Debates can turn ugly during a hotly contested campaign -- and so can other joint appearances by candidates. When such things happen within a party, that can be a sign that there will be difficulty rallying the troops around the eventual nominee.

That may be the case in Virginia.

The two men vying for the Democratic nomination in Virginia's U.S. Senate race angrily accused each other of being disloyal to their party in a bitter exchange Friday during their first face-to-face meeting of the primary campaign.

Former lobbyist Harris Miller and former Navy secretary James Webb clashed during the taping of what was billed as a casual conversation for "On the Record," a Norfolk television show that will air Sunday morning. The exchange started calmly, with both taking potshots at the man each wants to face in the fall, incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen.

But the conversation quickly turned nasty, with Miller questioning Webb's partisan "values" and Webb noting that Miller had been called by some people "the antichrist of outsourcing." It ended at an impromptu news conference after the taping, with a visibly frustrated Webb telling Miller to "shut your mouth."

The two went after each other on questions of party loyalty -- Webb's support for Republicans in 2000 and Miller's history of campaign contributions to senior Republicans.

The antipathy that had until Friday been reserved for news releases and quiet remarks by campaign aides became personal slams moments into the taping as Miller questioned Webb's support for Republicans during the 2000 election.

"When we were fighting in the trenches to defeat George Bush and George Allen in 2000, you weren't just voting for them, you were endorsing them," Miller said, ignoring the question of the show's host, Joel Rubin.

Webb quickly accused Miller of making inappropriate campaign contributions to senior Republicans in the Congress.

"Why did you donate money to [U.S. House of Representatives Speaker] Dennis Hastert? I've never given money to a Republican in my life," Webb said.

They both claim they will support the other in the general election. But you have to wonder -- will it be an active support? Or will we see the loser retire from the field and offer nothing beyond a few polite words of endorsement at the state convention?

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

That is my reaction to the vote in the House of Representative to keep the ban on off-shore drilling for oil during this time of shortage.

The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.

Lawmakers from Florida and California, who led the fight to continue the drilling moratorium, said they feared energy projects as close as three miles from shore could jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries in their states.
"People don't go to visit the coasts of Florida or the coast of California to watch oil wells," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said.

Down here in Texas, we have plenty of wells off-shore – wells that contribute to the current supply of oil. If California, Florida, and other coastal states refuse to help the US establish energy independence, then they clearly have no moral right to the oil produced by the very sort of well they reject along their own coast lines.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm curious -- has this twerp ever objected to any other vote being held in this location? Or are we seeing a simple case of grandstanding by a wannabe presidential candidate fromt he far left? I doubt it -- but Russ Feingold is better known for his publicity seeking than his fidelity to the Constitution (see McCain Feingold for the classic example of his infidelity to our nation's founding document).

Certainly his confrontation with Arlen Specter is a classic.

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Frankly, I can't believe in the arrogance expressed by Feingold, whose lack of fidelity to the Constitution may only be matched by his lack of fidelity to his marriage vows.

Specter noted that the choice of locations was realy a side issue.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

In addition, Specter noted that he voted to send the proposed amendment to the floor because it deserves debate, not because he supports it -- in fact, he does not. I guess he just has the intellectual honesty to allow people to discuss the issues -- something Feingold's previous opposition to unfettered political speech proves he fears.

And what is the text of the amendment?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In other words, it recognizes the cultural beliefs and practices of the overwhelming majority of Americans and makes them a part of our Constitutional system, preserving them from renegade judges imposing their will in place of the will of the people.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Chris over at Texas Safety Forum notes these two open-to-the-public candidate events in Fort Bend County as we prepare for the June 9 resignation of Tom DeLay.

The first is on May 25.

Sugar Land - The Fort Bend Republican Club and the Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club are pleased to co-sponsor a forum for Fort Bend voters that will feature the candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for the Congressional District 22 position in the November election.

Congressional District 22 voters who want to learn more about the individuals seeking to represent them as the Republican nominee for CD 22 will be able to hear the candidates discuss their reasons for seeking the nomination and can learn more about the candidates as they answer questions on issues in a moderated panel format.

The forum will be held on May 25th at the Comfort Suites Conference Center, located at 4820 Techniplex Drive in Stafford, Texas (South side of Hwy 59 in Stafford). A reception will be held from 6:30 - 7:00 PM prior to the event and the forum will last from 7:00- 8:30 PM.

For information, please contact Fort Bend Republican Club President, Dean Hrbacek, at 281-240-2424.

The second is on June 8.

Republican Party of Fort Bend County CandidateÂ’s Forum

Save the date! On June 8th the Republican Party of Fort Bend County will hold a CandidateÂ’s Forum for candidates to the 22nd Congressional District race. Because the list of candidates is fluid right now, please forward this notice to anyone interested in the race.

The forum will be open to any Precinct Chair from Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris County and will be open to the public. Candidates will be interviewed by local media representatives.

The location will be announced soon. Candidates are encouraged to contact Gary Gillen, Chairman of the Republican Party of Fort Bend County for further details. Contact Gary at chairman@fortbendgop.org

I echo Chris in wondering if David Wallace has been personally notified and invided, since he and his staff obviously are unfamiliar with the internet and the wealth of political resources -- including blogs -- that exist on the world wide web (and which include CD22 blogs like this one).

Interestingly enough, I got a big envelope from the Wallace campaign today -- containing the candidate survey from the Harris County event, signed and dated May 8. I'm betting the "prior committment" that kept him from coming to that event was a ruse, and the real problem is that he couldn't answer the questions in a timely fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 03:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

I wonder who this could be.

The US Senate is looking into allegations that a former US senator urged Baghdad to give a US company lucrative contracts under the much-criticised United Nations oil-for-food programme.

This is the first time that a leading US lawmaker has been linked to the controversial UN programme, whose shortcomings have been an important element of the Bush administration's critique of the UN.

No name, no party, no state. I wonder why the omission?

The investigation involves one of the most vivid figures in US east coast politics, former senator Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who was forced to pull out of the 2002 election after being "severely admonished" by the Senate ethics committee for accepting expensive gifts from David Chang, a campaign contributor. Mr Chang, a Korean-American businessman, was found guilty in 2002 of conspiring to violate federal campaign laws and was jailed for 15 months.

Oh, that explains it -- a Democrat. Bury the pertinent details as deep as possible.

I just have to ask -- French Socialists, British ultra-Lefty Galloway, and now a liberal Dem. What is it about Saddam that drew the Left to him like moths to a flame?

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Being married to a Democrat, I have to agree with George Will on this one.

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

My Darling Democrat has values – some of which I disagree with, others of which I simply prioritize differently. To imply that she doesn’t is condescending – and cuts off any chance of the GOP ever getting her and others who fall into the center-left to ever move our direction in terms of setting the direction of this country politically and socially. They are our family members, neighbors, co-workers and fellow church-members, and they often are not that far away from those of us in the conservative movement in terms of the values they hold dear.

After all –one’s position on civil rights is values based. So is one’s position on education. I cannot think of a single aspect of belief or ideology that is not, in the end, based upon the moral values one holds dear. The trick is often not to change the values that others hold, but to influence how they prioritize them and how they should be implemented.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

You don't mean to tell me that the much-vaunted Democrat machine of my youth is still pulling the strings, taking kickbacks and giving out patronage jobs in the city run by Boss Daley's son, do you?

When Mary Jo Falcon started work as personnel director in the Chicago Sewers Department in 1994, she picked up some stern advice from her predecessor, who told Falcon that her real boss worked in a faraway office in City Hall.

The powerful man was Robert Sorich, and she could expect instructions from him on whom to hire, Falcon was told, according to court documents describing the scene. But his name was never to be penned on any documents. If questioned, she was to "deny everything. Deny, deny, deny."

Sorich, who worked in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, was Mayor Richard M. Daley's patronage chief until a federal grand jury indicted him last year on charges of rigging city hiring to favor campaign workers and others with notable political connections. In court this week, he will be fighting for his own reputation and, in a way, his boss's.

Prosecutors aim to persuade 12 jurors that Sorich and his associates made sure their favorites, whatever their qualifications, got secure jobs as building inspectors and bricklayers, tree trimmers and truck drivers, in a city heavily perfumed with government corruption.

That Sorich's office was right down the hall from the famously micromanaging mayor's is the tantalizing subtext of a case expected to open a window onto the way business is conducted in Daley's City Hall.

Prosecutors are not saying whether they think Daley is pulling levers behind the curtain. The five-term Democratic mayor has been questioned, but not implicated and not charged. His public response: "I don't play any role in hiring; no, I don't. I never have."

Not that Illinois politics have ever been clean -- rewarding political allies with public largesse is an old custom. And I'll be honest about it, my grandfather's connections to Democrat Senator Paul Douglas was the key to my grandmother scoring college scholarship for all four of her children back in the in the early 1950s. Those party ties also explain how my grandfather managed to score a plum job as a state policeman in the late 1930s, at a time when the department was noted as much for its patronage as for its professionalism.

Not, of course, that the GOP hasn't been involved in such shennanigans as well -- former Gov. George Ryan was recently convicted of using his office for personal gain.

This could be interesting -- showing once again that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

I doubt we'll be hearing the name Abramoff prominently from the Democrats this year. That is because any attempt to accuse the GOP of systemic corruption will only lead back to the ethical cess-pool that is the Democrat Party. Take this senior Democrat.

Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.

Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.

Controversy over this blending of commerce and legislation has triggered a federal probe, cost Mollohan his position on the House ethics committee and undermined the Democrats' effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption because of the Jack Abramoff scandal. As early as today, the 12-term congressman will admit that he misstated some transactions in his congressional filings, according to Mollohan staffers.

"Mollohan has earmarked tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners. That immediately raises the question whether these funds were allocated to promote the public good or to promote his interests and the interests of his partners," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group. "He also got very rich very quick, and that suggests a relationship that is suspect if not corrupt."

How bad is it? Take a look at this little tidbit.

Mollohan, 63, faces a widening federal investigation. The FBI has notified his nonprofit organizations that they will be subpoenaed soon and, according to Mollohan, a subpoena has already been served on a D.C. real estate company in which he has invested. In addition, Mollohan plans to divulge that he misstated on House financial disclosure forms the amount of loans and income from some of his real estate holdings.

I love that term, "misstated". Could you imagine the Democrats allowing a senior GOP congressman get by with that? The entire situation reeks of corruption -- yet the Democrats were more than willing to let him sit on the Ethics COmmittee and pass judgement on Tom DeLay, whose alleged lapses have everything to do with politics and not personal enrichment.

Now maybe there is some reasonable explanation for all this, but remember what the Democrats kept telling us -- the appearance of impropriety is itself an impropriety.

Posted by: Greg at 04:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't trust John McCain. And I've never been a huge fan of Jerry Falwell, though I do root for Liberty University in the NCAA tourney each year. So I guess that this pronouncement doesn't really do much for me.

If yesterday's teaming up of Sen. John McCain and the Rev. Jerry Falwell seems like a marriage of political convenience, Falwell is quick to say who drove him toward McCain.

Who else? Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton seems to be the political matchmaker for all kinds of conservatives and McCain, who didn't win any friends six years ago when he blasted Falwell as an agent of intolerance.

Now a lot of people are letting bygones be bygones for a simple reason: They think McCain looks like a Hillary-stopper.

"He's consistently beat Hillary in every poll," Falwell said last week. "Others could beat her. But I think McCain, barring health problems or a Howard Dean [style] explosion, is going to beat Hillary."

And that's part of the reason Falwell sounds a lot like a McCain supporter, even though he's officially uncommitted now. He said that while Bill Clinton was a populist, Hillary is "an ideologue. I think Hillary would be the worst thing that would ever happen to America."

But he also says Republicans can't beat her with just anyone. "Anybody who sells her short is not wise," Falwell said.

You know what -- i don't believe that John McCain can get the nomination in the GOP. He has alienatd too many of us who make up the base. Campaign finance "reform" makes a mockery of the Frst Amendment, and McCain has indicated his preference for eliminating its protections completely in the name of "getting money out of politics."

I honor the man's military service -- but if he were on fire, I still couldn't bring myself to spare the water to urinate on him.

Falwell must be in teh grips of senile dementia if he believes mcCain is the answer to the threat of "President Hillary".

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Hugh Hewitt notes that Andrew Sullivan wants to lump the conservative Christians in with Taliban and al-Qaeda.

What does the term "Christianist" mean and why is Time peddling it?

Time columnist Andrew Sullivan uses the term to describe evangelicals with whom he disagrees. He says his goal is to "take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist."

He explains further, "Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike."

Most pundits have rejected "Christianist" because it obviously tries to link Islamists and those evangelicals Mr. Sullivan loathes. He is attempting to dress up hate speech as simple precision, but given the vast spectrum of political opinions among believers on the center-right, "Christianist" is a howler. Still, no one should be laughing when a once-respected newsweekly defines a huge portion of the American mainstream as the equivalent of the Islamists who attacked the country on 9/11. Be prepared as others pick up Time's term.

Such crap coming from Sullivan and Time couldn't be a sign of the continuing War on Christianity, which teh Left steadfastly assures us is a figment of our our own imaginations and our desire to illegitiamtely manipulate the debate on cultural and political issues.

But two can play that game. Let's just engage in a little bit of substitution with Sullivan's own words.

"Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Homosexualist is in no way designed to label people in the homosexual rights movement as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Homosexualist the view that homosexuality is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that sexual orientation dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, homosexual and non-homosexual alike."

The description probably fits the so-called "gay rights" movement better than it fits the religious right. And we can certainly see plenty of developments over the last several years in which the undeniable rights of hristians (and other religious believers) to live their lives according to their faith have been trampled by the questionable claims of the homosexualists.

MORE AT: Outside the Beltway, Eunomia, Don Singleton, Fides et Veritas, Civil Commotion, Hugh Hewitt (twice), ChronWatch

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Third World Country, Sed Vitae, TMH Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop The ACLU, Leaning Straight Up

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 6 kb.

I've got to ask -- what is it about Alabama Democrats? First you had the idiot legislative candidate/teacher showing profane anti-Bush material to students in his science classes. Now you have this candidate for attorney general denying the Holocaust.

Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend in New Jersey to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

* * *

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

And not only is he a Holocaust denier and white supremacist, he also stakes out some other interesting positions.

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

In the defense of the Alabama Democrats, their party chairman had this to say.

The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party became aware of some of Darby's views only days ago and was considering what to do about his candidacy.

"Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party," said Turnham.

* * *

Turnham said the party began an investigation last week after hearing about some of Darby's comments in a television interview. While the party supports the free-speech rights of any candidate, Turnham said some of Darby's views appear to be in "a realm of thought that is unacceptable.

But you have to wonder -- what is it about the Democrat Party that attracts individuals of this calibre?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democrats are signaling their intent to filibuster the Kavanaugh nomination.

While Democrats on the committee acknowledged Mr. Kavanaugh has "top-flight credentials," they said his background is overtly political.

"While his academic credentials are undeniably top-notch, he has largely devoted his legal talent to helping notch political victories for his party," Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said yesterday.

Which means, of course, that this is a qualified nominee, but the Democrats donÂ’t like his politics. There exists no legitimate reason -- and certainly no "extraordianry circumstance" -- for delaying or denying this nominee.

Time to restore the Constitution by laying the filibuster to rest in the case of judicial nominees – first by making the Democrats actually hold the floor continuously while preventing all other business from taking place, and then by getting a ruling from the parliamentarian that such a filibuster is not in order when the GOP is ready for the vote – preferably during prime time.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, Tom DeLay has finally informed us of his intended resignation date -- and I am unhappy about it.

He won't resign until June 9, 2006 -- and presumably will not render himself ineligible to be on the ballot until the same time.

Rep. Tom DeLay, the once-powerful majority leader whose career was undermined by scandal, said Thursday he would resign from the House on June 9.

"As you are aware," the Texas Republican wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "I have recently made the decision to pursue new opportunities to engage in the important cultural and political battles of our day from an arena outside of the U.S. House of Representatives."

He told Hastert he would resign at the close of business on June 9.

The combative conservative last month stated his intention to resign in June, saying he did not want to allow Democrats to turn the next election in his district near Houston into a negative personal campaign.

Why am I unhappy? Because the resignation will not take place before the Texas GOP convention on June 2-3 -- when I had hoped to see the party's new standard-bearer announced and given a rousing launch to his/her campaign. Instead, the formal selection process cannot even begin for a week after convention ends.

Assuming, of course, that the man doesn't dally about switching his residency and notifying the party here in Texas.

Once that takes place, state law sets the following process for selecting a replacement candidate.

1) State GOP Chair declares DeLay ineligible for reelection.

2) Precinct chairs from the district caucus by county and select one of their number to form a committee to select a new candidate.

3) Committee meets to select a new candidate.

4) If no candidate is selected by 70 days prior to the election, the State Republican Election Committee may select a candidate.

5) General election takes place in November -- in this case, in tandem with a free-for-all special election to complete the last two months of Delay's term of office.

Nick Lampson's folks are still not willing to admit that state law permits the removal of DeLay and the naming of a replacement.

Many have speculated that LampsonÂ’s campaign or the Democratic Party would challenge DeLayÂ’s ability to drop off the ballot merely by changing residency.

“We have never conceded that Tom DeLay can legally remove his name from the ballot simply because he saw he was going to lose and wanted the chance to choose his successor,” Malaise said two weeks ago.

This despite the fact that state law has specific provisions allowing for exactly such a process to take place if a candidate becomes ineligible -- and Constitutionally, Tom DeLay becomes ineligible the minute he establishes residency in another state by doing something like registering to vote there.

There is, of course, another candidate in the race besides Nick Lampson.

Former Rep. Steve Stockman has collected enough voter signatures to run as an independent candidate in the race to replace former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, his spokesman said Wednesday.

Stockman, a former Republican, has collected more than the 500 signatures needed, said campaign spokesman Jason Posey, though he didn't immediately know the total amount.

Most of us are quite unhappy about this, given that Stockman's candidacy can only hurt the eventual GOP nominee.

I'll say it loud and clear -- I wish that Delay were leaving office TODAY, so we could hasten the process along. Actually, havign been nominated, I wish he would have stuck it out no matter what the polls said on his reelection chances. Better yet, I wish he had not sought the nomination, since there is every indication that he had been seriously considering a withdrawal from the general election as early as the day he filed for reelection.

It is going to be a long month for me and the rest of the precinct chairs in CD22.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

They got their second hearing – time for the Democrats to stand aside and allow this superbly qualified judicial nominee to be confirmed by the majority that supports him.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved White House aide Brett Kavanaugh for an appeals-court seat on Thursday, clearing the way for a likely confirmation vote by the full Senate.

Kavanaugh won approval from the committee on a 10-8 party-line vote as Democrats said he was too partisan and inexperienced for the job.

Democratic senators had asked for an unusual second hearing on his nomination to question his involvement in White House policies on like eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' telephone calls without obtaining warrants and torture of detainees.

* * *

Kavanaugh must be approved by the full Senate, where Republicans hold 55 of 100 seats, before joining the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Democrats are unlikely to muster the 60 votes necessary to block his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he intends to schedule a vote before the late-May Memorial Day recess.

Should he be filibustered, it is time for the Constitutional option to be invoked, eliminating the ability of a minority to impose an unconstitutional requirement of a super-majority for confirmation.

I cannot help but note the laughable comments of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal), father of Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Pills & Liquor).

He failed to win over committee Democrats. "This nomination is a triumph of cronyism over credentials," Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said. Kavanaugh, 41, has been a White House aide since 2001.

Let’s see – this is the same guy who got elected to the Senate at age 30 with the sole qualification that his brother was the sitting president. His son was first elected to office at age 21 with no particular qualification other than his name. He has no more place criticizing a nominee for lack of credentials than he does criticizing them for their driving skills.

HereÂ’s hoping that certain spineless republicans do not interfere in the deployment of the GOP nukes if there is any Democrat funny business.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, the Constitution certainly appears to limit actual voting representation to states. How can this legislation meet that challenge?

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is teaming up with U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) to introduce a bill that would for the first time give the District a full vote in Congress, a sign of bipartisan cooperation that advocates of D.C. voting rights hailed as a breakthrough.

The legislation, set to be unveiled at a news conference today, would expand the House from 435 to 437 seats, giving a vote to the District as well as a fourth seat to Utah, the state next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation based on the 2000 Census.

Davis first introduced a version of the bill two years ago, but he struggled to persuade Norton and House Democrats to support it. Through a spokeswoman, Norton declined yesterday to discuss her change of heart, promising to explain all at today's news conference.

"We have an agreement in principle with our Democrats, and that's a significant development," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "It's no secret that legislation to give the District a vote wasn't going to go too far without Eleanor Holmes Norton on board."

Given that the District is all territory carved from the state of Maryland, I would prefer to see the city lumped in with Maryland for representation purposes. It would finesse the issue of giving representation to anything other than states. Look for a challenge to the first law on which the DC delegate casts the deciding vote.

And then there is the Utah question, which raises another Constitutional issue in my book.

The first would address Democratic concerns by making Utah's new seat a statewide position, rather than creating another congressional district. Utah now has three House members, including one Democrat, Jim Matheson. House Democrats had worried that Utah Republicans, who control the statehouse, would use the extra seat to reconfigure the congressional districts and push Matheson out of his job. By making the fourth seat an at-large position, the three existing districts would remain intact.

Now hold on here -- once seats are apportioned among the states, it is the business of the state legislatures to take care of districting issues. This provision seems to usurp the function of the state legislature. As such it seems certain to meet a stiff Constitutional challenge.

Also, does the "at-large" mandate disappear after the 2010 census?

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Even if my computer had not crashed last Friday, I had no intention on commenting the CD22 Candidate Screening meeting held by Harris County Precinct Chairs. It was SUPPOSED to be a private meeting, and my understanding was that it was supposed to be private at this point. After all, Tom DeLay has taken no action to get off the ballot or out of Congress, so everything is informal and preliminary.

That said, our “on private property so we can keep it private” meeting had a reporter in the lobby, being gabbed to by an individual who I thought was sensible enough to know better. Interesting, isn’t it, that she is the establishment candidate for the Harris County Elector? And It appears her comments went beyond that single reporter, too, giving the establishment line.

And then there is this reflection from another participant, one whose views are clearly those of one of the establishment. Chris seems to think the author is a Harris County chair, and I have no reason to dispute this conclusion. Here is what this blogger thinks.

If I had to pick in terms of sheer performance on Saturday, I would go with the candidates in the following order:

1. Charlie Howard
2. Robert Talton
3. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs
4. Mike Jackson
(Gibbs & Jackson could really be a tie)
5. Tom Campbell
6. Andy Meyers
7. Tim Turner

David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but didn't show up, so I'm not considering either of them. Actually, I don't think I will consider anyone who hadn't already gotten their crap together enough to be prepared for this particular event. I can't commit to saying for sure that I definitely won't, but I don't think I will. This is going to be a sprint campaign and people will have to be ready.

Now, remember, gentle YPS readers, the above ranking is based upon Saturday' performance alone. Here are my candidate choices in rank order based on all factors. This is how I will position myself within the caucus, take this as if we were voting tomorrow.

1. Charlie Howard - I had never met or had any contact with Mr. Howard, but he really knocked my socks off on Saturday. I was really impressed with him. I had previously looked up his voting record in the State House and he puts his vote in the right place too. His questionnaire was spot on, his background is impressive and he is solid. There is a difference between a party conservative and a true conservative. You can learn which you have just by listening to them. Trust me folks, Howard is a true conservative. He's wow and ready.

2. Mike Jackson - This is the individual I went in favoring. Saturday he was very flat, uninspiring and unprepared. He acknowledged that his work in the Senate over the special session really didn't give him time to “brush up” on federal issues; however, I'm thinking that if you don't know where you stand on most of these issues by now, you deserve the job you have, and not much more. Both Talton and Howard are also in special session and gave much more solid presentations. Honestly, I am afraid that Lampson might out shine him in a debate if he can't get his crap together.. He stays my second choice, however, because I know that he's a good conservative and will vote the right way.

3. Robert Talton - I could not place Talton as my #1 or 2 for personal reasons, although he would keep a fairly solid conservative voting record. He put his friends ahead of principle once regarding a purely non-politics issue, and I can't put my trust in anyone who might have a shot at becoming “friends” with Sheila Jackson Lee or Nancy Pelosi. Plus, he makes me nervous because he stated that he doesn't support zero-based budgeting.

4. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs - I post the most about her because it seems as if she has positioned herself the most strongly amongst the precinct chairs. Or maybe her contingent is the most outspoken/annoying. Gibbs was very energetic and charismatic, but I still hold that she doesn't have the temperament for this office. She was almost too immature/girly. I didn't like in her opening statement on Saturday, how she evoked the memory of her late husband (who was a local news anchor/celebrity). As previously posted by me, she didn't take on her married name until she started running for office, so it comes off as sheer opportunism. Her worst habit, however is that nobody likes to be told how much “smarter I am than you”. And she just keeps doing that, it is very condescending. She says things like “well you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor.” It might be cool in Clear Lake, but that crap isn't going to fly with the industrial guys in the area where we live because it is very blue collar. Plus, quite simply, she's a “nanny stater”. She actually bragged because she was the force behind the “no smoking in Houston restaurants” ordinance. Now, don't get me wrong, I quit smoking about 3 years ago and don't like it much, but I can't get behind anyone who will tell a private property/business owner how he or she can conduct his or her business. It all comes back to that “I'm smarter than you and I know what's best for you mentality”. Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Further, she can't seem to get a grip on any issue outside the health care/medical side of it because of her royal doctorness, I guess. Her questionnaire answers were strong, but when she provided additional comments, she killed herself. We deserve more than her; she's too liberal.

And such is my assessment. The remainder of the pack aren't worth mentioning, in my opinion. Bless their hearts. They were outclassed, either too emotional or unprepared, and just not suitable for this particular office.

IÂ’d have to rank the candidates differently in terms of performance at the forum.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs
2) Charlie Howard
3) Andy Meyers
4) Mike Jackson
5) Robert Talton
6) Tim Turner
7) Tom Campbell

As he points out, David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but missed them, so I place them at the bottom of the list.

My ranking of the candidates, based upon my personal preference, also differs. These are subject to revision, based upon future developments.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs – Let’s say it flat out – this lady has been campaigning like she really wants this nomination and this office. That counts for something – and the fact that the candidate and her supporters are active and enthusiastic should not be seen as “annoying” – unless one considers support for anyone other than one of the three “good old boy” members of the legislature to be an annoyance. Shelley is intelligent (which frightens the blogger in question) articulate, and passionate, all of which are generally considered plusses in a candidate. And yes, she is conservative – though I personally disagree with her on the smoking ban issue. Oh, by the way, she did make the “you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor” comment – but it was in relationship to a particular law that impacts medical care. That law, EMTALA, may as well be called “The Anchor Baby Creation Act”, as it requires that an illegal alien in labor be allowed to deliver her child in the US, even if transferring her back across the border to a hospital in Mexico would in no way endanger her life or health or that of her child. I didn’t know about that law before I first met Dr. Sekula-Gibbs a month ago, and I suspect the same was true of many of those in attendance. Also, I like the brash pledge to be our congresswoman for at least six terms – it radiates a confidence and optimism that I like.

2) Charlie Howard – Here is a hard-working legislator who is well-spoken and conservative. He is a strong conservative, and I cannot say I heard anything that I disagree with. He would make a great candidate for Congressman. He has not made much of an effort to contact precinct chairs. My only issue is his age – even though Charlie is in good health, I have to ask how many terms we are likely to have him around. Will we be looking for a new candidate in four or six years? I would rather we were not.

3) Mike Jackson – My state senator has a lot of CD22 in his district, and he always does well. He is reasonably conservative, but I think he hurt himself with his vote last week on the tax bill, though he explained his reasoning well. I’m just worried how much compromising he would be willing to do in Washington. Mike's nomination will also set off a scramble to take his place in the state senate – and probably for at least one state representative district. I’m uncomfortable with the notion so many positions being filled by precinct chairs in the weeks prior to the general election.

4) Andy Meyers – Is he simply a surrogate for Robert Eckels and Paul Bettencourt? He is close to both and didn’t enter the race until they decided not to run. Does he have the desire to win on his own merits? I don’t care how right he is on the issues, I don’t want to settle for third best.

5) Robert Talton – There seems to be too maneuvering and scheming on the part of the Harris County GOP hierarchy to get this nomination for Talton. He also couldn’t clearly answer some questions about his votes on certain issues in the current special session. Add to that the reality that his major legislative priority in the last regular session was to keep homosexuals from adopting or being foster parents – and would have actually prohibited all single people, regardless of sexual orientation, from adopting or fostering. Besides having out-of-whack priorities, he is, at best, a pale shadow of Charlie Howard.

6) Tim Turner – Never won an election. He would not be a bad choice to replace Shelley or Mike, given his experience in appointed positions and business.

7) Tom Campbell – still asserts that his second-place finish in the primary was the result of disaffected Republicans, not cross-over Democrats. We don’t need a candidate who is delusional.

David Wallace – Probably the only candidate whose nomination would lead me to not vote GOP in this race in November. Stood us up after requesting inclusion after missing the deadline. We don’t need a candidate who is stupid.

9) Brad Wright – No name recognition.

Well, that is my take on the candidates. It should be fun over the next few weeks to see how this whole thing works out. And anyone in CD22, please feel free to let me know what you think about candidates.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1855 words, total size 11 kb.

What other possible interpretation could there be of this statement?

Dean took a swipe at the Republican Party, saying the Democratic Party is one of inclusion and religious freedom.

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

The problem is that you will never find a more philo-Semitic group of people than those assembled at a Republican event. On the other hand, when one considers the rhetoric o the Left with regard to Israel and the values of religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jews, one cannot help but be struck by the level of contempt for Jews and Judaism.

Dean’s comments come the day after his host group, the American Jewish Committee, was addressed by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman – a Jew.

But this statement should be no surprise to anyone. It is just more of the same Howard Dean rhetoric – sowing division among the American people by stirring up racial, ethnic, and religious hatred for partisan political gain.

And I wonder -- were the medical diagnoses of Dr. Dean this far off when he was in private practice?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if every guilty plea or indictment related to Jack Abramoff is indicative of a GOP culture of corruption, as claimed by Democrat leaders, then surely the same can be said about this plea involving accusations of malfeasance against William Jefferson, (D-LA).

A Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty in federal court this morning to giving Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) more than $400,000 in bribes to promote his high-tech business ventures in Africa.

Vernon L. Jackson, owner of Louisville-based iGate Inc., declined to comment after his appearance in the Washington courtroom of U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III. He pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery.

Jackson is the second person to plead guilty in theinquiry of the New Orleans congressman. In January, Brett M. Pfeffer, 37, a former Jefferson aide, pleaded guilty to bribing his ex-boss. Pfeffer worked for a wealthy Northern Virginia woman who invested in Jackson's company, iGate, which was trying to sell Internet and cable television service to Nigeria and Ghana. Pfeffer told a federal judge that Jefferson demanded a stake in the business in exchange for using his influence in Africa to promote iGate's technology.

Jefferson, 58, has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, a federal public defender who is representing Jackson, declined to comment last night, as did Jefferson's press secretary, Melanie Roussell.

As you may recall, Jefferson is the corrupt Democrat who commandeered a rescue craft to remove personal possessions – including materials that could be related to this case – from his home in the days immediately after Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

My state senator, Mike Jackson, nearly stopped the passage of the ill-conceived goss receipts tax on businesses in the state of texas. But then, even though he planned on voting against the legislation as bad for texas, he cast the vote to let it reach the Senate floor, where it passed and has been sent on to the governor.

The Senate voted 16-14 Tuesday to send a business tax bill to the governor, after a Houston-area senator jeopardized passage of the bill with last-minute opposition.

Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, ended up casting the key vote that allowed Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to bring the bill up for a final vote. Four hours earlier he had stalled action by voting against bringing the bill to the floor.

At issue was a Senate rule requiring two-thirds of senators present to allow a bill to be debated. The rule is designed to get bipartisan consensus on legislation being brought before the Senate.

Jackson said he has had hundreds of calls from his district and decided to vote against bringing up the tax bill for debate because he thought it would have little permanent impact on reducing property taxes while raising new taxes on businesses.

"I started looking at calculating how little people would receive from the first stage of this property tax cut," Jackson said. "If school districts were able to raise their property tax rate 6 cents without a vote and then we have appraisal creep ... you come out with a wash in the first year."

Jackson said he used his ability to block the bill to gain "concessions" from Gov. Rick Perry and Dewhurst on having language to limit growth in school district spending put into another bill.

He said the restriction should limit the growth in property taxes unless a school district holds a vote of the people.

Jackson voted against final passage of the bill.

Passage means that the state's Republican leadership may finally have come to a school finance agreement that has eluded them in four attempts over the past two years.

Unfortunately, neither Mike nor the Houston Chronicle are all that clear about the "concessions" he got out of the bill's supporters. That concerns me deeply.

And i'll be honest -- Mike Jackson probably just shot himself in the foot if he was ever serious about getting the nimination to succeed Tom DeLay. Most GOP activists found this tax plan unacceptable, and his decision to support bringing it to a vote will not please any of us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like the quite race to replace Tom DeLay on the ballot is getting rather interesting.

But whose interests are really bing looked out for by the major players mentioned by Chris Elam in his outstanding political blog, "Texas Safety Forum"?

What to do about empty precinct chair positions? Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace wants them filled -- and he just happens to have a list of candidates who support David Wallace for the nomination. Opposition to the move by Wallace is fierce in Harris County, strong in Brazoria County, and even exists in Fort Bend County as well.

David Wallace may have pressed too hard for the election of new precinct chairs in Harris County. Resistance to his efforts to find sympathetic, NEW chairs in that part of the world has been named as one of the main reasons that Bill Borden stepped forward and advised the party leaders to withhold new nominees to the Exec. Comm. until after the CD 22 nomination is complete. His campaign to find new precinct chairs is in full force in the counties of Brazoria and Fort Bend, and I understand from sources in Brazoria that he is being met with resistance there by leaders who are concerned about appointing single-issue precinct chairs who will not remain involved in the party past the nomination process. Also, its rumored that in Fort Bend, should a slate of new nominees to the Exec. Comm. be offered, opponents to the process of their nomination will not attend the meeting at which they are to be voted upon, thereby preventing a quorum from being reached (which according to Bill Borden, will also prevent the appointments). We'll see what happens in this strateg-ory as the weeks go by.

Sounds like a strategy that is self-serving and destructive to the long-term health of the GOP in CD22. Wallace deserves to fail in this move -- and has probably cooked his goose among the precinct chairs who are responsible for selecting the new candidate.

Chris has more at his site -- but I don't want to steal his thunder.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

This is all the reason anyone needs to oppose John McCain for any public office. He does not believe in fundamental American values.

Via Tapscott and Captain's Quarters -- as heard on Don Imus.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

And how, precisely, would we know that it was clean if freedom of speech and freedom of speech have already been eliminated? Sounds like a recipe for Fascist Italy or Communist Russia to me.

I'll stand with Jefferson, the genius behind the Declaration of Independence and passionate advocate for a Bill of Rights.

The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.

Those who would suppress freedom of speech in the name of "clean government" are, in fact, those who would impose the most vilest forms of government known to human history. Such men and women are dictators-in-waiting, seeking only the proper moment to impose their foul will upon an unconsenting populace, rendering free men and women into slaves in the blink of an eye.

MORE AT Missing Link, Martin's Musings, MyDD, RedState, Slublog, Mark A. Kilmer, Joseph Barillari, Frazzled Dad, Instapundit

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 08:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 4 kb.

At least the illegal immigrants they are supporting only demand a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. These California Democrats are taking Monday off -- but engaging in a scam to get three day's pay despite doing so.

he Democrat leaders of the California State Assembly have decided to call their own boycott for May 1, canceling legislative session that day in deference to the protests. But, showing that their commitment only goes so far, they declared Monday a “check-in” day so as not to forfeit their $459 tax-free per diem for the weekend and Monday. A true legislative walkout would have led to lawmakers losing per diem pay for Saturday and Sunday, as well as Monday since spending more than three consecutive days away from the Capitol triggers a halt in the highly-prized extra pay.

The audacity of the move is simply stunning -- I'm absolutely speechless.

But I do love the response of one California Republican legislator.

The legislative protest by the Democrats caught Republican Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy’s attention. Mountjoy remarked at the close of Thursday’s session that he had spoken to former members of the legislature who where willing to come to work on Monday for half price. The only issue was that they were, “undocumented by the Secretary of State.” Does that mean that “undocumented” lawmakers are willing to do the work that American lawmakers aren’t willing to do?

I wonder -- any chance of actually using the "undocmumented legislators" to pass some good legislation for a change? After all, we keep being told that "no person is illegal." Shouldn't that logic apply here, too?

Or will teh Democrats suddenly become supporters of law and order?

Posted by: Greg at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Will someone inform the former First Satyr that he is just a private citizen – and will someone inform the Secret Service that the ex-Horndog-in-Chief’s presence is not sufficient basis to stop people from engaging in legal activities.

Or to bust in on a five-year-old’s birthday party and stop the entertainment.

Clinton was preparing to hit his second shot on the fifth hole at Las Vegas Country Club on Saturday when Secret Service agents halted a birthday party fireworks event.

It's a birthday that Savanna Muirhead, the 5-year-old daughter of 28-year-old porn star Sophia Rossi, won't forget.

Savanna was preparing to launch a remote control 18-inch rocket when Clinton's bodyguards "came out of nowhere" and had the launch scrubbed.

Bobby McKelvey, who had just set up the rocket on the edge of the fairway in the backyard of Rossi's home on Bel Air Drive, recalls hearing the stern words, "Sir, do not fire that rocket."

He looked up and saw two badge-flashing Secret Service agents running toward him, while three more agents came out from behind trees.

"We cannot have you shooting rockets at President Clinton," said one of the agents as he approached the party of 80, said McKelvey.

Clinton, in a party of more than a dozen, was about 50-75 yards away, said McKelvey, 41, who described himself as Rossi's manager.

The rocket, fired later, includes a parachute that explodes when the missile reaches a height of 300-350 feet, McKelvey said.

I’d have fired the damn thing anyway, and dared them to take me in. After all, the fireworks were legal, their use was legal, and there was clearly no threat to Billzebubba. I would have also not-so-politely suggested that they get the hell off my property until they had obtained a warrant

On the on the hand, I might have been amenable to a request that I let Clinton play through – a matter of golf etiquette. But such an overreaction by the Secret Service merits no respect.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Will someone inform the former First Satyr that he is just a private citizen – and will someone inform the Secret Service that the ex-Horndog-in-Chief’s presence is not sufficient basis to stop people from engaging in legal activities.

Or to bust in on a five-year-oldÂ’s birthday party and stop the entertainment.

Clinton was preparing to hit his second shot on the fifth hole at Las Vegas Country Club on Saturday when Secret Service agents halted a birthday party fireworks event.

It's a birthday that Savanna Muirhead, the 5-year-old daughter of 28-year-old porn star Sophia Rossi, won't forget.

Savanna was preparing to launch a remote control 18-inch rocket when Clinton's bodyguards "came out of nowhere" and had the launch scrubbed.

Bobby McKelvey, who had just set up the rocket on the edge of the fairway in the backyard of Rossi's home on Bel Air Drive, recalls hearing the stern words, "Sir, do not fire that rocket."

He looked up and saw two badge-flashing Secret Service agents running toward him, while three more agents came out from behind trees.

"We cannot have you shooting rockets at President Clinton," said one of the agents as he approached the party of 80, said McKelvey.

Clinton, in a party of more than a dozen, was about 50-75 yards away, said McKelvey, 41, who described himself as Rossi's manager.

The rocket, fired later, includes a parachute that explodes when the missile reaches a height of 300-350 feet, McKelvey said.

IÂ’d have fired the damn thing anyway, and dared them to take me in. After all, the fireworks were legal, their use was legal, and there was clearly no threat to Billzebubba. I would have also not-so-politely suggested that they get the hell off my property until they had obtained a warrant

On the on the hand, I might have been amenable to a request that I let Clinton play through – a matter of golf etiquette. But such an overreaction by the Secret Service merits no respect.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

* WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS! *

I've once again been struck by the ignorance that abounds in the media regarding the Constitution and what it means when it uses certain terms. It is as if there is an intentional rejection of the history of certain words and phrases, in the interest of getting a story.

Take this comment from none other than Bob Novak, who should know better (after all, he covered the Constitutional Convention along with Helen Thomas)

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, but that is precisely what is being posed now. Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's just too bad. The evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.

Romney is well aware that an unconstitutional religious test is being applied to him, but he may be seriously minimizing the problem's scope as limited to relatively few fanatics. He feels the vast majority of conservative voters worried about his faith will flinch at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But such a rational approach is not likely to head off a highly emotional collision of religious faith and religious bias with American politics.

No, Bob, there is no "unconstitutional religious test" being applied to Romney, based upon what you have written in this column.

As used in the COnstitution, the term "religious test" refers to oaths or actions that are required of a citizen BY GOVERNMENT before they might hold office or receive some government benefit. Such tests existed to one degree or another in most of the colonies prior to the Revolution, and were common in England into the 1800s. Many of them were directed at Catholics, and required that the officeholder take an oath that they rejected the authority of the pope and certain "false and pernicious doctrines" which were part of the Catholic faith. Quakers and Baptists were also often targetted by such oaths. The prohibition, therefore, is one on GOVERNMENT ACTION, not private action.

Unless I missed something in the Novak piece, no such religious test is being required by government.

What is happening, for better or for worse, is that questions are being raised in some minds about voting for a Mormon, given that faith's divergence from certain historical doctrines of the Christian faith. Now I've never heard such questions raised in the Republican or religious circles in which I run, but the media keeps telling me that they are. But assuming that they are, that does not constitute a violation of the prohibition on religious tests -- for the Constitution cannot and does not dictate what factors may be considered by individual citizens when they enter the voting booth, as the individual vote of a citizen is most decidedly NOT a government action.

Which is not to say that I approve of those who would let Romney's religion enter into their calculations. If it goes on, I find it offensive -- just as I did when Ted Kennedy raised the religious issue against Romney when he was the GOP nominee for Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is against mandatory photo identification of voters.

That is to be expected – anything that might prevent the voter fraud that empowers Democrats in the St. Louis area would be anathema to the paper’s editors. The basis for their objection to the Missouri Voter Protection Act now before the state legislature is therefore understandable – and they make it quite clear when they rename it the Republican Incumbent Protection Act. Their further claim that it is intended to rig elections is laughable, given the record of certain areas of Missouri in conducting dirty elections to elect Democrats.

But there was a shocking quote that appeared in the editorial – one that is laughable in its falsehood.

Most voter fraud in Missouri is linked to inactive voters, those on lists who haven't voted for years and suddenly show up at the polls. The new statewide voter database was designed to address that problem.

"There's no evidence that terrorists or dead people are voting in Missouri," Ms. Carnahan said.

Well, Robin, it is certainly well-documented that the dead turned out in St. Louis in 2000. One even filed suit to make sure he could vote for a fellow necro-American after the statutory poll closing time. And if you will check, the dead candidateÂ’s name was Carnahan. Any relation?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like Crazy Cindy McKinney is being given the legal equivalent of a rectal exam, with aides from multiple Congressional officies being subpoenaed to testify before the Grand jury investigating her attack on a Capitol Hill Police Officer.

Staffers from four congressional offices, in statements read on the House floor Tuesday, announced they would comply with subpoenas issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

The offices of Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., confirmed that the subpoenas were related to the March 29 incident where McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, entered a Capitol building unrecognized by the officer on duty and then hit him when he tried to stop her.

Those receiving the subpoenas are thought to have been witnesses to the altercation.

The other two subpoenas went to aides to Reps. Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Donald Payne, D-N.J. Capps' office would not comment on the purpose of the subpoena and there was no immediate response from Payne's office.

Subpoenas were previously issued for aides to Reps. Sam Farr, D- Calif., and Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. Troy Phillips, senior legislative assistant to Farr, witnessed the incident and testified about it before the grand jury on April 18, Farr's press secretary, Jessica Schafer, said Tuesday.

The officer involved in the incident, Paul McKenna, testified before the grand jury within the past week, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call said Tuesday. McKenna has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. After she refused, the officer reportedly placed a hand on her and she hit him.

I look forward to the perp walk when she is charged -- and the scene of her turning herself in at a federal prison immediately after her resignation takes effect.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, never mind – the congressman with a serious conflict of interest is a Democrat. Nothing to see here – move along. Look over there -- Bigfoot!

An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies.

The chief of a congressional watchdog group says Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Using charitable giving as a backdoor way to curry favor with lawmakers is coming under increasing scrutiny, figuring in controversies associated with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who was forced to temporarily step aside as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics panel.

On Wednesday, the energy and commerce panel on which Rush sits is set to vote on a controversial rewrite of telecommunications law co-sponsored by Rush and backed by major phone companies eager to compete with cable television companies.

Anyone wanna place odds on his going against the interests of SBC/AT&T?

Rush, of course, sees matters very differently.

Rush, asked to explain whether he had a conflict in sponsoring telecommunications legislation in the wake of the grant, replied in a statement that the "real conflict" stems from inequities in the telecommunications marketplace that hurt the poor.

"It is a systemic institutional disinvestment in [the] poor by corporate America in communities such as Englewood," Rush said. "We deserve an even playing field."

In other words, he won’t seriously address the appearance of impropriety – not even to deny it. He won’t consider whether a large donation to a charity for which he and his wife serve as board members and where his son is employed stinks to high heaven.

I’ll stand with Common Cause on this one – I am not in a position to comment on the relative merits of the bill in question, but the receipt of the grant by the center at this time is “troubling.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – he was incompetent in his response to the oncoming hurricane, made racially-divisive comments, and is generally seen as a buffoon. Why wouldn’t voters who turned out to support Ray Nagin four years ago turn their backs on him this time?

Mr Nagin, who won office in 2002 largely thanks to a wave of support from white voters, failed to repeat his success on Saturday. He won barely 10 per cent of the vote in districts of the city that are predominantly white and African-Americans failed to support him in sufficiently large numbers.
With 38 per cent of the vote, Mr Nagin fell short of the majority needed to avoid a run-off, to be held on 20 May, against Mitch Landrieu, Louisiana's lieutenant-governor. Although Mr Landrieu garnered only 29 per cent, he is well placed to secure the votes cast for others now eliminated from the race.

Nagin never had the support of the African-American community – his support base came primarily from among the middle and upper-class white community who found the prospect of electing a businessman without strong ties to the corruption that plagued the city for decades to be an attractive option.

But then came Katrina, and his failure to properly order evacuations and assistance to those in need. It was followed by rants at those who questioned his leadership, racist comments about making New Orleans a “chocolate city”, and a campaign that was marked by calls for blacks to vote for him because other candidates “don’t look like us.” Could you give me a single reason why a white voter (or any voter) would want to vote for this man? The fact that 38% of voters selected him makes me question the preparedness of the voters of New Orleans for self-government!

In short, the results of the race for mayor of new Orleans will show less about the relative power of different ethnic blocs than it will about the willingness of the city to give failed leadership one more chance.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – he was incompetent in his response to the oncoming hurricane, made racially-divisive comments, and is generally seen as a buffoon. Why wouldn’t voters who turned out to support Ray Nagin four years ago turn their backs on him this time?

Mr Nagin, who won office in 2002 largely thanks to a wave of support from white voters, failed to repeat his success on Saturday. He won barely 10 per cent of the vote in districts of the city that are predominantly white and African-Americans failed to support him in sufficiently large numbers.
With 38 per cent of the vote, Mr Nagin fell short of the majority needed to avoid a run-off, to be held on 20 May, against Mitch Landrieu, Louisiana's lieutenant-governor. Although Mr Landrieu garnered only 29 per cent, he is well placed to secure the votes cast for others now eliminated from the race.

Nagin never had the support of the African-American community – his support base came primarily from among the middle and upper-class white community who found the prospect of electing a businessman without strong ties to the corruption that plagued the city for decades to be an attractive option.

But then came Katrina, and his failure to properly order evacuations and assistance to those in need. It was followed by rants at those who questioned his leadership, racist comments about making New Orleans a “chocolate city”, and a campaign that was marked by calls for blacks to vote for him because other candidates “don’t look like us.” Could you give me a single reason why a white voter (or any voter) would want to vote for this man? The fact that 38% of voters selected him makes me question the preparedness of the voters of New Orleans for self-government!

In short, the results of the race for mayor of new Orleans will show less about the relative power of different ethnic blocs than it will about the willingness of the city to give failed leadership one more chance.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Crazy Cindy McKinney is back at it again. Now she thinks her commands supersede the First Amendment.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney still does not know whether she will face criminal charges for allegedly punching a U.S. Capitol Police officer who stopped her at a security checkpoint. But the Georgia Democrat is pulling no punches with the media, ordering an Atlanta television station not to broadcast derogatory comments she made about a member of her staff on Saturday.

McKinney was meeting with constituents and agreed to an exclusive interview with WGCL-TV, CBS 46, of Atlanta. During that interview, CBS 46 reporter Renee Starzyk asked McKinney what she is telling her constituents about the altercation.

"Actually you, media people are the only ones who are asking about that," McKinney claimed.

But a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., also is asking about the incident, trying to determine whether or not to refer criminal charges against the congresswoman. The panel has not yet made its decision, and Starzyk asked if that is a distraction from McKinney's work.

"Well, you're a distraction because that seems to be all you want to talk about," McKinney responded. "But people here understand that my representation is much larger than any discrete incident."

Well let’s see – a member of Congress assaults a cop at the Capitol and the press is interested. I wonder why? Could it be that an ordinary citizen would already be in jail?

Of course, Cindy continued her tantrum.

McKinney then walked out on the interview. But she did not tell Starzyk that their conversation was over, nor did McKinney allow an audio technician to remove the wireless microphone attached to her for the interview.

While she was off camera, McKinney criticized a member of her staff, Coz Carson.

"Oh, crap! Now, you know what?" McKinney asked an unidentified aide. "They lied to Coz and Coz is a fool!"

Realizing that her microphone was still on, McKinney returned to the room where the interview was being conducted and, knowing that she was on camera, told Starzyk: "Anything that is captured by your audio, that is captured while I'm not seated in this chair, is off the record and is not permissible to be used. Is that understood?" McKinney said.

Sorry, Cindy, but Congressional perks do not include controlling the content of the media – especially when you are the subject. Fortunately, Ms. Starzyk refused to be dictated to.

In her report about the interview, Starzyk reiterated the station's policy never to make deals with newsmakers limiting the station's ability to cover their comments or actions.

In fact, Starzyk reported, she specifically told McKinney's staff that she would ask about the March 29 incident. McKinney maintains her claim that the reporter lied to her staff.

So, who do you believe – Her Majesty the Congresswoman or the reporter?

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Of course there is a double standard, one established by the law and hte COnstitution.

On the one hand, the President and certain other executive branch officials have the authority to classify and declassify certain information based upon its sensitivity. Information may, from time to time, be declassified and let out to the press in a variety of ways to give the American people a fuller picture of what is going on -- and to counter falsehoods put forth by those who would misrepresent the actions and policies of the government.

Then there are unauthorized, illegal leaks. Those almost invariably harm national security -- especially when done in a manner designed to harm the ability of the president to conduct legal policy initiatives or to undermine his legitimate authority.

So I found this piece in today's Washington Post, which published the seditious stories of Dana Priest based upon the illegal leaks of Mary McCarthy, to be particularly interesting.

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.

"I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, referring to the firing of Mary McCarthy.

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) echoed Harman, saying, "A CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak." But he added: "If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person."

Well, Rep. Harman, let's spell this one out. The President authorized the release of truthful information in order to counter false claims made by those political opponents. In the case of Joe Wilson, for example, the release of information proved him to be a liar many times over -- a position confirmed by multiple investigations. is it your contention that the President should allow false claims made for partisan political purposes to remain unchallenged and that he should thereby allow the American people to remain misinformed? If so, does this not do harm to the very fabric of the American system?

And Sen. Kerry, thank you for once again proving your unfitness for the office you sought in 2004 and plan to seek in 2008. You would clearly allow unauthorized leaking to run rampant if unelected governemnt employees differ with the policies of the elected leaders of the United States. In short, America would not be secure under a Kerry presidency.

And all this ignores the fact that recent investigations have shown Dana Priest's story on "secret prisons" to be false -- so there cannot even be a claim made that this was a case of "leaking to tell the truth."

I guess, when it comes down to it, we have a different double standard at work on the Democrat side of the aisle, one that really ignores questions of truth and legality -- anti-Bush leaks good, pro-Bush leaks bad.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

Lincoln Chafee is no Republican – that is why his wife is seeking to get Democrats to come over to the GOP to secure a Senate nomination he cannot get if only Republicans vote.

(H/T Steve Muscatello's C-Log)

From the Steve Laffey for U.S. Senate campaign:

Dear All,

Please read the following--it is truly outrageous. Below you will find a letter Stephanie Chafee (Lincoln Chafee's wife) emailed to registered Democrats URGING them to disaffiliate and register as Independents or Republicans so that they can vote for Senator Chafee in the Republican primary on September 12th. Included are the attachments Mrs. Chafee sent along with her email instructing voters HOW and WHERE to disaffiliate. This is a blatant attempt by the Chafee campaign to HIJACK the Republican primary, and further proof that Senator Chafee does not represent even moderate Republicans in Rhode Island. It is clear Lincoln Chafee cannot win the Republican primary in Rhode Island without the help of liberal Democrats. It is also clear that the Chafee campaign is beginning to panic in light of Mayor Laffey's continued success. Please spread the news to all who might be interested. We cannot let Senator Chafee get away with this. This letter can also be seen here.

Just in case Rhode Island voters were too stupid to figure out to disaffiliate on their own, Ms. Chafee provided them with a nice how-to-guide.

Five Easy Steps To Disaffiliate (Become a Unaffiliated Voter)

1.) Fill out the Rhode Island Voter Registration form (page 3 and 4 of your packet). Be sure to check unafilliated in section 8 of your registration form for your political party, which will enable you to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary.

2.) Mail the completed form to your local board of canvassers. For a complete list of addresses see the bottom of your Rhode Island Voter Registration form.

3.) You will receive a confirmation letter detailing your new party affiliation from the Secretary of StateÂ’s office shortly after you mail in your completed Voter Registration form.

4.) On Primary Day, September 12th, at your local polling station you will be given a choice of which primary you would like to enter.

5.) Immediately after voting, you can get a disaffiliation form from the clerk at the polling station and change your registration back to your initial party affiliation.

Somebody tell the RNC to wake up and start funding Laffey's campaign. Chafee makes Arlen Specter look like Barry Goldwater. He's a fraud and should be run out of the party. Period.

Keep the GOP Primary Republican – MAKE A LITTLE LAFFEY LOVE!

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

Somebody had to say it, given the Reuters headline.

At 74, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy still roars

When will he be bold enough to tell us all about Mary Jo?

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I really do not know how you explain something like this.

Nobody expects to get a letter from a member of Congress that ends with an expletive.

But that's what happened when Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., recently corresponded with a resident of her southeast Missouri district.

The letter ended with a profane, seven-letter insult beginning with the letter a — "i think you're an. ..."

Emerson says she can't explain how the offensive language made it into the letter, which otherwise reads like a typical response to a citizen's question about last year's testimony of oil executives before the Senate Commerce Committee.

"There is no excuse for this inappropriate letter having been sent, and every apology has been made to the individual who received it," Emerson said in a statement to The Associated Press.

"We cannot determine whether the addition to the letter was made by someone within the office or by someone with access to the office, but it is on my letterhead and the responsibility for it lies with me. A valuable lesson has been learned and new procedures will be adopted as a result."

Particularly embarrassing is the fact that Emerson signed the letter personally – and even included a personal postscript apologizing for the delay in answering the constituent’s letter.

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Usually, an incumbent with 40% of voters backing him for reelection is in serious trouble. Not in Texas – at least not this year.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) is enjoying a growing lead in a four-way campaign to keep his job.

For the third straight election poll by Rasmussen Reports, Perry earns support from 40% of Texas voters. Normally, this level of support would be devastating for an incumbent, but nothing is normal in Texas this year. Two Independent candidates join Democrat Chris Bell in there desire to replace Perry. All three earn between 15% and 19% of the vote.

The biggest change from our previous survey is the receding threat to Perry from Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Strayhorn, who is currently the state Comptroller, initially intended to challenge Perry in the Republican Primary.

When that route looked unappealing, she left the GOP to run as an independent. In February, before the Democrats had settled on their candidate, Strayhorn attracted 31% of the vote and had pulled within nine points of the incumbent. Now, with 19% support, Strayhorn is at her lowest level of support since entering the race.

Strayhorn's presence in the race has added an element of drama in what was expected to be an easy walk to re-election for Perry. However, it has also created difficulties for Democrat Chris Bell to draw attention to his campaign. Bell, now at 17% in the poll, has less than half the support of Governor Perry.

Kinky Friedman, unfortunately, is at the bottom of the poll with 15%. He would at least make the race fun.

The key thing to consider is this – as of today, Perry beats any of his opponents by a 2-to-1 margin. It would take one of these three dropping out of the race and every last one of their supporters migrating to one of the other candidates for Perry’s margin to drop to less than 5%. And if he and the Legislature produce a credible school finance reform package, expect him to see a big increase in support.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

The new claim by some Democrats is “I’m suing George Bush!" The only problem with the claim is that it is not true.

Kelly Hayes-Raitt says she is suing President George W. Bush. Christine Chavez is touting her "legal challenge" against the president's education policies. Joe Baca says he joined the suit because the president has "lost sight of education." Rudy Bermúdez rails against the "burdensome" provisions of Bush's signature No Child Left Behind Act.

All four are candidates in contested Democratic primaries this June. And all four are clients of Democratic political consultant Richie Ross.

In fact, a group of thirteen Ross clients, and one non-Ross candidate, have banded together to file an amicus brief in a federal-court case against the Bush administration's education policies. At least two of the candidates, Hayes-Raitt and Chavez, have been publicizing the amicus brief in their campaigns.

But some are calling the move a Ross-engineered election-year stunt to win support for his candidates in left-leaning Democratic primaries. All 14 signatories of the brief are running for office this year, and all but one face a contested primary election.

Assemblyman Joe Baca, D-Rialto, who is running for the state Senate against fellow Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, said that Ross approached him with the idea of a group legal action.

"He had brought the idea to us and I thought it was a great idea," said Baca. Ross did not return calls for comment.

"It is almost like they are running as some kind of team across the state," said Parke Skelton, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant who is running campaigns against four signers of the amicus brief.

The lone signatory of the brief that is not a Ross client is Los Angeles City Council member Alex Padilla, who is running for the Senate against Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez, D-San Fernando. Padilla said he heard about the brief, which was filed on March 31, on a trip to Sacramento and wanted to join in. Asked if it was odd that he was the only non-Ross client to sign onto the amicus brief, Padilla replied, "It wouldn't be the first time I stood out in a crowd."

Unfortunately for these clowns, their claim is easily refuted. Filing an amicus brief in the case is not the same as suing someone. It is in some ways the legal equivalent of writing a letter to one’s congressman – to quote the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, it is a brief filed by “someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest.” In other words they are not suing anyone, just expressing their opinion on what should happen.

DoesnÂ’t it suck to have the truth collide with oneÂ’s campaign publicity stunts?

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, when you are a liberal Republican running against a grassroots conservative, I would suspect that funds would dry up.

Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is the only senator running for re-election who is raising less money than his primary opponent and both Democrats running to replace him, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

"This is an ominous sign. If Chafee can't get the financial support in his party's primary, he's not going to get the voter support," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer.

I agree with Singer – and therefore wonder why the GOP establishment remains behind the uber-RINO when there is a strong candidate in Steve Laffey.

Keep sending the message folks – HOW ABOUT SOME LAFFEY LOVE!

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ismgcz onbsw

Posted by: delhi at Mon Sep 1 05:32:20 2008 (whJgp)

2 cikn sxbtnv

Posted by: yahoo at Mon Sep 1 17:24:35 2008 (0CitT)

3 tyberw xqbump syaiph vjtslxr

Posted by: invoice at Tue Sep 2 10:41:09 2008 (WiG7S)

4 bmpq sfltcau

Posted by: puppy at Thu Sep 4 05:09:38 2008 (ZTh+z)

5 jpmtl jyfk pymta

Posted by: true at Thu Sep 4 06:30:05 2008 (ZTh+z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wonder – does Hawaii legislator Marcus Oshiro understand anything about economics. While supporting the repeal of a cap on gasoline prices, he made this statement.

The House said that plan is too complicated. House members want the cap repealed for good, but threaten gasoline executive with up to five years in prison if they unfairly manipulate the free market.

"Those instances would probably prompt a criminal or civil investigation and possibly prosecution," Rep. Marcus Oshiro said.

If it is truly a free market, then there would be no government investigation or prosecution – because the market would take care of “gouging” (a nonsensical term) via the choices made by the consumers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

I wonder – does Hawaii legislator Marcus Oshiro understand anything about economics. While supporting the repeal of a cap on gasoline prices, he made this statement.

The House said that plan is too complicated. House members want the cap repealed for good, but threaten gasoline executive with up to five years in prison if they unfairly manipulate the free market.

"Those instances would probably prompt a criminal or civil investigation and possibly prosecution," Rep. Marcus Oshiro said.

If it is truly a free market, then there would be no government investigation or prosecution – because the market would take care of “gouging” (a nonsensical term) via the choices made by the consumers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.