Sounds like a good, solid Republican. Can she unseat Congressman Cut-N –Run?

WASHINGTON, Pa. -- Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey announced her bid Wednesday to challenge Democrat John P. Murtha in effort to become the next representative to the 12th Congressional District, which includes Armstrong County.

"For decades, western Pennsylvania looked to John Murtha to stand up for our values, but as the years have drifted by, Murtha has drifted further and further from the ideals that made this country great," she said in a prepared statement. Irey, a Republican, will face Murtha in November as both are running unopposed in their parties' primary elections.

"Murtha has become part of the problem in Washington and I don't believe we are receiving the representation we deserve and the time for a change is now," she said.

What a signal to the troops if she manages to pull this off. If you repudiate the mission and our fighting men, America's heartland will repudiate you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds like a good, solid Republican. Can she unseat Congressman Cut-N –Run?

WASHINGTON, Pa. -- Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey announced her bid Wednesday to challenge Democrat John P. Murtha in effort to become the next representative to the 12th Congressional District, which includes Armstrong County.

"For decades, western Pennsylvania looked to John Murtha to stand up for our values, but as the years have drifted by, Murtha has drifted further and further from the ideals that made this country great," she said in a prepared statement. Irey, a Republican, will face Murtha in November as both are running unopposed in their parties' primary elections.

"Murtha has become part of the problem in Washington and I don't believe we are receiving the representation we deserve and the time for a change is now," she said.

What a signal to the troops if she manages to pull this off. If you repudiate the mission and our fighting men, America's heartland will repudiate you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

What Democrats don't understand is that they can't just use religious language -- they have to understand Christianity and the Bible if they want to use them to attract voters.

Case in point? The junior senator from New York.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ratcheted up her talk about religion yesterday - saying a GOP-sponsored bill making it a felony to be in the United States illegally would have "criminalized" Jesus.

Clinton, who's considered the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 White House race, made the comments at a hastily scheduled news conference about the House-passed bill aimed at illegal immigrants.

Clinton blasted Republican leadership, which "is constantly talking about values and about faith [but put] forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," she added.

"Because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

You know -- that interpretation will not fly with most religious voters -- and is transparant enough to offend most of them.

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, Congressman Tom Delay and his lawyers seek only one thing from the Texas courts -- a speedy resolution to the politically motivated charges against him.

The arguments before the state 3rd Court of Appeals on Wednesday were about whether a felony charge of conspiracy to violate the Texas Election Code should be reinstated against former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). But the underlying issue was politics.

In a thinly veiled reference to DeLay's bid for reelection this year while under indictment on state money-laundering and conspiracy charges, the congressman's attorney asked the three-judge panel to rule quickly.

"Justice delayed is justice denied in this case," Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin said in his opening remarks. "I ask you treat this case with dispatch and render decision forthwith."

DeGuerin later told reporters the criminal case against DeLay has clearly affected not only his reign as majority leader but also his quest to win a 12th term to Congress this year. DeLay was forced to step down from his leadership post upon being indicted in September on charges stemming from the 2002 election cycle.

I think it is reasonable for me to say that th charges DeLay is facing do trouble many folks in the Texas CD22. Republican voters would like to see the case resolved prior to the November election. As long as Ronnie Earle is permitted to drag the proceedings out, the election is being conductd under a cloud., which is exactly what the partisan hack prosecuting DeLay intends.

Personaally, I don't care if we get a dismissal of all charges or a trial -- I want Tom DeLay to have had his day in court before we vote in November.

And most importantly, so does DeLay -- which seems to be the impulse of an innocent man.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Illinois Democrats have been tainted with the stench of corruption back to at least the days of Stephen Douglas. One county Democrat party, though, claims to be seeking to change that.

St. Clair County Democratic leadership has distributed election packets to countywide precinct committeemen, which include an affidavit stating that money from the party will not be used to buy votes.

The unusual action follows the vote buying convictions in June of five East St. Louis politicians. They had helped distribute more than $70,000 received by city Democratic precinct committeemen two days before the 2004 election from the county Democratic organization.

While St. Clair County Democratic Central Committee Chairman Robert Sprague could not be reached for comment, a fax received Monday from his Belleville law office included these documents given to precinct committeemen countywide for today's primary election:

• A one-page letter from Sprague warning that money from the county committee should be used only to pay to help get the vote out, including paying workers to canvass the precincts, for advertisements and to provide transportation to needy voters. The letter also advised that precinct leaders should "keep a record of all expenses" and "under no circumstances" use party money to pay for votes.

• An "affidavit," with room for a notary's signature, stating that a committeeman or election worker swears that no party money will be used "in violation of any federal, state or local laws or regulations."

• A one-page photocopy titled "Election Crimes" that outlined federal voting laws.

I donÂ’t buy this for a minute, given my experiences of working elections in St. Clair County. I remember an incident during one campaign in which a guy with our opponentÂ’s campaign told us within 30 votes how many votes we would be up prior to the announcement of the votes from East St. Louis and down after those votes came in. As recent convictions of prominent county Democrats show, the corruption continues.

Which leads us to this further Democrat commentary.

Sprague's letter to the committeemen also refers to "recent efforts by the Republicans and their friends to suppress the vote of Democrats in St. Clair County..." No further explanation was offered as to whether this referred to last year's federal vote fraud prosecution under a U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president, or whether local Republicans were suppressing Democratic voters.

My interpretation is that Sprague is concerned that the feds are not allowing corruption as usual to continue in St. Clair County. As a result, IÂ’m willing to bet that the other protestations that vote buying is prohibited are not worth the paper they are printed on.

But then again, if the St. Clair County Democrats had any integrity to begin with, the memo would never have been necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

While the one may have been less elegant and academic, no matter how you slice it, it comes out the same – the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago join with the former Klan leader and the virulently anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood in proclaiming that the Jews control America.

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

I guess that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism really have gone mainstream on the Left.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

While the one may have been less elegant and academic, no matter how you slice it, it comes out the same – the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago join with the former Klan leader and the virulently anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood in proclaiming that the Jews control America.

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

I guess that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism really have gone mainstream on the Left.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

These rumors have been floating around for some time. Hopefully this will lay them to rest.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a lightning rod for criticism about administration policies, on Sunday rejected the notion of resigning and said he would serve out his term.

"I made sure both in 2000 and 2004 that the president had other options. I mean, I didn't ask for this job. I didn't campaign for it. I got drafted," Cheney said on CBS television's "Face The Nation."

Being part of the administration was a highlight of his career, Cheney said. "I've now been elected to a second term. I'll serve out my term," he said.

No one with any sense thought he was -- though I would have loved to see Condoleezza Rice take the job and the GOP nomination if he did.

(H/T Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

This seems rather disturbing -- and potentially illegal.

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.

Seems to me that they are out to undermine the civilian control of the armed forces, as well as subborning violations of the UCMJ provisions limiting the political speech and activities of members of the military.

SHAME! (But then again, the party of Teddy the Swimmer, Robert the Kleagle and Howard the Screamer has no shame.)

Posted by: Greg at 05:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’ve made the argument in the past that state sanctioning of homosexual marriage will inevitably lead to state sanctioning of group marriage. Charles Krauthammer, one of the most gifted conservative columnists living today, makes that argument much more effectively than I ever have.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. . . .

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

Indeed, once the law is untethered from the definition of marriage which has dominated Western civilization (especially since the beginning of the Christian era) for at least two millennia, then there is really no legitimate basis for arbitrarily upholding any part of that traditional definition. And if, the Lawrence v. Texas holding that “

UPDATE: Eric at The Liberty Papers takes on the issue of homosexual marriage and polygamy from a libertarian perspective.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage that IÂ’ve encountered is the one that says that the government has no right to intrude into the personal relationships of consenting adults and forbid them from entering into a legal status, in this case marriage, that they wish to enter into freely. This doesnÂ’t mean that government is endorsing the relationship, any more than it endorses a producer of pornographic films who forms a corporation to run his business. It merely means that the government is allowing people to engage in consensual activities that affect nobody but themselves. The logic, if you accept it, seems to me to be unassailable and its hard for me to find an argument that says that polygamy is per se different.

As much as I would like to endorse his position, I canÂ’t, because the legal recognition of homosexual marriage brings with it government imposed legal burdens upon those not party to that personal relationship. After all, giving legal status to homosexual couples then subjects those who have moral and/or religious objections does not just give the parties to that marriage standing and status before the government. Rather, it also gives them certain special status regarding retirement and healthcare benefits, non-discrimination in housing, and other so-called rights (legal privileges, actually, that are framed as rights) in relationship to private individuals and entities. As such, the recognition of a legal status for homosexual couples forces non-consenting individuals with moral and/or religious objections to act in a manner contrary to their sincerely held beliefs.

So long as such parties to homosexual marriage are in a position to use the power of government to force non-consenting individuals and entities to recognize and reward a relationship that is repugnant to them, then the argument that nobody is harmed by permitting homosexual marriage (or polygamy) must fail – unless we redefine the benefits conferred by the granting of legal status to those relationships. But if we do that, don’t most of the arguments in favor of granting legal recognition to those relationships evaporate?

Others writing include Andrew Sullivan, Ann Althouse, Kathleen Kersten, Susie Bright, Sister Toldjah, , Chez Diva, Icarus Fallen, Uncommon Sense, Bullwinkle Blog, Below the Beltway, Prodigal Sun, Dappled Things, Right Side of the Rainbow,

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Samantha Burns, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Real Ugly American, Camelot Destra Ideale, Voteswagon, Uncooperative Blogger, Blue Star, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 8 kb.

I donÂ’t blame these guys for seeking to pass a law setting out specific guidelines for surveillance of foreign communications that involve an Americans. I just find the idea to be a flawed, especially because of the conclusion that some will draw from it.

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday.

They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

I think the motive is good – these Senators want to settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish that end – in fact, it muddies the waters even further.

First, as IÂ’ve already pointed out, Congress lacks the authority to prevent such surveillance, as the Constitution grants the President the inherent power to conduct it to protect national security. Nothing Congress does can limit that power, any more than the President can issue an executive order limiting the power of Congress to consider certain legislation.

Second, the legislation could be interpreted by partisans opposed to the President (or the security of the United States) to be a concession that the current program is illegal. IÂ’ve already seen gleeful Leftists make exactly that assertion, despite the fact that this is clearly not the intent of the bill. Simply put, you do not give your enemies (and the enemies of the United States) ammunition to attack programs essential to protecting the national security of the United States.

No, this piece of legislation needs to be withdrawn immediately, for the good of national security and the preservation of presidential power under the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 4 kb.

Will this scandal over illegal spying on an American citizen purely for political advantage – as opposed to constitutionally valid spying on enemies of America to protect national security – be covered aggressively by the American press? Or will they continue to ignore and suppress the misdeeds of the Democrat Party.

Federal prosecutors have decided to bring charges against a Democratic researcher accused of fraudulently obtaining a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, now a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Lauren B. Weiner, who has since resigned from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, will be charged with obtaining the report without authorization, according to a letter sent to Steele by the U.S. attorney's office in the District.

A copy of the March 8 letter, which notified Steele that he is considered a victim in the case, was obtained by The Washington Post yesterday.

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

That this crime has been dropped down to a misdemeanor and will be wiped from Weiner’s record is utterly unacceptable. The conduct of DSCC staff is comparable to some Watergate figures who illegally obtained personal records of individuals on Nixon’s “enemies list”.

WhatÂ’s more, no one else will face charges over the matter.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

Of great concern to me is the failure to go after the DSCC and its chairman, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Not that I am surprised – our justice system and the obsolescent mainstream media hold the Democrats to a much lower standard of conduct that that to which Republicans are held.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, the arrogant and corrupt mayor of Chicago (just like his dad), wants the gun owners of Illinois to appear before him in person to justify allowing them to continue to exercise the rights guaranteed under this.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I won’t be coming to Chicago, Richie – I wouldn’t even come at the summons of your father, who was a bigger and more competent thief than you are. But I will gladly give you an explanation of my need to have my gun.

I need it in the event that it becomes necessary to defend myself and my family against those who would do us harm or violate our rights – including uppity politicians who decide that the inalienable right to the means of self-defense may be revoked if they feel that we, the people don’t “need” our guns.

Sic semper tyrannis, asshole.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, the arrogant and corrupt mayor of Chicago (just like his dad), wants the gun owners of Illinois to appear before him in person to justify allowing them to continue to exercise the rights guaranteed under this.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I won’t be coming to Chicago, Richie – I wouldn’t even come at the summons of your father, who was a bigger and more competent thief than you are. But I will gladly give you an explanation of my need to have my gun.

I need it in the event that it becomes necessary to defend myself and my family against those who would do us harm or violate our rights – including uppity politicians who decide that the inalienable right to the means of self-defense may be revoked if they feel that we, the people don’t “need” our guns.

Sic semper tyrannis, asshole.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

I love my state's junior senator, John Cornyn.

His latest zinger is up on his official website.

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

I think it is time for the Senator from the not-so-great state of Wisconsin to be Murtha-ized. Will get anyone to join him in voting for his resolution? Probably not -- which is why Harry Reid is doing everything in his power to prevent a vote on the Feingold Resolution.

Hat Tip -- GOPBloggers & Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 2 kb.

I found this comment on my site this morning, from my liberal regular Dan. Rather than deal with the substance of the item I posted, he decided to attack the source I used (the generally accurate Drudge Report).

Right wing logic - Drudge, the least accurate source in the world, says something, and the left should react as if it's true, and if they don't, their hypocritical.

I said that doubt that the silence of the Left will stop when the article comes out.

I wonder if the Left has equal contempt for this source -- the reliably liberal Washington Post, which is engaging in spin control on behalf of senior staffer Bradlee.

Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term.

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

The identity of Woodward's source emerged as one of the big mysteries of the CIA case after he disclosed last year that a government official with no ax to grind had told him about Plame, an undercover operative, a month before her name was revealed by columnist Robert D. Novak. Since then, guessing Woodward's source has been a Washington parlor game.

Plame is at the center of an investigation by a special prosecutor into whether White House officials knowingly disclosed her name to the media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The probe has resulted in charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Beth Kseniak, spokeswoman for Vanity Fair, said the reporter who wrote the story, Marie Brenner, was traveling in India and was unavailable for comment.

Bradlee, currently Post vice president at large, said he learned the source's name from someone other than Woodward. Woodward said he did not reveal the source to his friend and former boss.

"He is not in the management loop on this," Woodward said. "Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if he in fact did learn" the source's name.

Woodward and Bradlee refused to disclose the source's name. Armitage did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Bradlee's brief comments about the source are included in a lengthy article about the Plame case. Bradlee is the longtime Post editor who rose to prominence when his reporting team of Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story. Woodward and Bradlee refused for many years to reveal the identity of Deep Throat, a key source.

So now we wait -- will the silence continue? Will there be demands for an Armitage perp-walk? Or will the hypocritical liberal silence continue?

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

Rouge prosecutor Ronnie Earle had his mountain of subpoenas thrown out by a Texas court today. It seems the stay in the case that he had demanded!

A state appeals court today threw out more than 30 subpoenas requested by Travis County prosecutors building a criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, saying the investigation should have stopped in December when a district judge halted proceedings in his court.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle has been issuing the subpoenas ever since Senior District Judge Pat Priest dismissed all or part of three indictments against DeLay, R-Sugar Land. Earle appealed Priest's ruling, and the judge stayed the case pending a ruling by the Third Court of Appeals.

Most of the subpoenas involved political fund-raising controversies that have involved DeLay, some dating back to 1996.

After Earle subpoenaed records from DeLay's wife, Christine, DeLay's legal team asked Priest to quash the subpoenas. Priest told DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin that the case was stayed while on appeal, so he would neither halt Earle from issuing subpoenas nor would he enforce them.

DeGuerin then asked the appeals court to intervene.

"Because the state has obtained a stay in the proceedings ... we hold that subpoenas may not issue compelling witnesses to testify and produce documents at the stayed proceedings," the order by a three-judge panel said.

The panel, which is scheduled to hear Earle's appeal on March 22, said Earle may not issue any more subpoenas while the stay is in effect; ruled all the ones issued after the stay are "null and void;" and any subpoenas issued before the stay are suspended while the appeal is pending.

The unsigned order was issued by Judges Bea A. Smith, David Puryear and Alan Waldrop. Smith is a Democrat. Puryear and Waldrop are Republicans who are up for re-election this year.

What more evidence do you need that this guy is out of control and on a political fishing trip? First he attempts an ex post facto prosecution of actions in 2002 under a statute that did not go into effect until 2003. Then he ignores fundamental rules of procedure. Can we just get all charges dismissed and this Democrat demogogue disbarred?

More At Wizbang,

Posted by: Greg at 03:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

That is what Drudge is claiming.

THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

Llama Butchers doubts the Left will now demand the arrest and imprisonment of their favorite Bush-trashing former State Department official.

Richard Armitage is said to have outed Valerie Plame, via Drudge. Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State and his comments critical of Administration foreign policy are thought to be Colin Powell's. Somehow I doubt we will hear cries from the antique media for Armitage to do the "perp walk" like we did when the leak was attibuted to Rove.

Politburo Diktat notes this response.

So far, the Leftie blogs are not calling for the cuffs and orange jump suits.

I won't hold my breath until I turn blue.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Sen. Russ Feingrold -- who helped John McCain rape the First Amendment -- is now seeking to make an end-run around the Constitution again.

Congress should censure President George W. Bush for ordering domestic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.

Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin told ABC's "This Week" that he intends to push for a resolution that would censure the president for what he considers an unlawful wiretapping program authorized by the White House after the September 11 attacks.

Now there is no provision for the censure of the President in the Constitution, so I would hope that any attempt would be ruled out of order.

On what basis does Feingold want there to be a censure?

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

* * *

The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush claims that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance.

The White House had no immediate response on Sunday.

The resolution says the president "repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program last December when he indicated the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the U.S.

"Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. "And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong."

The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense.

The president's action were "in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country.

Russ, if you really believe that there is something impeachable here, censure is unacceptable (it is cowardly, in addition to being extra-constitutional). Why don't you just sign on with the House Moonbat Caucus and led your prestige to this proposal.

30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President BushÂ’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

* * *

Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Wouldn't you be in fine company, Russ -- and it would really help you to get the support of the far-left moonbat wing of the Democrat Party -- the KOSsaks and DUmmies and all the rest of the extreme Lleft who haven't met an enemy of the United States tehy haven't embraced.

So have the courage of your convictions Russ -- and stand by the Constitution, if you really believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemenaors.

Or is this all a publicity stunt, designed to make you look good but accomplish nothing?

MORE AT: Decision '08, Political Pitbull, Blogs for Bush (twice), Sister Toldjah, Those Bastards!

Posted by: Greg at 08:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

Ed Rendell and his staff think this behavior is acceptable. I want to know why no criminal charges have been filed.

An angry Gov. Ed Rendell took a tape recorder away from a newspaper reporter during an impromptu interview this week, refusing to give it back for several minutes, according to the paper.

According to an article Thursday in the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, reporter Brett Lieberman asked the governor Wednesday in Washington, D.C., how Rendell had asked former U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel to withdraw from the race for lieutenant governor.

Rendell on Tuesday told a radio reporter that he wished Hoeffel would withdraw from the race. Hoeffel had told Rendell three weeks earlier that he planned to run against the sitting lieutenant governor, Catherine Baker Knoll. Rendell told Hoeffel that he would support Knoll but did not ask Hoeffel not to run.

Lieberman's article said Rendell "angrily denied suggestions" that his word could not be trusted. He then said, "It's all B.S. You know it's B.S. It's politics," and shortly thereafter took Lieberman's tape recorder, refusing to return it for several minutes, according to the article.

Rendell called Lieberman several hours later and apologized for his remarks, saying he was frustrated by politics and insisting that he is a "straight shooter," according to the newspaper.

Rendell, who appeared with Hoeffel on Wednesday before he spoke with Lieberman, said he changed his mind after Democratic officials in southwestern Pennsylvania warned that Knoll, a Pittsburgh-area native, would offer his re-election campaign more geographic balance than Hoeffel, who, like Rendell, is from southeastern Pennsylvania.

"The governor is clearly a passionate person, and he's spent every day for the last 20 years being hounded by members of the media and being attacked by Republicans, and the question for people who live their life like that is not how come it happened, but how come it doesn't happen more often," said Dan Fee, Rendell's campaign spokesman.

Now let me get this straight -- the governor didn't like the question, so he ripped the tape recorder from the hands of a member of the working press. Could you imagine if this were done by a Republican -- someone like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or even Karl Rove? We'd be hearing about theft, assualt, violation of civil rights, etc. But when a left-wing hack like Ed Rendell -- a union thug with a history of coordinating and instigating violence against his opponents -- engages in such behavior, it barely makes a blip on the press radar screen.

And you have to love the response of the campaign spokesman -- "the question. . . is not how come it happened, but how come it doesn't happen more often." You must be kidding! He's trying to turn this failure by a public official to restrain himself from attacking a reporter into a virtue because it happens so rarely!

But you see, this is not the first time something like this has happened.

Rendell has been involved in other confrontations with reporters, including grabbing the neck of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in May 1994 when he was the city's mayor. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Gar Joseph, in a Friday item entitled "Rendell 6, reporters 0," cites five other alleged physical confrontations with reporters from the Inquirer or Daily News.

In February 1999, the Daily News also reported that Rendell grasped a reporter's notebook after becoming angry during an interview.

If you or I had a record like this, we would be doing hard time in jail. Why is Ed Rendell above the law?

Pennsylvania, your choice is clear.

Vote for Lynn Swann -- a man of honor, decency, integrity, and self-control.

Posted by: Greg at 08:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Loredana Vuoto reviews Michael Deaver's new anthology, Why I Am a Reagan Conservative.

In Why I Am a Reagan Conservative, Deaver compiles personal accounts by conservative icons on how Reagan shaped their conservative beliefs. This fun, easy-to read book gives great insight into the thought of some prominent conservatives such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole, ReaganÂ’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Rick Santorum, as well as columnist Robert Novak and film critic Michael Medved.

Many of these conservatives were drawn to the simple, pragmatic truths of conservatism. They perceived the harm of big government, which corroded individual responsibility and stifled initiative. The ever-expanding welfare state of the 1970s proved detrimental to the economy and was responsible for many social ills such as high unemployment, increased teen pregnancy and the decline of marriage. They realized that government was not the solution to societyÂ’s woes, but the overarching problem.

* * *

Reagan’s greatest contribution to modern conservatism is that he helped to redefine a movement that had become ideologically and politically bankrupt following the Great Depression and World War II. Many of the conservative leaders of that era—for example, Robert Taft and Herbert Hoover—championed isolationism, protectionism and a xenophobic nationalism that no longer resonated with the public. Reagan (along with other key figures before him such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater) modernized conservatism, thereby making it appealing to broad swaths of the electorate.

Today, conservatism has become the dominant political and cultural force in the country. This was shown in November 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election to a second term, making him the first two-term Republican president since Reagan. Moreover, the GOP controls both houses of Congress. Conservative thought pervades the marketplace. Think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation continue to thrive and produce ground-breaking work. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, The Weekly Standard and National Review produce some of the finest and most influential political commentary in the country. And conservative radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Schlessinger dominate the airwaves. The same holds true for the Fox News Channel, which has leapfrogged both CNN and MSNBC in the number of television viewers and overall media clout.

Conservatism is on the march. Whether it will ultimately triumph is anyoneÂ’s guess. But one thing is for certain: ReaganÂ’s leadership and charisma were primarily responsible for the movementÂ’s current success. For this, he deserves the gratitude of conservatives everywhere.

One of the questions I hope is dealt with is that of the nexus between Reagan conservatism and neo-conservatism. Are they, ultimately, compatible? Given the continuing expansion of government (much of it in the name of national security), how much influence does Reagan conservatism have today, and how can it again become ascendant?

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Dan Patrick stomped his competition in SD 7.

Calling his victory the start of a revolution, radio talk-show host Dan Patrick on Tuesday won the Republican nomination to succeed state Sen. Jon Lindsay, trouncing three politically experienced opponents.

Patrick, in his first bid for elected office, used his name identification from more than 20 years as a local TV and radio personality to win the District 7 nomination without a runoff.

With most precincts reporting, Patrick had 68 percent of the vote. State Rep. Peggy Hamric claimed a distant second at 17 percent.

"The revolution started tonight," Patrick said. "The people of SD7 want their party to stand up and take action on the issues that are important to them. I hope Republicans in Austin realize this is not isolated to SD7."

Two of his opponents, Hamric and state Rep. Joe Nixon, conceded in phone calls to Patrick. The third, former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, said he would support Patrick as the GOP nominee.

Hamric and Nixon will give up what had been safe House seats.

The District 7 race was closely watched and became the most competitive and expensive state legislative battle. The four contenders spent a combined $1.5 million in the heated race. The district is solidly Republican, so Patrick will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

Patrick said he will focus on property tax relief, overall spending and immigration.

The retiring incumbent, a major league RINO, is already attacking his probable successor.

Lindsay, who endorsed Hamric as his successor, has said that Patrick will "have to change his ways" to succeed in the Senate.

For example, Patrick has argued that the Senate should do away with the rule that requires a two-thirds vote for a bill to be brought up for debate.

"That's how we keep composure on that side of the rotunda. It's a good rule. It causes everyone to think through what they are attempting to do," Lindsay said.

John -- this vote is a stunning repudiation of the "business as usual" approach that you practiced for years. The notion that the majority should act like a majority may stun you, but it is common sense to your average Texan.

The Lindsay-loving Houston Chronicle is already out to get Dan, though. Look at this column in today's paper.

It will be fascinating to watch how Patrick strives to make an impact in Austin. Will he roll up his sleeves in committee work and find all the "fat" he claims is in the budget?

Occasionally a freshman demagogue has come along who declined to do that but who made a grand stand for cutting taxes when the day for the final budget vote came.

They don't last long. Their colleagues tend to find a convenient place to cut the budget: in the demagogue's district.

At least as fascinating will be how Patrick meshes his radio station with his political career.

He has used the station brilliantly in his campaign. How would he use it to govern?

Would he offer air time to Senate colleagues to gain favor? Would he attempt to get them on the air so that listeners can press them for pet measures?

One senator already expressed concern that with Patrick as part of a caucus, now-private discussions may become talk-show fodder.

Patrick is a self-proclaimed Christian, so he is presumably aware of two types of leadership in the Church.

There are prophets and bishops.

Prophets — and false prophets — prosper on the airwaves.

But bishops do better in conclaves.

But then again, Rick Casey and the Chronicle despise all things conservative.

Too bad for them that Texans don't.

Give 'em hell, Dan!

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like all the folks who said support was weak for Tom DeLay didn't know what they were talking about. He won 62% of the vote in a four-way race for the GOP nomination, handily defeating his opponents.

Still facing legal battles, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a pivotal political fight Tuesday by defeating three challengers in the Republican primary for his Houston-area seat.

Opponent Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, fell short of forcing the former House majority leader into a runoff.

DeLay won 62 percent of the vote in the 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties, according to the totals from 97 percent of precincts.

"I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today's vote shows they have placed their full faith in me," DeLay said in a written victory statement. "This race was about who can effectively represent the values and the priorities of the people in this district, and I'm proud to have earned, and overwhelmingly kept, that trust among Republican voters."

"Not only did they reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform," he added.

In second place with 30 percent of the vote was Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Lawyer Mike Fjetland and former teacher and oil industry credit manager Pat Baig each took less than 5 percent.

"I'm kind of shocked," Fjetland said at the Fort Bend County Republican Party's Primary Night soiree at the Ragin Cajun restaurant in Sugar Land. "I'm very concerned about the future of the Republican Party."

Yes, Tom DeLay ran behind his traditional 82-86% of the primary vote -- but he has never had three opponents before.

One political scientist has this to say.

DeLay's totals show that "nearly 40 percent of an ideologically committed (Republican) vote has decided to bail on him," said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. "He still has a hell of a fight in the general election."

I'm going to disagree with this assessment.

Delay has always had about 15% of the district Republicans opposing him. That is how a non-entity like Fjetland did as well as he did in his earlier races against DeLay. We also had a heavy cross-over vote this time around -- I recognized about 10% of those at my precinct as partisan Democrats. After all, when you ask someone if they are coming to vote in the Republican primary and get a response like "Never before, never again, but this time yes," you can be pretty sure that they are not a part of the GOP base.

But I do think there is 20% of the GOP base that opposed Tom DeLay because of his legal troubles, wanting a solid GOP candidate like Campbell to ensure that the seat will be held by a Republican in the event that DeLay's legal troubles continue or get worse. Most of this last group will support Tom DeLay in November.

And the remaining 62%? We don't want outsiders picking our Congressman for us. We don't care if it is Ronnie Earle, the Democrat National Committee, or these guys.

Coming to churches, bowling alleys and living rooms near you: The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress.

As former House Majority Leader DeLay readied himself Tuesday to accept his party's nomination for another congressional term in Washington, D.C., two Texas filmmakers announced plans to release a scathing documentary in DeLay's Sugar Land district, criticizing the popular politician. Tentative plans also call for a screening in Houston, they said.

Numerous liberal groups stepped up to sponsor the film's expected release in early May, including Houston's Pacifica radio station, KPFT-FM (90.1). The film will rely heavily upon releases in small venues and at a few select theaters.

Filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck spent three years following the path of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's criminal investigation, which resulted in indictments against DeLay and two political associates.

And I hope every penny spent to produce and show this film is counted as a contribution to Nick Lampson and the Democrats -- making most of the expenditures illegal under federal and state campaign laws.

And, of course, i think this is exhibit #1 in Delay's case for dismissal of the charges against him AND the disbarrment proceedings against Ronnie Earle.

Let me say this -- We, the Constituents of Texas Congressional District 22, will pick our Congressman.

The rest of you can go to hell.

UPDATE: Tom DeLay has this to say, emphasizing the point I made above.

"I'm honored . . . to defend this district from the funding and activism of America's most radical Democrats," he said. "Liberal activists like Barbra Streisand, George Soros and Nancy Pelosi all have a dog in this fight, and his name is Nick Lampson."

Especially if you think back to how the Democrats aced out a popular local minority politician who actually lives in the 22nd District.

OPEN TRACKBACKS/LINKFESTS: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch USA, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Cao's Blog, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 882 words, total size 6 kb.

In a continuation of the scandal at Houston's city hall, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado has stepped aside from that position (but not her City Council seat).

"I intend to temporarily Â… step aside from the office of the mayor pro tem pending the outcome of the grand jury investigation," said Alvarado at MondayÂ’s news conference. "I did nothing improper and IÂ’ve accepted responsibility."

Hopefully the people of of Houston will end Alvarado's career at the first opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white candidate ever told a white audience that his political oponents "don't look like us"?

Well, the racist buffoon who runs New Orleans, Ray Nagin -- the guy who left school buses to flood and residents to drown -- is being much more specific about his vision for a "chocolate city".

In a speech organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People civil rights group, Nagin discussed the recovery of New Orleans and explained the complicated absentee voting procedures for those who have not returned to the city.

Nagin, who sparked controversy recently by saying New Orleans would become a "chocolate city" again, told the mostly black audience of about 50 people that the election could bring a sea change to New Orleans politics, which has been dominated by blacks for more than two decades.

"There are 23 candidates running for mayor. Very few of them look like us," he said. "There's a potential to be a major change in the political structure in New Orleans."

Nagin is trailing Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu (son of a former mayor of New Orleans and brother of a current US Senator from Louisiana) and , who is white, so he needs to flog the race card at every opportunity.

And I guess I must be deaf -- I haven't heard a single complaint from the NAACP or any major black leader about this blatantly racist appeal for votes. Surely such condemnations have been made. Haven't they? Or perhaps the words of Martin Luther King have been repudiated by the black establisment, and are we now to judge people based upon the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Sister Toldjah, The World According To Carl

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

You see, it really comes down to a question of following the Constitution.

And this proposal doesn't.

President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power.

Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

And I fully support giving the line-item veto to the president. But it cannot be done via legislation.

Afte all, as this article itself points out, the SUpreme Court has spoken on the matter.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Sorry folks, you need to do this via an amendment, not via statute. It really is that simple.

Follow the Constitution.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Kip, Esq., SCOTUSBlog, Uncooperative Blogger, Jurist, Blogs for Bush (again), Hugh Hewitt, A Certain Slant Of Light, Marginal Revolution, Say Anything, World Magazine, MoxieGrrrrl, Dohiyi Mir, Middle Earth Journal, Suburban Guerrilla, The News Blog, The Next Left, The Blue Voice

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 3 kb.

He should have gotten the maximum sentence for his betrayal of the public trust.

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns but was immediately taken into custody. He also was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution for back taxes and forfeit $1.85 million in valuables he received.

Cunningham accepted money and gifts including a Rolls-Royce and $40,000 Persian rugs from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy, but Cunningham, choking up as he addressed the judge, focused on accepting blame. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he said.

"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham said.

I think the judge summed up my view of this individual and his crimes quite nicely.

"You weren't wet. You weren't cold. You weren't hungry and yet you did these things," Burns said. "I think what you've done is you've undermined the opportunity that honest politicians have to do a good job."

Given Cunningham's age, perhaps we will get lucky and see this be, in effect, a life sentence -- which i believe should be the minimum for such self-serving misdeeds.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Will this development drain the Pro-Abortion voters from Pro-Life (at least for a) Democrat Bob Casey?

A prominent abortion-rights activist, Kate Michelman, said this week she is considering running as an independent in the race for the seat held by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and his leading Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, have both said they are opposed to abortion. Casey upset some Democrats when he said he supported the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Michelman, the past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, splits her time between Washington and central Pennsylvania. She said some women's rights activists have asked her to run.

"It is more about them wanting to express great frustration," Michelman said.

Casey is leading Santorum in the polls. His campaign released a statement saying, "Democrats are stronger when we work together on the many issues where we have common ground, and Bob Casey looks forward to doing that in the U.S. Senate."

A Kate Michelman candidacy may be a real gift for the incumbent.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week, the president made the following challenge.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”

This leads Michael Reagan to respond as follows.

All of this begs the only legitimate question that can be posed by this deal: is it in the interests of the security of the American people? If it is, the deal is acceptable. If itÂ’s not, we ought to run away from it as if it were a case of bird flu.

Unfortunately, ReaganÂ’s response ignores the PresidentÂ’s point.

The deal was reviewed and approved under the normal standards applied to such transactions. The determination was hat there was no significant degradation of American security. As a result, the purchase was approved.

It seems to me that the “legitimate question” has been answered. Unfortunately for Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, and a host of other conservatives who I respect (and a whole bunch of liberals who I don’t), the answer of those with the power to make the decision and with the access to information that makes their judgment valid is different from the conclusion of the knee-jerk opponents of the deal. Disagreement on the outcome is not “begging the question.

Now, folks, since your question has been answered, why don’t you offer a coherent answer to the President’s challenge – why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a European country? Any answer that boils down to “because they are Arabs/Muslims, just like the 9/11 hijackers” supports the contention of Grover Norquist (with whom I’ve rarely agreed, going back to his days running the College Republican national Committee).

"The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

IÂ’m hoping that my fellow conservatives, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue, can start to provide answers that prove themselves to be better than NorquistÂ’s jibe paints them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

The NOW Gang and the Merchants of Death in the abortion industry have AGAIN lost in their never-ending battle to silence those of us who oppose abortion.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.

One major problem with the position of the anti-speech anti-life groups was that they sought to conflate all pro-life activists into one gigantic criminal conspiracy. The acts of unrelated groups and individuals were said to be a part of a pattern, and leaders of various groups were alleged to be responsible for the actions of individuals who were members, even if they did not direct them to engage in the conduct.

When I talked to Joe Scheidler about this many years ago, he noted that one part of the so-called conspiracy was the fact that he had written a book on how to hassle abortion facilities – the anti-lifers claimed that he was therefore a party to the so-called misconduct of any individual who attempted to implement the peaceful, non-violent tactics he included in the book. Under that theory, Dr. Martin Luther King could have been jailed any time there was a sit-in anywhere in the country during the civil rights movement.

Now any of you baby-killing anti-lifers out there who think this is a bad decision, consider who the allies of the pro-lifers were.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

In other words, even the so-called “progressive” movement recognized that your suit sought to undermine legitimate speech and assembly.

Posted by: Greg at 06:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

The agreement to give an additional 45 day review to Dubai Ports World's acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.'s U.S. terminal operations is a good one. One final look at the deal, with special scrutiny of the national security implications, should be sufficient to either scuttle the deal or quell the fears of all but the most close-minded opponents.

An Arab maritime company at the center of a political imbroglio over port security asked the Bush administration Sunday to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of its plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one. The administration had approved DP World's $6.85 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., or P&O, earlier this month without conducting a national security review, after a broad, interagency panel that looked at the transaction concluded the takeover of port operations in the United States would not impact the nation's safety.

* * *

"We recognize that there are concerns regarding DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. terminal operations. Despite having already obtained approval by the federal government, we continue to take voluntary steps to assure people that the security of the U.S. will not be harmed as a result of this acquisition," said Ted Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer.

Personally, I am persuaded that the deal is in the best interests of the United States, and that the security concerns voiced by opponents are not grounded in reality. The claimed degradation of national security does not make sense, given that the day-to-day operations will remain in the hands of the same folks who currently work for P&O and the security responsibilities will remain with the US government.

The deal will allow the purchase to proceed, but will keep the US operations independent.

Under the terms of the deal announced by DP World, the company would proceed with its acquisition. That deal is to be completed Thursday.

But DP World said it would "guarantee" the independence of operations at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans by establishing North American operations as a "completely separate" business unit. Management of the North American operations would be left in the hands of P&O's chief executive officer in London, who is British. The chief security officer of the North American unit will remain a U.S. citizen, unless the Coast Guard approves a change.

The rest of the current management of P&O in the United States would also remain in place, and DP World pledged not to interfere with operations, policies, procedures or security that were in place when P&O ran the U.S. terminals.

The statement concluded that all these pledges would remain in place until May 1 or the completion of the CFIUS review.

"We are confident the further review by CFIUS will confirm that DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. operations does not pose any threat to American's safety and security. We hope that voluntarily agreeing to further scrutiny demonstrates our commitment to our long-standing relationship with the United States," Bilkey said.

Perhaps some similar management structure can remain in place following the review. After all, I suspect there are more negotiations to come.

MORE AT Blogs for Bush, Middle Earth Journal, The Moderate Voice, Big Lizards, Strata-Sphere

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

Since when is it the business of government to set prices?

The Minnesota Commerce Department on Thursday announced plans to fine a gas station chain $140,000 for repeatedly selling gas below the state's legal minimum price.

The fine against Midwest Oil of Minnesota is twice as large as any imposed on a company since 2001, when the state established a formula based on wholesale prices, fees and taxes to determine a daily floor for gas prices.

The price law was intended to prevent large oil companies from driving smaller competitors out of business, but some critics argue it fails to protect consumers.

According to the Commerce Department, the Midwest-owned stations in Anoka, Oakdale and Albert Lea sold gas below the minimum price on 293 days in 2005.

Kevin Murphy, deputy commissioner of the department, called the violations "willful, continuing, and egregious and warrant a substantial penalty."

This measure costs consumers money every time they buy gas – and that money goes for private profit so that uncompetitive businesses can remain afloat. Such laws are un-American, and must be repealed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve been following this story for the last several days, and am surprised that no one really wants to take this up on a national level. That is really too bad, since it shows the degree to which certain segments of the Democrat Party despise the military but are willing to use a few vets and family members for their own purposes. They tell us we cannot question the ever-changing stories of John Kerry about his military service in Vietnam (while constantly questioning the military service of President Bush), the courage or patriotism of corrupt Congressman John “Cut-n-Run” Murtha or the moral authority of an America-hater like Cindy Sheehan – but if an Iraq vet or Gold Star parent speaks out in favor of the war, they are “un-American” and the Democrats will seek to silence and censor them.

A conservative group recently started an advertising campaign in Minnesota showing veterans and families of slain troops expressing their support for the Iraq war, only to have the head of the state Democratic Party condemn the ads as "un-American, untruthful and a lie." He furthermore demands that Minnesota television stations pull the ads "and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swiftboating' anymore." At least one station so far has complied with the request, which is reason enough for outrage.

But there's been precious little of that. Aside from a handful of bloggers covering the issue and an appearance of one of the veterans on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," the media has ignored the issue completely, essentially proving one of the ad campaign's main points. The current media meme, at least as it concerns the homefront, is that most returning veterans have turned against the war and those still in field are demoralized and jaded. Meanwhile, parents of slain troops like Cindy Sheehan continue to rack up air time and column inches. The ad campaign seeks to correct this blatant misrepresentation.

Which is exactly why Democrats are trying to stop it with accusations that the ads are somehow "untruthful." The claim is absurd on its face, but their list of so-called lies is so slim that a brief analysis is warranted. The veterans in the first ad say that "our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda -- the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11." To liberal ears, this is apparently the equivalent of claiming Iraq was behind September 11. But that's not what the veterans said. In any case, last we checked Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has publicly sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, is the leader of "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Democrats have also taken issue with the ad's statement that U.S. troops "overwhelmingly" support the mission -- a fact clearly upheld by record-setting retention rates in the military branches. The retention rate in the Army, for instance, is the highest it's been in five years, especially in combat units currently serving in Iraq. And that about covers the "lies."

The more disturbing issue here is that Democrats are trying to silence a contrary point of view, and are doing so by calling soldiers and military families "un-American." Whenever Republicans attempt to counter antiwar sentiment, be it from the Cindy Sheehans or Paul Hacketts, Democrats shed crocodile tears over the "crushing of dissent." But this is what crushing dissenters actually looks like -- a smear campaign designed explicitly to keep the public from hearing the other side.

Fortunately, readers can see the ads for themselves at www.midwestheroes.com and decide what's so "un-American" about soldiers and families supporting the war.

What are the Democrats crying foul about? Besides the truthful assertion that American troops fight in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, there is the horrific scandal (if you are a liberal) that one of the Gold Star parents is the – GASP! – step-mother of a dead soldier and not his biological mother.

Powerline owns this issue and this story completely, so I am linking to their many excellent posts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 5 kb.

I’ve been following this story for the last several days, and am surprised that no one really wants to take this up on a national level. That is really too bad, since it shows the degree to which certain segments of the Democrat Party despise the military but are willing to use a few vets and family members for their own purposes. They tell us we cannot question the ever-changing stories of John Kerry about his military service in Vietnam (while constantly questioning the military service of President Bush), the courage or patriotism of corrupt Congressman John “Cut-n-Run” Murtha or the moral authority of an America-hater like Cindy Sheehan – but if an Iraq vet or Gold Star parent speaks out in favor of the war, they are “un-American” and the Democrats will seek to silence and censor them.

A conservative group recently started an advertising campaign in Minnesota showing veterans and families of slain troops expressing their support for the Iraq war, only to have the head of the state Democratic Party condemn the ads as "un-American, untruthful and a lie." He furthermore demands that Minnesota television stations pull the ads "and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swiftboating' anymore." At least one station so far has complied with the request, which is reason enough for outrage.

But there's been precious little of that. Aside from a handful of bloggers covering the issue and an appearance of one of the veterans on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," the media has ignored the issue completely, essentially proving one of the ad campaign's main points. The current media meme, at least as it concerns the homefront, is that most returning veterans have turned against the war and those still in field are demoralized and jaded. Meanwhile, parents of slain troops like Cindy Sheehan continue to rack up air time and column inches. The ad campaign seeks to correct this blatant misrepresentation.

Which is exactly why Democrats are trying to stop it with accusations that the ads are somehow "untruthful." The claim is absurd on its face, but their list of so-called lies is so slim that a brief analysis is warranted. The veterans in the first ad say that "our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda -- the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11." To liberal ears, this is apparently the equivalent of claiming Iraq was behind September 11. But that's not what the veterans said. In any case, last we checked Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has publicly sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, is the leader of "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Democrats have also taken issue with the ad's statement that U.S. troops "overwhelmingly" support the mission -- a fact clearly upheld by record-setting retention rates in the military branches. The retention rate in the Army, for instance, is the highest it's been in five years, especially in combat units currently serving in Iraq. And that about covers the "lies."

The more disturbing issue here is that Democrats are trying to silence a contrary point of view, and are doing so by calling soldiers and military families "un-American." Whenever Republicans attempt to counter antiwar sentiment, be it from the Cindy Sheehans or Paul Hacketts, Democrats shed crocodile tears over the "crushing of dissent." But this is what crushing dissenters actually looks like -- a smear campaign designed explicitly to keep the public from hearing the other side.

Fortunately, readers can see the ads for themselves at www.midwestheroes.com and decide what's so "un-American" about soldiers and families supporting the war.

What are the Democrats crying foul about? Besides the truthful assertion that American troops fight in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, there is the horrific scandal (if you are a liberal) that one of the Gold Star parents is the – GASP! – step-mother of a dead soldier and not his biological mother.

Powerline owns this issue and this story completely, so I am linking to their many excellent posts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 5 kb.

Not only did they rip-off Houston taxpayers for $130,000 in bonuses to which they were not entitled, but four members of Councilwoman Carol Alvarado's Mayor Pro Tem staff also authorized salary increases for each other.

Four employees in Houston's Office of Mayor Pro Tem got raises ranging from 11 percent to 64 percent during the same period in which they split $135,000 in what city officials say were unauthorized bonuses, personnel documents show.

The records, released to the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday under the Texas Public Information Act, show that the raises increased the employees' combined annual pay rates by $60,000 during Councilwoman Carol Alvarado's two-year tenure as Mayor Pro Tem.

Alvarado said she did not approve the raises.

The two highest-paid employees — who also got most of the bonus money now under investigation — signed forms authorizing each others' raises, the records show.

All four still are drawing the salaries, since they have been suspended with pay during a probe of the bonuses.

Perhaps we need to start to refer to the councilwoman as "Carol Alvarado Schultz" -- as in "I know nothing-- NOTHING!"

But then again, it may not be a wuestion of stupidity on her part -- it may just be laziness. She authorized staff members to sign documents on her behalf so that she didn't need to be bothered personally, and they took advantage of the authority.

What sort of pay raises are we talking about? Substantial ones.

But the councilwoman said Wednesday that she never authorized anything higher than a 2 percent salary increase approved in 2004.

That is more in line with typical city pay increases. Mayor Bill White recently announced a raise of 1.5 percent for full-time civilian city employees.

According to personnel records, Hernandez received two raises in 2005, increasing her base annual salary 37 percent to $78,000. Watkins' salary rose 55 percent during Alvarado's tenure, from $33,000 to $52,000.

Two other employees in the office, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta, received raises of 64 percent and 10 percent respectively, records show.

I'm not accusing Carol Alvarado of being dishonest -- after all, that woud require her to be an active manager who took the time to oversee the actions of her staff. Instead, I would have to say the was incompetent and negligent in the running of the Mayor Pro Tem's office. But then again, that wouldn't be the first time that she let little details slip right past her.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

In an increasingly conservative America, Democrats are seeking to compete electorally by shifting left and abandoning officeholders who appeal to middle-of-the-road independents and even conservatives.

Democrats aren't just hoping to take back Congress this year; they also are trying to rid the party of so-called "right-wing Democrats."

Rep. Henry Cuellar represents the solidly Democratic 28th district in Texas. Yet activists from his party are backing his primary challenger, former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

"People have been able to get a good picture of Henry Cuellar's record," Mr. Rodriguez told The Washington Times. "He doesn't stand with working families. On issues like tax cuts, the estate tax and immigration, he has voted with Republicans down the line."

Mr. Cuellar has been endorsed by the conservative Club for Growth, a group that typically endorses Republicans and has supported primary challengers to centrist Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Club for Growth estimates it has raised $150,000 for Mr. Cuellar's campaign.

After a contentious Democratic primary battle in 2004, Mr. Cuellar defeated Mr. Rodriguez, a three-term incumbent, by a mere 58 votes. Since then, Mr. Cuellar has angered many liberals with his support for the war in Iraq and other Republican-backed policies.

Mr. Rodriguez acknowledges that centrists have a place in the Democratic Party, just not in his district. "This is not a swing district. Voters here deserve someone who will represent their values," he said.

The 28th District, stretching from the Rio Grande to San Antonio, is 70 percent Hispanic. In the 2004 general election, Mr. Cuellar received 59 percent of the vote against Republican opponent James Hopson.

Mr. Rodriguez said Democratic activists have pumped more than $250,000 into his campaign in the weeks since his primary challenge gained national attention. "Thank God for it," he said.

Liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (DFA), as well as leading liberal bloggers and unions such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, are backing Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez "is a real Democrat," said DFA Chairman Jim Dean. "He is not a shill for the White House. We've raised about $40,000 for Ciro so far. It's been a pretty good response, especially considering a lot of people didn't even know about this race until a few weeks ago."

A significant part of Mr. Rodriguez's opposition to Mr. Cuellar stems from their differences on trade. Mr. Cuellar was a vocal proponent of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which Mr. Rodriguez opposes.

Cuellar campaign spokesman Colin Strother said free trade and conservative values are popular in the 28th district.

"Ten of the 11 counties in our district have experienced growth since [the North American Free Trade Agreement] was passed," Mr. Strother said. "Ciro's most vocal supporters are not in the district. Our district is Catholic, Hispanic and conservative. Ciro doesn't represent those values."

Charles Mahtesian, editor of Almanac of American Politics, said the March 7 Democratic primary contest will be as bitter as it was two years ago.

"It's the stated policy of the party to support incumbents," Mr. Mahtesian said. "But at least in Washington and in Congress there are a lot of people secretly hoping it turns out differently."

Speaking as a Republican, I wholeheartedly support this strategy, which seems to me to be the political equivalent of treating a shaving cut by slitting your throat. The 28th District will never vote for a Republican – unless the Democrats abandon the base of conservative Hispanic Catholics. That is where this strategy is headed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't understand why the President would take this stand. The port deal is not a hill worth dying for.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Mr. President -- why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than one from the UK? Surely you jest, sir! You REALLY don't get it -- especially when one of the ports is the Port of New York? The answer is really simple -- a bunch of Arabs flew planes into buildings in that city, sir, and killed damned near 3000 Americans. there were at least some connections to the UAE. We want to be sure that this company has been thoroughly vetted.

A ldelay while the matter is more thoroughly warranted -- whether or not one supports Sen. Clinton's proposal to prevent firms controlled by foreign governments from managing our ports.

More at Michelle Malkin,

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Gee, I wonder if this clown demanded the same thing for Dick Cheney or the Bush girls?

The son of a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona was arrested and booked on drug charges, accused of selling narcotics to college students, officials said.

The 24-year-old son of former state Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson was taken into custody Friday after a search of his home, deputies said.

James Robert Pederson was charged with possession of narcotics, marijuana and paraphernalia, and misconduct with weapons, among other charges, Lt. Paul Chagolla said. He was released on his own recognizance Saturday morning.

The elder Pederson, who is challenging Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, asked for the public to respect his family's privacy.

"This is a personal matter that is obviously very troubling and being dealt with within our family right now," Pederson said in a statement.

This is a much more serious matter than the VP’s hunting accident or the underage boozing of a couple of college girls – so I’m sure that the media will give proportionally more coverage to this incident.

Not.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Gee, I wonder if this clown demanded the same thing for Dick Cheney or the Bush girls?

The son of a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona was arrested and booked on drug charges, accused of selling narcotics to college students, officials said.

The 24-year-old son of former state Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson was taken into custody Friday after a search of his home, deputies said.

James Robert Pederson was charged with possession of narcotics, marijuana and paraphernalia, and misconduct with weapons, among other charges, Lt. Paul Chagolla said. He was released on his own recognizance Saturday morning.

The elder Pederson, who is challenging Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, asked for the public to respect his family's privacy.

"This is a personal matter that is obviously very troubling and being dealt with within our family right now," Pederson said in a statement.

This is a much more serious matter than the VP’s hunting accident or the underage boozing of a couple of college girls – so I’m sure that the media will give proportionally more coverage to this incident.

Not.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the American people are becoming more and more enthusiastic about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a candidate for President. At the same time, opposition is growing to another female candidate.

Growing numbers of Americans oppose a presidential bid by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in 2008 — and favor a run by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — amid broad public willingness to elect a woman as president, according to a nationwide poll released Sunday.

The Presidents Day survey conducted for Hearst Newspapers by the Siena Research Institute of Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y., covered 1,120 registered voters and was completed Feb. 10.

Some 48 percent of survey participants said Rice "should run" for president at the conclusion of President Bush's second term, an increase of 6 percentage points over a similar survey a year ago.

Clinton saw opposition to a presidential bid grow over the same period. About 44 percent of respondents now say Clinton "should not run" for president in 2008 — up from 37 percent who felt that way last year.

The percentage of registered voters who say Clinton "should run" slipped from 53 percent to 51 percent in the past year, as support for a Rice candidacy increased, from 42 percent to 48 percent.

But the most important part of the survey is that Americans feel ready to vote for a woman.

The survey found that 79 percent of participants were willing to vote for a woman as president, and 64 percent said the nation was "ready" for one.

The survey did not test a head-to-head race between Clinton and Rice.
The margin of error for the survey in both years was 2.9 percentage points. That could mean that Clinton's 2 percentage point drop in the "should run" category may not represent an actual change.

The survey found that a majority of registered voters thought a female president would handle national security-related issues as well as a male president, including serving as commander-in-chief of the armed services.

In other words, 2008 may be just the time for a strong, national security-oriented female candidate like Dr. Rice to seek the presidency. We in the GOP need to persuade her that her time is NOW.

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.