I’m looking forward to hearing this song – not just because of my fondness for Martina McBride, but because of the story behind it.

This is the story of a defeated senator, his crying daughter, a Nashville songwriter and Martina McBride, the country music star.

It begins in Pittsburgh on election night 2006. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), losing to Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr. by a wide margin, gathered his wife and six children around a hotel ballroom microphone and conceded.

The little girl at his side, Sarah Maria Santorum, then 8, wept. She squeezed her eyes and wiped her tears. She buried her face in her father’s arm, pulled away and cried some more — all on live, national television.

The image became an instant Internet sensation, fueled by snarky blogs like Wonkette, which declared it the “official screenshot of the 2006 congressional midterm elections,” and was debated for weeks on comment boards.
Now itÂ’s a country music single.

McBride released the song, “For These Times,” on Monday — a social commentary inspired, in part, by Sarah Maria Santorum.

* * *

Hundreds of miles away from the Pittsburgh hotel, where the Santorum children took their pre-marked positions on stage — their names were scribbled on masking tape pressed to the floor — Leslie Satcher watched the election returns on a big-screen TV in her Nashville home.

The songwriter already had one hit with McBride (“When God-Fearin’ Women Get the Blues” in 2002), and was trying for a second.

Inspiration struck on election night.

Satcher and her husband — “big Fox News junkies” — were riveted by the scene.
“I saw the cameras zoom in on that little girl,” Satcher said.

“That’s awful. They are not even showing Rick. They are showing her crying. She is hurting, and she knows her dad is hurting.”

As blogs parsed and parodied the image — some gleefully made fun of it, others questioned the wisdom of putting a distraught child in front of the camera — Satcher went to church. Her pastor held up the Bible.

“For these times in which we live, you are going to need this book,” he said. Satcher scribbled the words into the back of her book.

At 3 a.m., she wrote the song.

It is a song of love, of compassion, and of faith – things which are highly valued by most Americans, including Satcher, McBride, and the Santorum family.

The song pans the picture.

In these times in which we live
Where the worst of what we live
Is laid out for all the world on the front page
And the sound of someoneÂ’s heartbreak
Is a sound bite at the news break
With a close shot of the tears rollinÂ’ down their face
Blessed be the child who turns a loving eye
And stops to pray
For these times in which we live

One can think what one likes of Rick Santorum, but the exploitation of the image of that hurting child by the many of the same lefty bloggers who later decried even asking questions about Graeme Frost and his family is more than a little bit hypocritical. And their level of compassion is revealed in some of the comments connected to the Politico story IÂ’ve quoted above proves that compassion and decency are not concepts that they truly understand.

And let me add a note of full disclosure – my opinions of Rick Santorum go back significantly longer than most Americans. You see, we graduated from the same high school, though our school careers did not overlap (he’s class of 1976, I’m class of 1981). More than once during my high school years, I was compared to the future senator by teachers we were blessed to have shared. And I look forward to his eventual comeback, because I know that he is too good a man to be kept down by the results of the 2006 election.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, , third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 6 kb.

No, not in 2008 – in 2012 or 2016, depending upon the outcome of next fall’s presidential election.

I have my candidate.

Bobby Jindal, the wiry and wired Republican son of Indian immigrants, doesn't look like a Louisiana good ol' boy and he doesn't talk like one either.

At 36, he has a resume that should place him closer to retirement than to yet another career. A Rhodes Scholar, Jindal was accepted to the medical and law schools of both Harvard and Yale (though he attended neither). While still in his 20s, he served as president of the University of Louisiana System and as assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He successfully reformed Louisiana's Medicaid program and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004.

* * *

St. Bernard Parish Sheriff Jack Stephens told me that many voters have "buyer's remorse," and, "we've come to place a high value on intellect."

Also, in the days after Katrina when state and local leaders were tangled up in red tape, Jindal materialized with his sleeves rolled up -- without cameras or fanfare -- and said, "What do you need?"

Shortly thereafter, trucks, food and medicine began arriving in St. Bernard, where most of the parish's 27,000 residential units were damaged or destroyed.

Dems are troubled by Jindal because he is too Catholic and too non-white for them. Speaking as a Republican, I could not care less about his ethnicity, and I find his strong faith (combined with his incredible intellect) to be appealing. After all, he and I are both members of the party that has always opposed racism.
Heck – I wonder if he might be a good fit as the VP candidate in 2008?

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

When I see article like this one, I makes me consider the possibility that he may be the best candidate we have on the GOP side.

tÂ’s the middle of October and Rudy Giuliani is still leading the race for the Republican nomination. His old enemies in New York canÂ’t understand it.
“It’s totally unbelievable,” said Charles Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation and a longtime adversary of Mr. Giuliani. “I refuse to believe that this could possibly happen to our country. I have too much confidence in our country to believe that this could really happen.”

On the other hand, I don’t have nearly as much confidence in our country – after all, two Bill Clinton terms proved how low the bar can be. And the fact that Hillary Clinton is the leading Dem candidate makes it even more obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Sullivan notes what will be the big selling point for the GOP candidate in 2008, quoting Bob Jones III of the university of the same name.

In a phrase from the mouth of Bob Jones III:

"This is all about beating Hillary."

Rudy is already using her to win the nomination as well. They all will. Just mention her name in a conservative direct-mail pitch and the money is yours. Will they also unload on any Democrat? Sure. But only one Democrat can raise the money for the GOP like she can - and already is. And only one brings (almost) everybody back into the big tent. There's a reason they're already bashing her. Because they know it works.

Given Mrs. Clinton's negatives, it is a strategy that could work.

That said, I wish it wasn't Bob Jones III, head of an institution with a rather sickening history (and theology) that was saying it. Just as I wish it was someone else making this important point.

"As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism," he said. "But IÂ’m not voting for a preacher. IÂ’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs."

I've said in the past, I'm voting for a president, not a theologian. I fundamentally disagree with many distinctly Mormon beliefs. But I'm voting for a political leader based upon political principles -- and if the best candidate is a Mormon (or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or even a Muslim) I'll cast my vote for that individual with pride and joy, knowing that I have done my duty for my country.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Commenting about the "Obama is a Muslim" emails (commented upon here) circulating around the internet (and especially in South Carolina) even after they have been debunked, Kevin Drum asks the following question.

What is it about South Carolina, anyway?

Answer -- it is early. A crappy showing by Obama in the early states will derail his campaign, like happened with McCain in 2000 and Dean in 2004. The issue, therefore, is not the state, but is instead the calendar.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Politico comments on a recent boomlet for the Arizona Senator.

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is back, two months after he was given up for dead.

For most of 2007, McCain was the prohibitive favorite among GOP voters. No one else came close.

Then, suddenly, his campaign — swollen with overhead and consultants — began to come apart at the seams.

It wasnÂ’t long before it reported a financial crisis: It was broke.

Roughly half of McCainÂ’s staff left or was let go. His longtime political soul mate, John Weaver, split, leaving McCain alone to run his campaign.

Meanwhile, the national media began to write McCainÂ’s political obituary. You almost could feel the one-time leaderÂ’s polling numbers dropping toward the single digits.

Today, amazingly, the campaign of the U.S. senator from Arizona is very much alive.

How?

McCain was helped by progress in Iraq and a strong showing in a recent New Hampshire debate.

Also, the John McCain of old is back, saying what he means and letting the chips fall where they may. He is much more comfortable campaigning as an insurgent than as an insider.

Sorry, but I won't be signing onto McCain's campaign any time soon. Other than Ron Paul and Sam Brownback, McCain is the last individual in the GOP race i would vote for. His hostility to the First Amendment is shocking, and i will not be a party to the destruction of that most precious part of the Bill of Rights by supporting his candidacy for the GOP nomination.

Indeed, I'm not sure that I could support the GOP ticket if he is on it in either spot -- though I think he would be a great Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

A short list of those not deemed as worthy as Al Gore to receive the Novel Peace Prize.

In Olso Friday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.

Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or to Colombian President Àlvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Or to Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.

Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

Or to scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.

Or, posthumously, to lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.

Or to the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.

But I can understand the decision of the Swedish politicians who make up the selection committee. Faced with the possibility of giving the award to some individual or group that had engaged in real humanitarian work, often at great personal risk or cost, they instead made the courageous choice to give it to a washed-up politician who made an error-riddled film and who hypocritically lives a lifestyle with a sasquatch-sized carbon footprint while demanding that the rest of us cout back on our environmental impact -- or face government mandates that we do so.

After all, it was a morally superior move to try to embarrass the American president and seek to influence the American election. I mean, having previously given it to a terrorist, a communist dictator, and a lying novelist, why sully the Nobel Peace Prize by giving it to true workers for peace and human rights?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, , Faultline USA, Right Truth, The Populist, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, , and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 5 kb.

When Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" some years back, he was well-within his competence in doing so. After all, he is a trained mental health professional. Now that Paul Krugman tries to label those of us who think that Al Gore did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize as suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome, I'd like to point out that he is practicing medicine without a license.

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street JournalÂ’s editors couldnÂ’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. GoreÂ’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

Yeah, that some of us might argue that a bunch of human rights campaigners and courageous opponents of dictatorship are a wee bit more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than the Gore is obviously a sign of psychological problems -- NOT. After all, that is who the WSJ list includes, not Rush Limbaugh or a who's who of right-wing pundits.

Krugman then goes on to list other folks opposing the hypocritical carbon sasquatch who demands that everyone except him cut back on their "carbon footprint" while selling latter day indulgences to violators.

And given that there is not a clear scientific consensus in favor of man-made global warming (whatever the political or pop-culture consensus), opposition to the Gore agenda is not a sign of mental illness -- it is a sign of critical thinking.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

Frank Rich can be officially dismissed as a serious commentator on the war (not that he ever really credibility) after this column today.

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

Rich earlier notes that a term in an American document on interrogation techniques is the same as one used in a Nazi document on the same subject, thereby constituting proof that the Bush Administration is no different that the Nazi regime, and the US has become Nazi Germany.

This is the classic reductio ad Hitlerum intended to cut off all debate or discussion -- and as such, as per common application of Godwin's Law, Mr. Rich loses.

More At Stop the ACLU, Sister Toldjah, Dread Pundit Bluto, Flopping Aces, The Moderate Voice, NewsBusters, Macsmind

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Big Dog's Weblog, Walls of the City, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, Stop the ACLU, Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, , AZAMATTEROFACT, Faultline USA, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Populist, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 4 kb.

Guys, Barack Obama is a Christian. I may have some serious problems with his theology -- after all, the UCC is such a mess theologically that it approaches apostasy on a regular basis -- but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when he calls himself a Christian.

That is why this smear, which I condemned nearly a year ago, deserves repeated condemnation.

When Fox News aired a report in January claiming that Sen. Barack Obama had been educated at a radical Muslim madrassa, his campaign beat the story back — hard — with the candidate himself going on television to call it “ludicrous” and a “smear.”

And his aggressive defense worked, or so it seemed at the time: The notion that Obama has secret Muslim roots faded from the mainstream media, and even from most conservative blogs and magazines.

But rather than vanish, the whispered smear campaign appears to have gone underground, and in its purest form: Obama himself, according to a pair of widely circulated anonymous e-mails, is a Muslim.

“Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background,” warns an e-mail titled “Who Is Barack Obama,” that was circulating in South Carolina political circles this summer and sent to Politico by a South Carolina Democrat.

“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out; what better way to start than at the highest level?”

“Please forward to everyone you know,” it ended.

The other widely forwarded e-mail is titled “Can a good Muslim become a good American” and answers that question in the negative, before concluding: “And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our president!!!”

Why does the claim still have some credence? Because Obama himself indicates that he attended a Muslim school and studied the Quran as a child. This does not indicate that he was ever a practicing Muslim, but does show that there was at least a veneer of Islamic upbringing in his life. But how he was educated over 30 years ago does not indicate that he embraces Islam today -- and I accept him at his word that he does not.

Slightly more problematic is the perception of Barack Obama by Muslims abroad. As I pointed out earlier this year, there is reason to believe that some extremist elements might well view the son of a Muslim with a Muslim name and a Muslim education as a Muslim -- and, more importantly, as a Muslim apostate given his very public embrace of Christianity. I wish he would use that status to speak out forcefully for religious freedom in the Muslim world.

But regardless, none of the questions of religion and upbringing are a legitimate basis for opposing Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. There are much better reasons for doing so -- both the policies he proposes, and his lack of appropriate experience. I urge my fellow conservatives -- and any liberals involved as well -- to drop this line of attack.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Big Dog's Weblog, Walls of the City, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, Stop the ACLU, Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, , AZAMATTEROFACT, Faultline USA, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Populist, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 5 kb.

Either that, or Thomas Friedman comes from a different universe than the rest of us.

For Mr. Gore, it was winning the popular vote and having the election taken away from him by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court.

* * *

Mr. Gore lost the presidency, but in the dignity and grace with which he gave up his legal fight, he united America.

What a load of crap. Al Gore sent people out into every county in Florida, seeking to invalidate GOP votes (especially those of our troops) while getting invalid Democrat votes counted. When he still lost under the laws in place on election day, he repeatedly sought to have them overturned and a court (any court) declare him victor. After he lost, Gore and his minions sought to overturn the results of the election in the Electoral College and then in Congress. We have spent the last seven years with Gore's acolytes insisting that he won the election when the US Constitution says otherwise -- and his actions following the 2000 election fostered the division and political acrimony that have followed for the last 7 years.

So I'm sorry, but Thomas Friedman is clearly trying to pass off fantasy as reality -- or he comes from a bizarro universe where black is white and up is down. Or he needs psychiatric medication.

More At The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Matt Ortega

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Big Dog's Weblog, Walls of the City, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, Stop the ACLU, Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, , AZAMATTEROFACT, Faultline USA, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Populist, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 4 kb.

In the CIA, the Inspector General is supposed to be an independent investigator. But what happens when there is reason to suspect that the IG is not being independent, but is instead operating with an agenda designed to direct policy in a certain direction? Who investigates?

That is the problem today.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agencyÂ’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.Â’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.

A small team working for General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agencyÂ’s watchdog office, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Current and former government officials said the review had caused anxiety and anger in Mr. HelgersonÂ’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hill that it posed a conflict of interest.

The review is particularly focused on complaints that Mr. HelgersonÂ’s office has not acted as a fair and impartial judge of agency operations but instead has begun a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention programs.

Any move by the agencyÂ’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would be unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office, some current and former officials say.

Now this is dangerous ground, I'll concede that. But if you have a supposedly neutral party that isn't neutral, isn't it reasonable that there be an investigation launched? Especially given the number of possible leaks and one-sided assessments that have come out of the IG's office.

Some don't see it that way.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees expressed concern today about an unusual inquiry into the work of the Central Intelligence AgencyÂ’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson, saying that it could undermine his role as independent watchdog.

The inquiry was ordered by General Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat who is chairman of the House committee, called news of the inquiry “troubling,” noting that the inspector general’s independence is written into law.

“It is this independence that Congress established and will very aggressively preserve,” Mr. Reyes said in a statement.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said he was sending a letter to Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, asking him to instruct General Hayden to drop the inquiry.

“I just don’t want to see I.G.’s intimidated,” said Mr. Wyden, using the abbreviation for inspector general. “People who know they’re doing the right thing are not afraid of oversight.”

Interestingly enough, Reyes and Wyden are both partisans that like the fact that the Inspector General's office has operated as it has, consistently taking positions supported by the Democrats rather than the administration. They certainly don't want that to stop -- even if it is the result of ideology, not impartial investigation. But it begs the question -- what should be done if the IG is not being impartial and independent?

Well, there are two routs.

Under federal procedures, agency heads who are unhappy with the conduct of their inspectors general have at least two places to file complaints. One is the Integrity Committee of the PresidentÂ’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which oversees all the inspectors general. The aggrieved agency head can also go directly to the White House.

If serious accusations against an inspector general are sustained by evidence, the president can dismiss him.

Both those routes avoid the awkward situation officials describe at the C.I.A. and preserve the independence of the inspector general.

Which, of course, would result in all sorts of political problems, given that the issue is whether or not the Inspector General's office is operating with a bias against the President's own policies. It would appear, even if it were not true, that there was an attempt to undermine the office's independence.

And besides -- where do you get the evidence that could sustain the accusations of wrongdoing unless you conduct an investigation.

Catch-22.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 682 words, total size 5 kb.

And Andrew Sullivan points out quite forthrightly that Stalinism remains alive and well on the Left today, in the demand that one sacrifice independent thought for ideological purity.

I can't say I read him very often but I came across this chilling post of his from last week. It's an attack on any independent thought outside of the situational demands of a political coalition. It is a full-throated and not-even-regretful support for the subjugation of free inquiry and free ideas to the demands of political organization. It makes Sidney Blumenthal seem intellectually honest. Money quote:

Roger Cohen may feel like he is a liberal hawk, and thus distinct. But what Roger Cohen feels does not matter, because Roger Cohen does not control any branch of the American military. Who he empowers, and which actors in American politics find their ideas legitimized by his columns, is all that matters. And in that, he is worse than a neoconservative. He's a liberal hawk who knows better, but whose interest in writing about his own virtue overwhelms his judgments concerning the actual actions of those who wield power. He is not a neoconservative. He is a narcissist.

Klein slips in a bogus word here: feels. Cohen doesn't feel he is a liberal hawk; he believes he is. He has arguments to make, arguments that can be agreed with or disagreed with, but that have merits of their own that should be addressed regardless of the arrangement of political power at the time. This isn't narcissism; it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes. Without this independence, a writer is merely a hack. Or, worse for a writer, an activist.

Now I'll be honest -- I am not always a fan of Sullivan, and I view him as being completely wrong-headed on a number of issues, especially as regards his comments on people of faith daring to participate in the political process. But here he points to a really dangerous notion swirling on the Left -- that the needs and ideology of the Party must take precedence over the free and forthright expression of one's own views.

The Washington Post reported on such demands for ideological purity yesterday.

Sounds more like these folks have taken the CPUSA from the 1930s to the 1950s as their model. But then again, we should have known that from watching their treatment of Joe Lieberman last year.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blue Star Chronicles, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, and Wolf Pangloss, Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Nanotechnology Today, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Phastidio.net, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Faultline USA, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 5 kb.

For promoting false, pseudo-scientific theories that can be disproven by a careful analysis of the historical data.

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.

''I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize,'' Gore said. ''We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.''

Gore's film ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year and he had been widely expected to win the prize.

That would be the same film that was just ruled to be so highly inaccurate that it must be labeled with disclaimers before it can be shown in British schools.

Given that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to terrorists and liars in the past, I guess I should not be surprised or alarmed that it goes to a hypocritical fraud this year. The award has long since lost the credibility it has when it was given to truly heroic figures like Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa.

To paraphrase another former Democrat Vice President, today's announcement proves that the Nobel Peace Prize isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

More at Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Stop the presses -- the media has uncovered evidence that former Senator Fred Thompson, a regular on the television series Law & Order, WAS PAID FOR HIS ACTING WORK!

Fred ThompsonÂ’s radio, television and movie career gave him a high profile that has helped his fledgling presidential campaign.

It also made him rich — and that could provide fodder for opponents who have worked to cast the Republican as more style than substance.

Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who is perhaps best known for his role in NBC crime drama “Law & Order,” earned as much as $12.1 million since Jan. 1, 2006, from his various entertainment-related gigs, according to a report released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission.

The report, which is mandatory for presidential candidates, lists only wide value ranges for income, assets and debts.

But it shows entertainment likely accounted for significantly more than half — and possibly as much as 75 percent — of Thompson’s income of as much as $16.5 million between Jan. 1, 2006, and last month, according to a Politico analysis.

Equally relevant is this National Enquirer report of an affair between John Edwards and a campaign staffer.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, , DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 3 kb.

If you are under investigation by either a prosecutor or Congress, you are an idiot if you don't retain competent counsel to represent your interests, even if you are an attorney. After all, what is the saying about a laywer who represents himself.

No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.

Now that strikes me as a prudent move -- and one certainly contemplated by our Constitution, which enshrines the right to an attorney in the Bill of Rights. Why, then, does the subtitle of the article, which says Gonzales wants to "beat the rap", make it sound like the exercise of that right is somehow suspicious, or an admission of guilt?

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’m shocked that more has not been made of this disgusting comment by Bill Maher.

He does not look well. His slogan should be 'tanned, rested and in remission.' And I'm not making fun of his health problems.

Notice the lie at the end of his statement. Yes, Mr. Maher, you are making fun of his cancer.

I’m curious – when will you make Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer a subject of your humor?

Posted by: Greg at 07:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

There is no other way to interpret this.

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

Using public funds to conduct political witch hunts to silence media critics for partisan gains.

When Nixon did it, he kept it secret and was roundly condemned for his “enemies list”.

When Democrats do it, they proclaim it proudly to the world and call it “congressional oversight”.

I call it what it is – a step towards tyranny and censorship.

I can already hear the question asked of witnesses at the hearings:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, the host of a conservative talk radio show, or a listener or caller to such a show?

Others outraged at Wizbang, 186 KPS, Freedom Eden, Mark Levin Fan, Radio Equalizer, UCV, Second Hand Conjecture, Riehl World View, Violence Worker, QandO

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, , DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Wake Up America, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 5 kb.

The romantic in me says yes.

The ethics law bars lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers or their aides. What happens, then, if a lobbyist wants to give a staffer a very special gift -- an engagement ring? Is that allowed?

No, it's not, Nirenberg says. But that's not the end of the story. A senator can grant a waiver of the gift ban, subject to review by the ethics committee. In the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can waive the rule, and does so routinely.

"So, if you want to give your girlfriend who works in the Senate an engagement ring, you are going to have to ask permission from not only her father, but also from her senator, and maybe from the ethics committee, too," Nirenberg says.

Given the cycle of staffers from Legislative branch to Executive branch to lobbying firms and back again, these relationships are inevitable. Banning them is neither practical nor desirable. Hopefully they can get a technical fix made to the legislation in the name of allowing human beings to be human beings.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't you love it when someone advocates for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize based upon the hopes that the awardee's opponents will stroke-out and die?

AL'S NOBEL PRIZE....Will Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize this Friday, as the London Times speculates? I certainly hope so.

This isn't because I think it will prompt him to run for president. It won't. It's not even because I think he's necessarily done the most for world peace in the past year. Rather, it's because this would be a huge prospective triumph. If Gore does win, I expect it to cause a massive collective seizure among the conservative crackpot brigade, and that would do more to advance the cause of world peace than anything else I can think of. So I'm rooting for you, Al.....

Of course, that comes from a liberal, so we certainly can't accuse him of being hateful, can we.

Too bad Kevin Drum is unwilling to come out in favor of someowne pushing for freedom in the face of a real threat to the world -- someone who has put her life on the line. You know, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose words on behalf of women's rights and against the oppressive practices of traditional Islam have painted a target on her back. Someone who has experienced the horrors of female genital mutilation and forced marriage only to fight back against the misogyny they represent.

But then again, what is her experience when compared to that of the guy who did the voice-over narration on a biased film and put his name on a ghost-written book of junk science?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, , DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Wake Up America, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 4 kb.

And working for Hillary Clinton. Could you imagine the outrage if someone with his record were working for a GOP candidate?

Republican lawmakers blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton Monday after learning that the campaign is taking advice from Sandy Berger, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them.

* * *

Berger was Clinton's national security adviser from 1997 until 2001. In 2003, while preparing for the 9/11 commission hearings, he took copies of secret documents from the National Archives and later destroyed them. He was caught a few days after absconding with papers from the archive's College Park, Md., facility, and lied to investigators.

The New York Democrat's campaign downplayed the fact, saying Monday that Berger is an informal, unpaid adviser to the campaign, something ascribed to many people associated with the campaign. Berger has been a longtime friend of both Clintons.

"He has no official role in the campaign," spokesman Blake Zeff said.

Will the Democrats be so forgiving if Tom DeLay becomes an unpaid adviser to a GOP candidate -- especially since he has not been found guilty of anything, and certainly not of obstructing an investigation into how the Clinton Administration left America unprepared for 9/11 when it slithered out of Washington.

I'd be outraged at the lapse of judgment on Senator Clinton's part, were it not for the fact that we already were aware how poor her judgment really is. After all, she married -- and remains married to -- Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Greg at 03:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Andrew Sullivan, commenting upon Geoffrey Wheatcroft, applies that Limbaughesque turn of phrase to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her qualifications for high office.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft compares the nepotistic path used by Hillary Rodham Clinton to achieve power with the meritocratic efforts of a Thatcher or a Meir or a Merkel, actual rather than phony feminists, who never tried to wield power by marrying it. He also points out the lack of experience that Clinton has in governing anything:

Seven years ago, she turned up in New York, a state with which she had a somewhat tenuous connection, expecting to be made senator by acclamation (particularly once Rudy Giuliani decided not to run against her). Until that point, she had never won or even sought any elective office, not in the House or in a state legislature. Nor had she held any executive-branch position. The only political task with which she had ever been entrusted was her husband's health-care reforms, and she made a complete hash of that.

She got that job through pure nepotism and cronyism. And her use of a man's power to fuel her own was a major setback for American feminism. But she continues, deploying her husband's presidency as a reason to vote for her.

Bravo, Andrew, for pointing out what many on the right wish to say but fear saying because of the possibility of being labeled misogynistic -- Hillary Clinton has no real qualifications for the presidency other than being a member of the non-exclusive club composed of women who have had sex with Bill Clinton. And while she does have the distinction of being the only one to be married to the former Gonad-in-Chief, that tells us of nothing other than her lack of judgment.

There are women on both sides of the political divide who ought to be given serious consideration for the presidency. These include Condi Rice, Kay Baily Hutchison, Nancy Pelosi, and both senators from California, to name a few who spring to my mind. Each has a record of accomplishment and has achieved office based upon her own merits. That cannot be said of the Democrat front-runner.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Pet Haven Blog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, third world county, Faultline USA, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 5 kb.

If a major Republican figure did something like this, it would be front page news. But let a corrupt Democrat do it, and the media remains pretty quiet.

Under federal investigation for embellishing his Army service in Vietnam, a groggy-sounding Mayor Robert Levy called in sick at City Hall, climbed into his city-issued Dodge Durango and seemingly dropped off the face of the Earth.

A spokesman issued a 36-word statement saying the mayor was going on indefinite medical leave. That was a week and a half ago. Aides say he is in a hospital, but they won't say where, why or for how long.

The mystery and the gathering scandal over Levy's military record have worried civic leaders in this seaside casino resort, which has a long history of corruption, with four of the last eight mayors busted on graft charges and one-third of last year's nine-member City Council in prison or under house arrest.

Given the charges and the admission from the mayor of the inaccurate information that Levy has been putting out about his military service, I wonder if the Democrats will permit us to call him a "phony soldier".

Interestingly enough, in this story the mayor's party affiliation is as MIA as the Mayor Levy himself. You know that wouldn't happen if he were a Republican, either.

But I do wonder one thing -- is there any chance of making Larry Craig do the same thing?

MORE AT STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

It all came to a peaceful end -- but these were clearly dangerous folks.

The fugitive couple had been waiting on their porch for nearly eight months for law enforcement officials to make their move. "The word is 'poised,' " Ed Brown said recently, handgun wedged in his jeans, AK-47 assault rifle behind the door, as he stared at a yard of cut grass and bags of explosives hanging from trees. His wife, Elaine, kept her pistol inside a pouch with her reading glasses.

Ed Brown, 65, a retired exterminator who was involved in the "patriot" militia in the 1990s, and Elaine, 67, a dentist, do not believe that the federal government has the authority to tax income. In January, after a decade of not paying tax on nearly $1.9 million in earnings, a judge found them guilty of tax evasion and, four months later, they were sentenced in absentia to 63 months in prison.

Refusing to "surrender," in February they barricaded themselves in their estate in this New Hampshire town of 2,200, warning that any attempts to arrest them would end in bloodshed. They said they could sustain themselves "indefinitely" with solar and wind electricity generators, after federal agents cut their power and phone lines.

But, in the end the authorities got them, not by a full frontal assault but by trickery.

Late Thursday, U.S. marshals posing as supporters entered the Browns' property and arrested them on their porch without incident. "They invited us in, and we escorted them out," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier told the Associated Press.

Just remember what the lunatic fringe think about these folks.

One more reason that Ron Paul is unfit for any office.

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Hmmm.. sorry I can't totally agree with you here.. I guess you'd also consider our Founder's the lunatic fringe too.. they also disobeyed "the law" and were considered "trouble makers" who were "treasonous". But honestly - Ron Paul is absolutely correct in what he says regarding the Constitutionality of these issues, and the fact is that there are people who are willing to stand up against the government to make the point. I don't see them as the lunatic fringe...these people just do not wish to be sheeple. Why couldn't the government just show them the law they requested? Why because there is none. Doesn't it bother you that the government had to resort to trickery to apprehend these people who were just exercising their rights to protest what they see as unconstitutional actions by the government? You ought to see the video http://youtube.com/watch?v=xuxc2rl38rg Please don't just write these folks off as whackos - please research the issue a bit. The 16th amendment states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Posted by: J Aron at Sat Oct 6 15:23:17 2007 (my1Q8)

2 Where is the law? Code is not Law/Statute and The Supreme Court defines "income" as corporate profit. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk The income tax is not an "apportioned tax" (therefore it is illegal under the constitution) and it represents only 30% of the federal tax income.

Posted by: J Aron at Sat Oct 6 15:40:32 2007 (my1Q8)

3 But I still really enjoy your blog and I do pay my taxes...

Posted by: J Aron at Sat Oct 6 15:49:10 2007 (my1Q8)

4 And the 16th Amendment states that such taxes do not need to be apportioned -- and since an amendment trumps the original language of the Constitution, it is explicitly constitutional. And the Internal Revenue Code IS law -- Title 26 of the United States Code. That makes it statutory law, my friend.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Oct 6 15:54:55 2007 (9KKVZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Paul Krugman definitively proves something in his column today – he is such an intellectual lightweight that he does not understand one of the basic tenets of conservatism.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they arenÂ’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They donÂ’t think itÂ’s a problem.

Actually, Paul, most of us do think it is a problem. Indeed, I’d argue that all of us agree that it is a problem. Where we depart company with you and your fellow socialists is on the solution to the problem. You think that government is the one-size-fits-all solution to this and every other “crisis” that you and your fellow left-wingers discover in the world. We recognize that the private sector, either through business or private charity, can solve these problems easier and more efficiently – and often has in the past.

As one example, consider the fact that most of the hospitals in most communities around the country have (or had) religious ties. They were, at their outset, hospitals designed to provide care to both paying customers and to charity cases who could not afford treatment. What happened? Government happened, and with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid these hospitals were relegated to government contractor status that undercut that charitable mission. After all, government imposed regulations imposed great limits on free and reduced-price care for private individuals – because that discount given to a poor family would become the benchmark from which all payments from government would be determined. As the 800-pound gorilla in the room, Big Government is able to demand – and legislatively enforce – the most favorable terms on its own behalf, and if that means that St. Miscellaneous Hospital is no longer able to engage in the sort of charity it used to, that is just too bad. And if the cost in red-tape and paperwork increases the cost of medical care for all of us, to the liberal that just proves how badly government needs to be involved in a field where it had no business in the first place.

Krugman, of course, isnÂ’t content to merely disagree with his opponents, or even to misrepresent their ideology. Instead, he ascribes moral and psychological deficits.

WhatÂ’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you donÂ’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoplesÂ’ woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if youÂ’re poor or youÂ’re sick or you donÂ’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

As, opposed, to the Left, which tends to attract megalomaniacs who believe they should control the lives and destinies of others, and weak, dependent personalities who are psychologically inclined to accept such domination. So if you are poor, or sick, or without insurance, remember this: these people think you are children to be coddled and slaves to be controlled.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Gone Hollywood, Stop the ACLU, The Yankee Sailor, Public Eye, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 7 kb.

Left-wing columnist EJ Dionne comes out in favor of the DOA proposal to impose a surtax to pay for the war in Iraq.

Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it?

That is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush's request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq.

Uh, Mr. Dionne, we already are paying for it. Unlike large parts of the Democrat constituency, we actually do pay taxes.

The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the "global war on terror." If the war's backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor.

See the point above -- we are already paying taxes to support the military and to fight the war in Iraq.

Obey makes the case pointedly. "Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs," he said in an interview this week. "If you're going to ask for that, it doesn't seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay 30 bucks for the cost of the war so we don't have to shove it off on our kids."

Or as Obey said in a statement, "I'm tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war."

Senator -- some people volunteered to be a member of the military. It isn't like they were shanghaied off the streets of America, only to wake up with a drug-induced hangover to find themselves in desert camos in the middle of a desert with a weapon in their hand. Using your argument, though, we should actually be adopting THAT as policy as well -- or a draft, which morally amounts to the same thing. You ready to advocate for the draft, Senator? Or better yet, mandatory military service for every adult, no exceptions permitted?

And i remind you, Senator, we taxpayers are already paying for the war. Maybe you could cover the cost of the war by undoing the Bush tax cut that took the percentage of Americans paying income taxes to under 50%. But you won't do that -- after all, those net consumers of government largesse are more likely to be Democrats, and you certainly wouldn't want to expect them to shoulder any of the citizenship obligation to pay for national defense.

And as one who grew up as a part of one of those military families, I find your statements of concern for military families today to be uninspiring. After all, I remember being told my father was a war criminal when I was a kid because he was off in Vietnam -- and your side of the debate on the war continues to make such claims today.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you can say the words "Republican majority." That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "I am opposed to a war surtax."

Obey doesn't hold this against his leadership. "They don't want to be demagogued by the White House when they have other fish to fry," he said.

Well that was a wise decision on their part. It would be really bad to argue that we need to impose an extra tax to pay for national security and defense -- a core function of the federal government under the US Constitution -- so we don't have to scrimp on entitlement programs and transfer payments that would cause the authors of that document to whirl dervishly in their mausoleums.

I mean it does seem rather freakish to argue that we need to pay an extra tax for the military so that we can continue farm subsidies that jack up food prices and create an entitlement program for middle class and wealthy children out of general revenues. Why not impose a surtax for those programs instead -- how many Americans would be prepare to pay extra for those programs?

But it's a shame that Democrats remain so defensive on the tax issue that they aren't willing to bring this proposal to the floor. What if the price for passing President Bush's supplemental appropriation were a tax to cover its costs? What if opponents of the war voted no because they are against Bush's policy and Republicans voted no because they think low taxes are more important than national security as they define it?

That's an aggressive way to frame any such antitax "no" votes, but it's also accurate. If a war appropriations bill with a tax included went down to overwhelming defeat, wouldn't that tell us something about the depth of commitment to this war?

Again, this could be argues with any social program. Why not a surtax for AFDC or WIC? Why not a surtax to pay for the subprime mortgage bailout program Democrats want? Why not one for Medicaid? Why not one for the Earned Income Credit that gives a refund to Americans of withholding taxes they never paid? And since you folks now oppose the Bush tax cuts, why not recover that money by repealing the elements of those cuts that took Americans off the tax rolls, on the grounds that national defense and national security mandate that more Americans begin paying taxes. Indeed, why not require every American earning above the poverty line begin paying taxes -- especially since they are the net consumers of the social services that you want to pay for with general revenue instead of defense and national security?

The Obey surtax, co-sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.), envisions a sliding scale running from roughly 2 percent on the taxes paid by lower-income Americans to 15 percent on upper-income Americans. Since wars are waged, in principle, on behalf of the entire country, this is the rare Democratic tax proposal that does not put the entire burden on the rich.

But yes it does, EJ -- it puts the burden on less than 50% of Americans. Why not advocate placing that burden of taxes upon every single American?

The plan does not ask for a tax to cover the $45 billion in Bush's supplemental request to pay for the war in Afghanistan. "There are legitimate expenditures on which we don't mind sharing the costs with future generations," Obey says, noting that there is a broad consensus that the fight in Afghanistan is in the long-term interest of the country. It might be less gimmicky to pay for both wars now, but some revenue is better than none.

Well let's pay for it now -- tax the untaxed now!

Ah, you say, but this is just symbolic politics. I don't think so, but let's assume it is. This idea is far more serious than the utterly empty fight Bush is about to pick with Congress over a $21 billion to $23 billion difference in spending in a federal budget that totals some $2.7 trillion.

But EJ -- are you and the Democrats saying that we have money for additional discretionary spending in all these other areas, but not for national security and national defense? And why are you trying to shift the burden for these unnecessary programs on to future generations? Why not a surcharge to pay for them? Could it be that this plan to treat the core federal function of national security and defense as the equivalent of supersizing a fast food value meal is simply a gimmick intended to abandon our troops in the field or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for political purposes?

Here is a president who signed one bloated spending bill after another -- as long as they were passed by a Republican Congress -- posing as a fiscal conservative now that Democrats are in the majority. He's so tough and determined that he's also drawn the line on . . . children's health care.

Bush has often let it be known that he hates "small ball" politics. But there is nothing smaller or more trivial than a budget fight over a difference that any responsible president could easily resolve in negotiations with Congress. War spending aside, Obey says it would take no more than a week to reach a reasonable compromise on the overall budget if the White House would just engage.

And if the president believes in this war so much and doesn't want to raise taxes, let him propose the deep spending cuts it would take to cover the costs. Then Bush would show how much of a priority he believes this war is -- and he wouldn't be playing small ball.

Hey, I'm all for big cuts in spending -- and I find it interesting that you and the Demcrats don't find a single dollar to trim anywhere, but instead propose a new surtax.

But then again, we know from experience what happens to such surtaxes. Americans were paying one imposed to cover the costs of the Spanish-American War, which occurred at the end of the 19th century, into the early years of the 1st century. This is really a stealth permanent increase in taxes, disguised as an anti-war measure. I'm sure that you already have your column written offering proposals on how to spend the money it raises once the Democrats have forced a withdrawal after the surtax has been collected.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Gone Hollywood, Stop the ACLU, The Yankee Sailor, Public Eye, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1721 words, total size 13 kb.

He said he would leave. His party wants him gone. But Larry Craig is insisting upon remaining in the US Senate.

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.

The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a resignation.

"He is ready to act should we receive a letter of resignation," said Jon Hanian, Otter's spokesman in Boise, in what seemed like a calculated signal that home-state Republicans want Craig to surrender the seat he has held for 17 years.

In his statement, Craig said he will not run for a new term next year.

But in the meantime, he said: "I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee — something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate."

Now I still contend that the charges in Craig's case were legally insufficient -- but that guilty plea made the issue irrelevant and led to the court taking the action it did. And given Craig's announcement of his plans to resign, he ought to go now -- if he really has the contrition he claimed.

And I will point out a stark difference here.

Democrats such as Patrick Kennedy can commit more serious offenses which endanger others and still be embraced by their party. Republicans set a higher bar.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

At one time, the New York Times was known as the paper of record for any significant event. Its coverage of the current brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh makes it clear just how far its standards have descended.

Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.

With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.

A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.

Right there is the problem. Nowhere in this article is there any indication that the reporter, Carl Hulse, has even gone back and examined the unedited transcripts and audio of the show in question. Indeed, he takes at face value the partisan claims of Media Matters and the Democrats that Limbaugh did, in fact, call any anti-war veteran a “phony soldier”. The only problem, of course, is that Rush Limbaugh did not say that, and one would assume that journalistic ethics, not to mention common decency would require that this be noted somewhere in the article. It isn’t – and indeed, the article dismisses Limbaugh’s defense of himself.

There is even an interesting spin by Media Matters included in the article, one that is contradicted by the transcript itself.

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s remarks be repudiated.

That is true – almost. In that transcript, it is clearly about two minutes before Limbaugh explains the reference to “phony soldiers”. And while he does only talk about one, Jesse Macbeth, though his case is one of a number in which fake vets have lied about serving, or actual vets have been documented to have lied about events. I'd argue that both groups qualify as phonies, wouldn't you?

But look at what Limbaugh said.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

So it is clear that Rush is referring back to a previous show on another day to make a reference. Given that much of LimbaughÂ’s audience listens daily, it is likely that they knew what he was referring to. In addition, the Jesse Macbeth story had been in the news only days before, and a reasonably well-informed audience like LimbaughÂ’s would have been aware of it. But even setting all that aside, the article is so slanted that it is not even funny.

But while we are on the topic of LimbaughÂ’s comments and the controversy surrounding them, let me note a few things.

1) I find it very interesting that Harry Reid and company will not come off the Senate floor to make these comments. Could it be that they know their statements are false – and so recklessly false as to enable Limbaugh to meet the standard for succeeding in a suit for defamation? Are they, in fact, hiding behind the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I to engage in speech that would be legally actionable if engaged in outside the Senate Chamber?

2) Why wouldn’t many of these same individuals condemn the infamous MoveOn.Org “Betray Us” ad, which accused General Petraeus of treason?

3) Is it only conservative broadcasters that these Senators are prepared to condemn? Will these same individuals condemn these comments from their fellow Democrat politicians (including signers of the Reid letter about Limbaugh)?

While Limbaugh exposed the left's exploitation of a phony, the likes of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., are free to slander the Marines who defended themselves against a jihadist ambush in the Iraqi town of Haditha, claiming they had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Sounds like the phony charges Macbeth made, doesn't it?

No one has been found guilty in the Haditha incident, and there has been no proof of innocent civilians being murdered. Several of the Marines have been found innocent as the case has unraveled. But is Murtha condemned by his colleagues or asked to apologize?

Sen. John Kerry once told Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women . . . ." This was a more modest reprise of his post-Vietnam charges that U.S. troops had raped, tortured and pillaged in the tradition of Genghis Khan.

Then there's the famous utterance by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., after the incident at Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison: "We now learn that Saddam's torture chamber (has) reopened under new management."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once said of our prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo that "describing what Americans had done to prisoners under our control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by the Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings."

I guess, of course, that attacks on our soldiers, their patriotism, and their decency are just fine – as long as they come from liberals and are aimed at ensuring our defeat in Iraq and the swift implementation of a cut-and-run strategy. So while it is impossible to call our servicemen and women in Iraq "phony soldiers", it is clear that the signers of this letter (along with Media Matters and NY Times reporter Carl Hulse) are phony patriots.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1464 words, total size 11 kb.

Well, at least she won't shove it down our throats...

H/T Gary McCoy, via Townhall.com

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 2 kb.

One can argue whether or not there should be a moratorium on carrying out death sentences by lethal injection pending a Supreme Court decision. However, there is unquestionably only one way for this to happen under the laws and constitution of the State of Texas.

This is it.

Signaling an indefinite halt to executions in Texas, the stateÂ’s highest criminal appeals court late Tuesday stayed the lethal injection of a 28-year-old Honduran man who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday.

The reprieve by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was granted a week after the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a form of lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment barred under the Eighth Amendment. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt a planned execution in Texas at the last minute, and though many legal experts interpreted that as a signal for all states to wait for a final ruling on lethal injection before any further executions, Texas officials said they planned to move ahead with more.

As a result, TuesdayÂ’s ruling by the Texas court was seen as a sign that judges in the nationÂ’s leading death penalty state were taking guidance from the Supreme Court and putting off imminent executions.

The Texas court order gave state authorities up to 30 days to explain in legal papers why the execution of the inmate, Heliberto Chi, should proceed. With responses then certain from defense lawyers, the effect of the order was to put off the execution for months, lawyers said.

Some want the governor to implement such a moratorium. Under state law and the state constitution, he cannot do so. His powers to delay or prevent an execution are incredibly limited (as I have been pointing out since George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, the Texas governor has weakest pardon and reprieve power in the 50 states). That puts the ball into the hands of the courts.

But I also urge Rick Perry to take another action that is within his power, one that would settle the question of lethal injection here in Texas.

Rick Perry is correct in not acting in this case. If a moratorium is truly necessary, he ought to call the legislature back into session to consider one -- and perhaps also legislation restoring either hanging or the firing squad as the form of execution in Texas, rendering moot the need for a moratorium at all.

After all, those two methods are unquestionably acceptable under the Eighth Amendment -- for they were in use when the Amendment was adopted, and clearly contemplated as acceptable by the Founders.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 5 kb.

Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has clearly decided it is "Do unto others -- in spades -- after they have done unto you."

Fred Thompson has a folksy, good old boy persona on the stump, but it may not last much longer.

When I asked him if he is an 11th Commandment man — Never speak ill of a fellow Republican — he responded, “I am more of a 12th Commandment man: Don’t speak ill of them until they speak ill of me. And then really speak ill of them.”

Now that seems reasonable, on its face. however, I hope that is tempered with the realization that too harsh an attack on his GOP rivals could damage the eventual nominee fatally, exposing weaknesses that will resonate with the electorate and give an opening to the eventual Democrat nominee.

After all, there was this Democrat named Al Gore in 1988 -- he raised challenged Michael Dukakis on a furlough program for state inmates and a prisoner named Willie Horton.

And the rest is history.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Politico calls it a "battle of soundbites", but i call it using history to prove one's point.

You know -- actually appealing to facts.

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle , who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camelÂ’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didnÂ’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a plan for state insurance for low-income children without insurance -- though I dislike the federal involvement. But given the continuous efforts to expand it, with an obvious goal of making the government the insurer of all children, I see the dangers of such programs expanding well-beyond their stated goal. After all -- since when has $83,000 been "low-income"?

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

It is really too bad that John shut down the Bay Area Houston website last week -- I'd love to get his take on this story.

A meeting behind a church with $10,000 cash changing hands, five-figure gifts for a city councilman's "birthday party" and a mistress funneling bribes through a sham consulting company were among details spelled out Monday in a federal indictment alleging corruption at Dallas City Hall.

The 166-page indictment accuses state Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill of extortion and bribery in soliciting and taking payments from affordable housing developers.

Former City Councilman James Fantroy was indicted separately on a charge that he embezzled more than $5,000 from traditionally black Paul Quinn College, where he was a director and treasurer of a program that received federal money.

In all, 16 people were indicted following an FBI-led public corruption probe that burst into view more than two years ago when agents raided city offices.

Hodge, Hill and others are accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars from real estate developer Brian Potashnik in exchange for helping his company obtain federal tax credits for low-income housing projects in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

The fact that the party affiliation of all but one of these individuals is left off this story is troublesome, but no matter -- I'm shocked that Rep. Hodge was identified by party. Democrats rarely get so labeled --pr at least not early enough in the story for people to pay attention to it.

But here is my question -- when will the "good government" folks of the Left, the ones who want to highlight every hint of scandal around a Republican and demand that they be disciplined, expelled, or forced to resign, insist that Rep. Terri Hodge must leave the Texas House immediately?

Or are they going to do a William Jefferson, and insist that we wait for the charges to be resolved in a court of law before anyone says she is guilty and must surrender her seat?

In other words, will Texas Democrats practice a little affirmative action and treat her differently than Tom DeLay because she is a black, female Democrat?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Urban Grounds, Riehl World View, Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 5 kb.

After all -- this simply proves that the American people are ignorant of the financial realities of their preferred option in Iraq, and probably don't really know what they want or what is needed in Iraq in the first place.

There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

OK, so that means that the people want a sharp reduction in the number of troops in Iraq and a quick retreat from the field without victory -- right?

At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.

So what the American people think the President's plans are about right or even too quick to bring troops home.

But then there is this.

Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq policies, while a third think the Democrats have gone too far.

Which I suppose could be interpreted as support for the pell-mell retreat that the Left has been advocating for the last year, with a great skeedaddle from Iraq with America's tail tucked between her legs.

So how do we reconcile these three results? My answer -- we have to recognize that the American people don't understand what it costs to keep the war going in a manner that accords with their wish, which seem to be victory. After all, it is pretty clear that the President's plan is about right int he eyes of most Americans -- but that they don't like the price tag for it. Unfortunately, this indicates that the American people really don't know what it costs to keep an operation like this one going -- and trying to do it on the cheap would be disastrous. That first set of numbers is therefore irrelevant if one is to accept the second set of numbers as valid.

And what of the third set of numbers? I'd argue that it shows that the American people want the Congress to keep up the pressure on the Administration to remember that this cannot be an open-ended commitment, and that we ultimately do need to draw down our forces in Iraq.

But then again, that is already the position of the Bush administration -- though you generally would not know it from the media coverage that has been given.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

Back during my seminary days, I had an old priest comment to me that we can never allow the best to become the enemy of the better. What he meant was that one should never reject a less than ideal option because it falls short of the ideal, especially when the remaining option is a bad one.

I wish someone would communicate this principle to these folks.

Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.

The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”

The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.

So let's see if I've got this straight -- the socially moderate Rudy Giuliani is so unacceptable to these "Christian" "conservative" "leaders" that they are prepared to usher in an administration headed by Hillary Clinton, whose positions are more liberal than Giuliani's are.

They would prefer judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to originalist judges.

They would prefer someone more likely to support gay marriage.

They would prefer an enthusiastic supporter of abortion.

In other words, they would rather support a perfect candidate than the best possible candidate that can win.

That position is not leadership -- it is petulant.

That position is not conservative -- it is reckless.

And I assure you that it is neither Christian nor patriotic, for it not only fails to advance the sort of policies that are in conformity with Christian belief and the best interests of the United States, but it will inevitably result in a worse situation than holding one's nose and supporting a flawed candidate like Giuliani.

And I say that as a Christian and a conservative who does not believe that Rudy Giuliani is the best that the GOP has to offer America -- but who does believe that he is better than anything the Democrats have to offer. And as a result, I will not let the best be the enemy of the better, and will support Rudy Giuliani if he is the GOP nominee a year from now.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

Will an unpopular Democrat at the head of the national ticket harm the party in many states? And could this help offset the difficulties facing the GOP elsewhere?

The New York senator and Democratic front-runner was by a wide margin the most unpopular of 13 potential presidential candidates in Montana, according to a June survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Billings Gazette; 61% said they would not consider voting for her, compared with 49% who would not vote for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and 45% who would not vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The most unpopular Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was rejected by 51%.

Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have found similar distaste for Clinton.

Got that -- the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority in several states. Even her two closest competitors (if she can be said to have any) are rejected by nearly half of voters.

And while there is a single Republican rejected by a majority of voters, he is still so unfamiliar to most Americans that further exposure can only help him, while Hillary Clinton is so well-known that it is unlikely that she can overcome these negatives.

Now Hillary Clinton may be our next president -- if one can project that outcome from over a year away from th election -- but that could be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. After all, if she has negative coattails for th lower part of the ticket, Democrats may fail to consolidate their hold on the Senate and House. Indeed, she could single-handedly destroy the advances made by the Democrats in some red states.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, he does have a point.

We canÂ’t afford to keep being this stupid!

He's right on that point -- and dead wrong on everything else.

We need to fight the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror much more intensively, not disengage. We need to quit pretending that jihadis are criminals who deserve a lawyer due process, and treat them like POWs who are imprisoned until the end of the conflict -- which may not come in my lifetime.

Friedman clearly wants to ignore the realities of the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror while raising taxes so that we can become another socialist "paradise" like the EU or Red China. I think I'll pass on that agenda.

But he's right -- we cannot continue to keep being this stupid. America must quit listening to nanny-state liberals and instead get serious about fighting terrorism, securing the border, and putting the socialist vision of the Left in the ash-heap of history where it belongs. In other words, we must do the exact opposite of what Thomas Friedman suggests.

MORE AT Stop the ACLU, JammieWearingFool, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden, Wizbang, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Ed Driscoll, NewsBusters, Freedom Eden, Riehl World View, Strata-Sphere, Wake Up America, Sister Toldjah, Chuch Adkins, Oxford Medievalist

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 3 kb.

The incredible Mark Steyn points out why the Left's tendency to engage in only easy, safe protests against easy, safe targets (the US, Israel) where human rights are respected is unworkable when they are confronted with true evil that doesn't give a damn about their eloquent (or not so eloquent) protests .

The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom. Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one.

In the end, unsavory dictators like Mahmoud the Mad don't care about the insults of Lee Bollinger or the cries of has-been hippies in the streets. They know that the latte-sipping class won't actually get their hands dirty to stop the evils they protest -- and that such folks quickly become the unwitting allies of evil when they turn upon their own countries for daring to act on behalf of freedom and human rights.

After all, why fight the real oppressors of the world when you can do this instead, risk-free?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm pleased to hear that Newt Gingrich has ended any flirtation with a presidential bid this year.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided Saturday morning not to run for president just as his staff was preparing to launch a website to seek $30 million in pledges, his spokesman told Politico.

Gingrich had planned to seek pledges as part of a three-week exploration without making any formal declaration of candidacy for the Republican nomination — an approach that several Republican leaders said was legally questionable.

The decision will bolster the contention of several key Republicans that Gingrich's repeated flirtation with a presidential run was a publicity stunt designed to keep him in the news and sell his books.

I won't go so far as to say Gingrich was looking to sell books -- instead, I'll argue that it has all been about stroking the former Speaker's ego. But regardless of the reason for his proposed candidacy, I stand by what I said earlier today -- Let's say it loud and clear -- Newt has all of Rudy's liabilities and none of his personal popularity with the American people. Indeed, his abrasiveness even turns off a lot of Republicans. So while he is clearly one of the leading minds of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich is clearly not someone who should be in the race for the nomination this year.

More at Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Captain's Quarters, RTFLC, American Mind, Wizbang

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

And hopefully he will lose the defamation case against him.

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

I've got a real problem with the argument Henault made on Murtha's behalf. There is a provision of the constitution providing some limited immunity to members of Congress, but I think it is important to note what it says.

Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives. . . shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Murtha's comments were not made in the course of speech or debate -- they were made in a press conference, off the House floor and therefore so not meet the standard for such immunity under any legitimate reading of the text. If the argument advanced upon Murtha's behalf were to be accepted, any statement on any political issue made anywhere in the US (or the world) would be magically converted into "speech or debate in either House" -- thereby turning this limited immunity into a license to go forth and commit defamation against any private citizen or political opponent under the rubric of "debate" on a political issue. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue -- in Hutchison v. Proxmire, it ruled that the Speech of Debate Clause is limited in its scope.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.