodx, %-[[[, adlhhiui, 096,

Posted by: Mmkdziqt at Sat Dec 6 19:04:23 2008 (c3gtk)

14 ripsilh, xtxjpkyj, :-], fbsfexfl, , jdjkwuor, 100, fhevxeuy, npez, szpvznwx, tlaf,

Posted by: Abqgabih at Tue Dec 9 17:18:14 2008 (NovpU)

15 albnutt, zttlxzgs, 178,

Posted by: Infgizll at Sun Dec 14 15:27:07 2008 (vdvJi)

16 farmoza, yjdjjnza, , arkzckzn, 274406, kmzialbs, xyhzm, spvhsxge, 0749, kyolxkfh, jxw,

Posted by: Jwyrgrmx at Sun Dec 14 23:09:31 2008 (IwXQJ)

17 appcif, pnvgwaxl, ceywd, gjqpkuzb, 7585, fogcizgy, jamg, mefkpaka, 505, ddwbcmah, 179,

Posted by: Wnggciih at Fri Dec 19 00:40:37 2008 (zhwXU)

18 micpvr, jveywpkj, gtmhsy, nfwocipi, dpdeb, krmzkrix, zpjvxo, rgvwamqa, wcr, optjihsr, > ,

Posted by: Ewhpfyzl at Sat Dec 20 14:43:31 2008 (yL7Gk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

But it is really all the fault of the Republicans for not rolling over and playing dead, you see.

The problem for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't just President Bush. It's the Senate.

Pelosi sounded more apologetic than celebratory Friday when she announced with her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' list of accomplishments six months after they seized control of Capitol Hill and promised "a new direction" in Washington.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate."

Immigration has joined Iraq, stem cell research, Medicare drug pricing, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and other promises in the dustbin of the current Congress. Heading into a July Fourth recess after a bruising failure on immigration, Congress has a public approval rating in the mid-20s, lower than Bush's and no better than Republicans' ratings on the eve of their catastrophic election defeat in November, when the GOP lost control of the Senate and the House.

Seems rather hypocritical to me -- after all, this is the woman who promised "bi-partisanship" but has never tried to deliver on that -- and is faulting the GOP for daring to use some tactics that ought to be familiar to both her and the mobbed-up Senate Majority Leader who was standing beside her as she delivered her comments.

"The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs scholar at Boston University. "They're using the power of the Senate filibuster, and the power in the House when you have narrow majorities, to make a do-nothing Congress -- even when there's a lot of issues on the table, even when there's a lot of interest in accomplishing things."

In other words, she is angry that the GOP would dare use the powers that the Democrats insisted upon as a matter of right when they were in the minority. I believe that the proper response is "Payback's a bitch -- and so are you, Nancy."

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems like the chattering class is having wet-dreams about getting rid of Dick Cheney. In the latest example, we have a call to impeach Cheney over what amount to policy differences and questions of style. But the problem with the argument is that it really is less a case for impeaching the vice president than it is for impeaching President Bush.

The Constitution does not expressly forbid the president from abandoning his chief powers to the vice president. But President Bush's tacit delegation to Cheney and Cheney's eager acceptance tortures the Constitution's provision for an acting president. The presidency and vice presidency are discrete constitutional offices. The 12th Amendment provides for their separate elections. The sole constitutionally enumerated function of the vice president is to serve as president of the Senate without a vote except to break ties.

In contrast, Article II enumerates the powers and responsibilities of the president, including the obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. A special presidential oath is prescribed. Section 3 of the 25th Amendment provides a method for the president to yield his office to the vice president, when "he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." There is no other constitutional provision for transferring presidential powers to the vice president.

Yet without making a written transmittal to Congress, President Bush has ceded vast domains of his powers to Vice President Cheney by mutual understanding that circumvents the 25th Amendment. This constitutional provision assures that the public and Congress know who is exercising the powers of the presidency and who should be held responsible for successes or failures. The Bush-Cheney dispensation blurs political accountability by continually hiding the real decision-maker under presidential skirts. The Washington Post has thoroughly documented the vice president's dominance in a four-part series running this week. It is quite a read.

In the end, President Bush regularly is unable to explain or defend the policies of his own administration, and that is because the heavy intellectual labor has been performed in the office of the vice president. Cheney is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The problem, of course, with this argument is that the President DOES have the power to delegate executive authority to a wide array of advisers and appointees -- indeed, the presidency has never been a one man job, hence the need for the Cabinet and a White House staff larger than many small towns If a president (any president) can delegate to appointed and/or civil service employees, then surely a delegation to the elected Vice President is not forbidden by custom, law, or the Constitution itself.

Fein, of course, rightly recognizes that George W. Bush would never be impeached -- and certainly not removed, by the Democrats in Congress. So instead he proposes going after Cheney, who is truly despised by the Left. The problem is that any removal that might come to pass under this scenario would result in the appointment of a new Vice President by George W. Bush -- one who must be confirmed by the Democrats unless they wish to look supremely arrogant in their attempt to overturn the results of the 2004 presidential election by disrupting the line of succession to clear the way for Nancy Pelosi to take the presidency.

SO who would be the likely nominee for VP in such a scenario? I could think of several individuals who would frighten the crap out of the Dems -- Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich, or another respected conservative -- who would suddenly be thrust into the position of front-runner for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Faced with an incumbent VP, one with a great deal of good will from his or her recent elevation to the new office, the chances of the Democrats electing one of their own would be greatly diminished.

So come on, Cheney-haters -- take your best shot. Anything you do will serve to strengthen the GOP

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.

No doubt this will be Exhibit A on the need for the Fairness Doctrine in the eyes of local Democrats.

Filling in for conservative talk-show host Michael Berry Tuesday morning, Houston lawyer Geoff Berg was direct with KPRC radio's listeners.

"I am a moderate," he announced. "Michael is a right-wing fanatic. We are going to disagree."

He was on point.

Listeners — and apparently advertisers — disagreed so much that KPRC/950 AM fired Berg after one day on the job, ending his brief stint as a talk-radio host.

"Right after the show, the producers told me that I'd done a great job as host," Berg said Wednesday.

"(But) later in the day, they said don't come back."

Berg's defense of gay marriage and adoption displeased KPRC listeners, many of whom were used to Berry's more conservative take on social and political issues.

"There were truly some vicious calls, but that's fine," he said. "That's what you'd expect in this business."

In this case, it was clearly market forces that knocked Berg off the air. And while I consider that to be too bad (and wish I had put him on when I ran out for breakfast this morning), I also believe that this is how it is supposed to work -- if the audience does not want a host, the station should not keep him around.

On the other hand, there are those who think radio listeners are little children who must be fed their broccoli, and would insist that Berg have a regular spot on KPRC in order to make sure that the station is "balanced" -- even if the listeners don't care to hear what Berg has to say, they need to swallow what Mama says is good for them before they are allowed to consume what they want.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 4 kb.

From the fine folks over at GayPatriot.

PatriotPartner (John) wanted me to pass along some news to all of you who used to support the Republican Party before the Party left us and sold out AmericaÂ’s national security and citizenship to illegal invaders.

He called the Republican National Committee today and they are, in fact, giving him a refund of the entire amount of his donations to the party in the past twelve months. He also tells me that the RNC staffer is getting a lot of refund calls this week.

So now it is your turn to join in the cash-out of the Republican Party. CALL NOW!

Republican National Committee - 202-863-8500
National Republican Senatorial Committee - 202-675-6000
National Republican Congressional Committee - 202-479-7000

CALL FOR YOUR REFUND NOW!

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, government canÂ’t be letting the people decide what they want to hear, can we?

Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Now let’s take a look at that argument – the “compelling interest” standard has been used by the courts to allow exceptions to the First Amendment in the past – and not just in the case of broadcast media. Does the government also have “a compelling interest to ensure that” readers of newspapers, magazines, and websites are also “properly informed”? What Durbin has proposed here is nothing less than a standard that would allow the federal government to censor all media in the name of ensuring that We the People are “properly informed” – according to our Lords and Masters with the federal government.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, this one is loony even for Ron Paul.

New Hampshire's convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown have gained a new supporter: presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

In an interview with RogueGovernment.com, the Texas congressman compares the Browns to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior. He says the Browns are suffering like those leaders.

The Browns are holed up in their Plainfield, New Hampshire home and have threatened violence against federal officials if marshals come to arrest them. They were convicted of an elaborate scheme to hide millions of dollars in income. Their protest has become a rallying cry for anti-tax activists and militia members.

So now it appears that the renegade Republican has sided with convicted felons who threaten to murder law enforcement officials who attempt to take them into custody. This is support for terrorism by any other name -- if true.

However, Ron Paul denies that it is true.

Texas Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul said he did not compare a New Hampshire couple who refuses to pay taxes with Ghandi.

On Fox News Channel today, Paul said he doesn't know much about the case of Ed and Elaine Brown on Plainfield, N.H. but that he, like Ghandi, doesn't believe in violence to protest wrongs and it has appeared that the Browns have chosen another path.

I've not seen the interview, but I wouldn't be surprised if the initial report is true. After all, the site with the original interview describes it as follows.

Lee Rogers interviews Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul about a myriad of issues in this interview. Lee discusses the following topics with Dr. Paul in this half hour interview.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, the restoration of honest money, the plunge protection team, the government standoff with Ed and Elaine Brown over the income tax, the broken health care system, abolishing big government agencies, the CIA/NSA, global government, the New World Order, the North American Union, semi-secretive organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, American imperialism around the world, the billion dollar embassy being built in Iraq, the fraud of the global war on terror, illegal immigration, the move to tax and regulate the Internet by the establishment, the coming world ID system, the move towards fascism in America, the possibility of martial law being declared in the United States, the prospects of a new independent investigation into the attacks of 9/11 as well as the prospect of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

In other words, Paul is associating with the radical fringe of the conspiracy movement. I think giving the interview to this fellow should be reason enough to disqualify Ron Paul from any serious consideration as a candidate -- especially given that it is incredibly easy to believe that the initial press report is true. After all, given the fact that Ron Paul gives aid and comfort to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Truthers, would you really be all that surprised if he did come out in support of the Browns?

Fortunately, we at the national level have other choices besides Ron Paul. And in Texas CD14, GOP primary voters have the opportunity to replace Paul with Friendswood City Counncilman Chris Peden.

Posted by: Greg at 03:42 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I've not seen the interview, but I wouldn't be surprised if the initial report is true.

Why would you write a blog post on this topic without first taking 10 minutes to YouTube the interview?

Posted by: Zydeco at Tue Jun 26 20:17:29 2007 (jP57f)

2 Its funny that the IRS can convict someone without even doing it in court. But thats not the point... civil disobedience is a forum of decent, I'm not saying they should not arrest them. But saying that if they come close they will open fire, could be a bit far.

I think Ed and Elaine Brown are doing this because this is the best way they have thought of to fight the IRS witch they believe is not just nor legal.

Posted by: Gabe at Tue Jun 26 22:29:59 2007 (enHhX)

3 Zydeco -- because I couldn't get the interview to download due to bandwidth issues (on my end -- I can't wait until I change ISPs next week). However, I presented both sides of the issue to my readers, and directed them to the site where the interview is available.

And Gabe -- Edd and Elaine Brown were convicted in a federal court, and each was sentenced to over 5 years in prison. Edd Brown has a history of criminal violence unrelated to this case. If you want to support these violent felons, feel free to do so -- but if you do, why don't you march on down to the local penitentiary and demand the release of all the rapists and murderers, while you are at it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 27 01:56:48 2007 (ya687)

4
CFR monkeys
can't win without help
no brains, talent, or ethics

Posted by: Haiku Dude at Wed Jun 27 02:47:13 2007 (uG7U5)

5 You wrote yourself "On Fox News Channel today, Paul said he doesn't know much about the case of Ed and Elaine Brown on Plainfield, N.H. but that he, like Ghandi, doesn't believe in violence to protest wrongs and it has appeared that the Browns have chosen another path."
The ap has now issued a correction to the story. I like how you use the words "aid and comfort" the same words in the constition for treason. Just watch and you will soon see what happens when you dont pay the goverment its "protection" money.

Posted by: ray at Wed Jun 27 03:25:28 2007 (giyLS)

6 Rest assured, Ray, that I picked those words intentionally -- after all, the "Truthers" and their ilk regularly side with the terrorists against the American government and American people.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 27 03:50:14 2007 (r+Ftq)

7 Ron Paul -- proof that even a Looney Tunes character can be elected to Congress.

Posted by: Carl at Wed Jun 27 05:43:53 2007 (xovYK)

8 There's a difference between hating and being suspicious of your government, and believing in / supporting terrorists. I'm no truther, but anyone who says I have to love my Federal Government is hopelessly naive and completely blind to all the evil that it does. Come on folks - take off the jackboots, and let's start moving away from the police state.

Posted by: bret at Wed Jun 27 05:54:42 2007 (Z9WUn)

9 Direct, un-apportioned taxes were not allowed under the original constitution. The legality of the 16th amendment is questionable and no one is answering the questions.

Our founding fathers opposed central banks. Now all of the money raised from the income tax goes to paying off the *interest* on the federal debt. The Federal Reserve is a private for-profit corporation.

Posted by: mike at Wed Jun 27 06:16:43 2007 (FtDXY)

10 It is a shame that reporter Margot Sanger-Katz, who hangs out with the others at the Brown property, did absolutely NO research on this before she sensationally and erroneously claimed that Ron Paul was a 'supporter' of the Browns on her Concord Monitor blog when he had never even heard of them.

Ron had absolutely NO idea who the Browns were before being asked this question on television the other day about the IRS and such. He is no supporter of their tactics, or of non-payment of taxes. He is however, like Steve Forbes and other politicians before him, an advocate of getting rid of the IRS.

The libelous AP picked up and embellished the story, then it went out everywhere.

You really should not be perpetuating a story that draws inferences that should not be drawn.

Ron is the most respected Congressman on the hill -- what makes you think he'd support violence at this point in time? It is ludicrous.

Katz has had to print a retraction and the AP article is being pulled from wherever it appears, since it was unresearched and unverified.

http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/capital_beat_extra_ron_paul_on_the_browns

You would be wise to do the same.

Posted by: NH at Wed Jun 27 08:33:18 2007 (unNmM)

11 Ah now that I've read further down I see you are pushing an opponent of Ron's in the Congressional race. Now I see the reason for your smear job.

Smearing Ron, the most respected man in Washington, will not get your candidate any traction in Texas...

Posted by: NH at Wed Jun 27 08:47:50 2007 (unNmM)

12 I find it amusing to be told that I don't know what will fly in Texas -- especially given that I am currently sitting 1 1/2 miles from Ron Paul's congressional district, where I know there are hordes of Republicans chomping at the bit to get rid of him.

And if linking to a candidate's website constitutes "pushing" that candidate, would you also argue that I am "pushing" roguegovernment.com by linking to the interview?

Posted by: RhymesWithRight at Wed Jun 27 08:58:42 2007 (rtzPv)

13 Are these different than the "hordes" of voters that repeatedly re-elected Dr. Paul with comfortable margins? I think not, yet I agree that Dr. Paul is probably serving his last term in congress.

There's a lot of power in the national republican party structure. Paul's bid for the presidency has pissed them off. Look for no less than 10 "candidates" in the next congressional primary. It's a nefarious tactic that has served the party well in the the past when they have seen fit to discipline those who dare to oppose the party.

Ron Paul thinks additional 9-11 investigation and disclosure would be good...

...Party Spin: Ron Paul thinks 9-11 was an inside job

Ron Paul praises Gandhi for peaceful civil disobedience, urges consideration of consequences for those who choose to disobey...

...Party Spin: Ron Paul marches in lock step with nutjob tax evaders.

He hasn't made a dent in the official polls, and the MSM is still faithfully ignoring him. But it's pretty clear to me that he's got more than a couple of neocon republicans seriously worried.

It should be interesting to see his campaign contribution disclosures. If his reportings are not suppressed by the neocon spinners, that is...

Posted by: bob at Thu Jun 28 09:11:10 2007 (yDIf3)

14 Actually, Bob, that would be the same voters -- folks who have tolerated his idiosyncrasies because we agree with 75-80% of what he of what he does. These would be the same folks, though, who find his recent statements and actions -- and those of his "true believer" supporters -- embarrassing and unacceptable and who also recognize that if Ron Paul wants to be president that he considers CD14 to be a consolation prize. As a result, they want someone else to fill that congressional seat -- someone who won't embarrass them and who really wants to represent the district.

Ron Paul's repeated statements about 9/11 make it clear that he is with the nutjobs on the issue. Similarly, his viewing convicted felons who threaten to kill law enforcement officers as the equivalent of Gandhi is, dare I suggest, more than a little bit over the top.

Ultimately, though, Ron Paul is known by the company he keeps -- and that company drags his reputation down big time.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 28 10:43:36 2007 (9TSMO)

15 By the way, Bob -- If Ron Paul's support were as deep as you claim it is, it wouldn't matter if there were 100 candidates running in the primary, because he would sweep them all. Now if you consider the voters having a choice at primary time a "nefarious tactic", then I suggest that you really don't believe in the right of the people to govern themselves -- or perhaps you believe that Ron Paul has a divine right to be king congressman in CD14.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 28 10:47:50 2007 (9TSMO)

16 Gee Greg, don't get so uptight. It's not like he could win the nomination or anything!

Posted by: bob at Thu Jun 28 11:24:02 2007 (yDIf3)

17 siudhx hrzyqtc vhkyzdp enjc arizona bankruptcy lawyer

Posted by: arizona bankruptcy lawyer at Sun Jul 13 11:32:13 2008 (r1048)

18 adbt kiwdc sulpm anal sex positions model sexy amateur

Posted by: anal sex positions model sexy amateur at Sun Jul 13 17:10:06 2008 (qNDGG)

19 jkrwbch cvmq vjtlido emhrvcp painful anal

Posted by: anal virgin at Fri Aug 22 04:55:02 2008 (kK/j0)

20 qsnmdbo dylurk ginger anal

Posted by: crazy anal at Fri Aug 22 06:43:51 2008 (VXNaH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last week, MSNBC did a piece on the political contributions of journalists -- and noted that they are overwhelmingly to left-wing politicians and causes. Now personally, I have no problem with such donations if they are disclosed. After all, journalists are Americans (though I'd argue many are rather unAmerican) and have a right to participate in our political system.

Indeed, I agree with Randy Cohen, whose column, "The Ethicist" is syndicated by the New York Times.

Cohen had given $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004, when it was organizing get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bush. Cohen at first told MSNBC.com that he thought of donating to MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than giving to the Boy Scouts.

"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities — help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I’d say not."

Now I'd argue that his slanted comments against the Boy Scouts and borderline-bigoted comments about the Catholic Church show some other reasons why he probably isn't fit for the field of journalism or a column of the sort he writes (aside from the fact he has no formal training in ethics), he is essentially right. In a society that values expressive speech, why should those who speak for a living be banned from speaking as private individuals?

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Republicans are often asked if opposition to Roe v. Wade is a litmus test in the selection of judges. In light of these comments by Gov. Bill Richardson establishing a litmus test for judicial nominees, other Democrats be asked if support of that bloody precedent is a litmus test for the selection of future Supreme Court justices in a Democratic administration?

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Friday that if he is elected president, he would use abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, rejecting candidates who don't support the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

"I know that I am going to upset some people," Richardson said. "I would say, 'Do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law?' and if they say, 'Yes,' they have a good chance of being picked. If they say 'No,' I will not pick them."

Dred Scot v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson were both beloved precedents for Democrats in their day, and considered "settled law" by that party before they were overturned. Richardson therefore fits well in the tradition of his party in establishing a litmus test in support of a decision that says some human beings are less equal than others under the US Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that John McCains time is past.

THE former presidential front-runner, John McCain, may drop out of the 2008 race by September if his fundraising dries up and his poll ratings continue to drop, according to Republican insiders.

The speculation, vigorously denied by McCainÂ’s camp, is sweeping Republican circles after a disastrous few weeks in which the principled Arizona senator has clashed with the partyÂ’s conservative base on immigration and also alienated independent voters by backing President George W BushÂ’s troop surge in Iraq.

Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican party, said: “He’s a battler, so I’d expect him to carry on, but everyone is waiting to see what his new fundraising totals are. That’s pretty critical. If he doesn’t have the money, he won’t be able to run.”

The second fundraising quarter for candidates closes at the end of June and McCainÂ’s results should be known by mid-July.

The interesting question is this -- if McCain does leave the presidential race, how does his support break? Does it fracture, or go as a block t one of the other candidates -- possibly raising a second-tier candidate's profile or putting one of the front-runners into a commanding lead?

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Next time you are in Vegas waiting in a long line, why don't you give Harry Reid's office a call? They will get you VIP service and a complimentary upgrade!

The July/August issue of The Atlantic magazine includes a profile of Harlan Coben, author of 16 best-selling crime novels. The article identifies some of Coben's celebrity friends, including television host Bryant Gumbel, rock musician Nils Lofgren and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

* * *

The article's author, Eric Konigsberg, reports that he accompanied Coben on a book-signing tour that stopped in Las Vegas. He describes a telling scene:

"When we arrived at our hotel, the Luxor, the check-in line looked as if it would take 45 minutes," Konigsberg writes. "Coben e-mailed Reid's office, and it took about a minute for a secretary to call the hotel and arrange for a VIP check-in and a room upgrade."

Hmm. Now, we all know how things work in Las Vegas. The more money you have, the better treatment you receive. Few people around here really argue with that, right?

But this Harlan Coben scenario is a little different.

First, we have this novelist, who lives in New Jersey, securing a favor from Reid's office. Clearly, Coben was made aware sometime in advance of this incident that if he contacted the senator's office, any problems he encountered in Las Vegas would be taken care of. Is this a common activity at Reid HQ? Who else is Nevada's senior casino host helping out in this way? Coben may seem fairly harmless, but what about others who have benefited from Reid's succor?

Second, we have somebody in Reid's office dropping everything to place a call to the Luxor to fix an inconvenience experienced by the senator's friend. Is it possible that Reid's staffers might have more important things to do than ensure VIP treatment for a New Jersey-based novelist?

Third, we have the folks at the Luxor, an MGM Mirage property, immediately bending over to provide special treatment to Reid's buddy. What does this say about the relationship between Reid and the state's dominant industry? Doesn't this suggest something more than an arm's-length association? What does the casino expect in exchange for helping out Reid's friend?

I'm curious -- since when is it the role of Congressional staffers to "hook up" the friends their bosses? And what do the folks who do these favors for staffers expect to get in return? Seems like an ethics violation to me -- because after all, isn't the appearance of impropriety an impropriety? Or is that standard only for Republicans?

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

The headline makes it pretty clear -- the story is about the president's energy proposal.

Bush touts proposal to cut back on gas

So why is this the opening paragraph?

It must take a lot for President Bush to cancel out on raising campaign cash for a fellow Republican.

In fact, the first FIFTEEN PARAGRAPHS are devoted to the relationship between the President and Senator Jeff Sessions, their conflicts over the immigration bill, political fundraising, and the president getting winded going up some stairs. Only in paragraph 16 do we get this first glimmer of information about the energy proposal.

At the power plant appearance, Bush touted his approach for cutting gasoline consumption as the Democratic-controlled Senate opened debate on a broad energy bill.

That would be the first of seven paragraphs on the president's objections to the Democratic energy proposal in Congress. By my count we have now gone 22 paragraphs without actually talking about the President's "proposal to cut back on gas."

But wait -- here it comes!

Bush wants the standard increased to 35 billion gallons a year by 2017. He calls it an "alternative fuels" standard, instead of a renewable fuels standard, because he would count so-called coal-to-liquid fuel and other nonrenewable sources.

That's right -- paragraph 23 actually deals with the topic indicated in the headline. Now we are in for some substantive reporting on the subject, right?

Wrong. The article has only two paragraphs left. I present them for your consideration.

He also pushed increased use of nuclear power, from the plant that is home to the first U.S. nuclear reactor to go online in more than 20 years. Browns Ferry's Unit 1 reactor began producing power again last month after being shut down for safety reasons in 1985. Its other two reactors returned to service in the 1990s.

The reactor was shut down two days after its restart when a leaky pipe burst and spilled non-radioactive fluid. Such problems prompted Greenpeace to call Browns Ferry "a strange poster child for a nuclear future."

Nope -- nothing about gas there.

And so we get a grand total of two sentences about the president's proposal to cut back on gasoline usage -- despite the fact that the headline was about the president's proposal to cut back on gas usage. Even if we are generous and count the criticisms of the congressional plan as "touting" the president's proposal, we still see only 1/3 of the story devoted to what the headline tells us the story is about -- and the third at that!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, On the Horizon, The Pet Haven Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 5 kb.

That would be the verdict of the American People.

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Congress is now nestled at the bottom of the list of Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions rankings, along with HMOs. Just 15% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in HMOs. (By way of contrast, 69% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military, which tops the list. More on this at galluppoll.com on Thursday).

So let me ask -- if the American people don't trust the Congress but do trust the military, do you think that maybe the notion of "supporting the troops" might best be expressed by letting them win instead of bringing them home?

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Sometimes I think we have too many pollsters doing to many polls. So even though these numbers confirm what I felt in my bones, I have to wonder if this was really necessary.

Hillary Clinton checks in as the "creepiest" candidate in the hunt for the White House, a new Forbes magazine online character poll has found.

A full 15 percent of Americans say Clinton gives them the creeps - including 20 percent of men, compared to 10 percent of females.

No other active candidate comes close to Clinton, who's taken hits from pundits for getting shrill on the speaking stump, making people's hairs stand on end.

But former Vice President Al Gore, a non-candidate basking in the glow of an Oscar award for his recent documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," ties Clinton in the creep-out column at 15 percent.

Any woman who would make the policy proposals advocated by Clinton AND stay married to Bill Clinton should creep out any sane person.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess I'd get upset about this if the man had ever shown even an ounce of fidelity to GOP principles, but since he has governed like a liberal from the moment he took office I won't lose much sleep over Michael Bloomberg leaving the GOP.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abruptly left the Republican Party yesterday, declaring himself free of a "rigid adherence" to ideology and stoking speculation that he will use his multibillion-dollar fortune to mount an independent bid for the White House.

The founder of the Bloomberg financial media empire has repeatedly denied interest in the presidency. At a technology conference yesterday in which he attacked partisanship in Washington, he said: "I plan to be mayor for the next 926 days." But he has refused to rule out a run for the presidency, even discussing the possibility privately with close advisers and beginning to travel around the country, including a trip to the home of the nation's first primary, New Hampshire.

In a statement posted on the official Web site of New York City late yesterday, Bloomberg said that his plans "haven't changed" and that abandoning the Republican banner will better reflect his approach to governance. Bloomberg was a longtime Democrat before shifting his allegiance to the GOP before his first mayoral run in 2001.

"Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology," the statement said. "Working together, there's no limit to what we can do.

For all the talk of a presidential run, I want to know where his base would be? It certainly won't be among the mainstream of the GOP, because a pro-abortion, anti-gun candidate who lacks Rudy Giuliani's record on terrorism simply will not draw from among conservatives. And as far as Democrats, they already have a whole raft of candidates who essentially hold the major tenets of Bloomberg's politics. Where is he going to draw votes?

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's what you get if the Democrats control Congress and the White House after the election of 2008.

If Democrats follow through on their budget promises, the American people will face the following:
• A $500 per child tax increase.
• A 55 percent Death Tax.
• A 13 percent tax increase for many small businesses.
• A 33 percent tax increase on capital gains.
• A 164 percent tax increase on dividends.

Indeed, it is worse than that. The $400 billion dollar increase in taxes supported by every Democrat running for President will impact 100% of Americans. Take a look at the impact in one Michigan Congressman's district.

A recent Heritage Foundation study revealed the Democratic plan would raise taxes by $3,019 for each person in my south-central Michigan district. Also, the Heritage study revealed this tax increase would cause 2,272 job losses in south-central Michigan and cost my district's economy $207 million.

Why don't we hear about this planned tax increase? Because they don't call it a tax increase -- instead the refer to it as "ending the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy" by allowing them to expire. You know, tax cuts that reduced the tax rate of every single American who paid income taxes, and which freed millions of Americans from paying any income taxes at all.

Let me leave you with the words of a great American, speaking about tax cuts and their impact on the American economy.

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased -- not a reduced -- flow of revenues to the federal government."

And no, that is not Ronald Reagan -- it is John F. Kennedy, whose words nearly a half century ago accurately predicted what the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have done for our economy and government revenues.

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

It is time for Sam Brownback to step up to the plate and fire this individual. Indeed, it is time for each and every presidential candidate to forthrightly denounce this sort of bigotry, or explain why a candidate’s religion should disqualify him from office – and which ones they believe ought to be disqualifying. You know – in the interest of letting us know which Americans will be second-class citizens under their respective administrations.

Mitt Romney's Mormonism isn't something his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination talk much about in public, but his faith appears to have stoked a whisper campaign, engineered by an Iowa staffer for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).

In an e-mail obtained by The Fix, former state representative Emma Nemecek, the southeastern Iowa field director for Brownback's presidential campaign, asked a group of Iowa Republican leaders to help her fact-check a series of statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including one that says: "Theologically, the only thing Christianity and the LDS church has in common is the name of Jesus Christ, and the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith."

The e-mail appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to push negative talking points on Mormonism to influence power brokers in Iowa, where Brownback and Romney are engaged in a struggle for socially conservative voters in advance of the state's Jan. 14, 2008, caucuses.

Now let me reiterate something I’ve said a number of times – I have some grave doubts and hearty disagreements with Mormon theology. I don’t believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet any more than I believe Muhammad to have been one, and I reject as spurious the revelations both of them claim to have received. But just because I do not accept the theology of the LDS Church (or of Islam, for that matter) does not mean I believe the faith should be a disqualifying factor for any candidate for office.

IÂ’m particularly disturbed by the weak-kneed response of the Brownback campaign to this incident.

When informed of the existence of the e-mail, Brownback Iowa communications director John Rankin disavowed the tactic. "Although the forwarded e-mail did not originate from campaign staff and was not sent from a campaign account or on behalf of the campaign, it is unfortunate and regrettable that this e-mail was forwarded by someone working for the campaign, even if for fact-checking purposes on behalf of a publication," Rankin said. "This was against stated campaign policy, this will not happen again, and the staff member responsible has apologized for doing so and has been reprimanded."

So all that happens here is a reprimand? Really? Would the Brownback campaign have been so soft on an email that was clearly anti-Semitic? I think we all know the answer there. Also, why is a Brownback campaign staffer doing fact-checking on RomneyÂ’s religion on behalf of some publication? This seems rather odd to me. And given the history of the religious issue in presidential politics, shouldnÂ’t Brownback, a Catholic, be especially sensitive to such bigotry? Frankly, this reflects poorly on Brownback.

And the questions I want answered – what publication was Emma Nemecek doing research for? Why were they seeking comments from a political activist -- rather than an expert on religion -- regarding Mormon beliefs and practices? And why did she turn to fellow political activists for answers? Frankly, the explanation does not wash.

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.