I mean, on the heels of the Hsu problem, now there is another dirty donor to the Clinton campaign.

Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director.

Across the ocean, three Indian banks forced him into U.S. bankruptcy, and he was charged with bank fraud. He was out on bond when he showed up in India in 2001 during a visit by his longtime friend Bill Clinton.

Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.

But none of this caused any concern to the Clinton campaign. I guess they just have low standards -- or maybe, like Hsu, Chatwal was really trying to buy a Marc Rich-style pardon and the Clintons knew it.

Of course, John Edwards has had problems, too.

Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) faced such questions last week when federal prosecutors in Michigan indicted Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer famous for defending assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, accusing him of channeling $127,000 in illegal contributions into Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign. Edwards's aides said, and prosecutors confirmed, that the activity was concealed from Edwards and that the candidate cooperated once he learned of problems.

As has Obama.

Similarly, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) gave to charity more than $30,000 in donations from Illinois fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his associates after Rezko was indicted in a federal corruption case. "We do our best to go through the hundreds of thousands of people who give to make sure there aren't problems," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. "I wouldn't say it's a perfect process, but we are as vigilant as possible."

But the bulk of the dirty money seems to be headed to Hillary. Could this be a case of (jail)birds of a feather flocking together?

More At Captain's Quarters.

Posted by: Greg at 05:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

A number of Dem congresscritters seem to think so.

Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her ''electability.''

The prospect of another Clinton in the White House will fire up the GOP base. After all, we still hold Billzebubba in contempt, and the nation is still paying for his foreign policy failures. The Clinton team clearly does not deserve a second chance.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

According to this analysis, it most certainly does.

Does denying Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention violate Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act? This Section essentially requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review - before it becomes operational - any change in any law, regulation, standard or procedure that might adversely affect minority voting rights in a covered jurisdiction like the Sunshine State. This "pre-clearance" process makes those advocating the change prove their proposed action will not have the effect of leaving minority voters worse off in terms of voting strength. Until recently, Florida's minority voters had the power to help choose the next Democratic presidential nominee. Historically, these citizens are overwhelmingly Democrat and have used the party's quadrennial presidential primary to express their view on which individual should be the occupant of the Oval Office. But recently, the Florida State Legislature pushed-up the date of the Democratic presidential primary. In turn, the rules and by-laws committee of the Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip the Sunshine state of it's 2008 convention delegates for violating the agreed-to national primary schedule. Assuming this decision is backed by the full DNC membership, it will be an unprecedented dilution of minority voting in the Democrats presidential primary system, in terms of Florida or any state, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act 42 years ago.

As they say in the law, this is Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." Assuming neither Florida or the DNC backs down, the state's minority citizens will be subjected to the ultimate voter dilution. But what change is to blame, in terms of the Voting Rights Act? Taking away the Sunshine state's convention delegates punishes the wrong people: the voters, including millions of minority citizens protected by the most storied civil rights law passed by the Congress in American history.

According to this analysis, the Justice Department could order either the state or the DNC to give way on this one. And in one persuasive part of the essay, the author notes that since the decision to move the primary disenfranchised nobody (and was rationally related to increasing voter turnout by connecting it to another election) while the decision to strip Florida delegated explicitly disenfranchises voters, the easiest action would be to require the DNC to overturn its decision.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

For those of you who think that government-paid and managed healthcare would be great, consider the power that bureaucrats would have under John Edwards' plan.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal healthcare proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

''It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,'' he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. ``If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.''

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat ''the first trace of problem.'' Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory healthcare plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

''The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,'' he said.

Got that. The government will decide when you MUST see the doctor.

So yes, ladies, you get that Pap smear and mammogram -- in fact, you MUST get that Pap smear and mammogram. And I'll be REQUIRED to see the podiatrist to check out my feet since I'm diabetic. No longer will Americans be responsible for their medical decisions -- some bureaucrat will tell you what doctors visits you need to make, and presumably when and where you have to go.

No telling what the penalty will be for not keeping to the governmentally-dictated medical regime.

I don't know about you, but it appears that the only decision that the government won't be intruding upon is the liberal sacrament of abortion -- after all, they tell us that's a medical decision to be made between patient and doctor.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters, Don Surber and Liberty Papers, Betsy's Page, RWN, Poliblog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 4 kb.

Will this decision put those two states in the GOP column in November of 2008?

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday. By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

The best thing for the GOP to do at this point is to step aside and announce that it will not penalize the early states at the convention. It would then be very important for the GOP candidates to actively campaign in Michigan and Florida, indicating that they actually value the voice of the people of those states. That is part of a strategy for electoral victory in 2008 -- because after all, would you vote for any presidential candidate so beholden to special interests that he or she would refuse to even ask for your vote?

And while I agree with the NY Times that something needs to be done to rationalize the process, disenfranchising and ignoring voters is not the way to do so.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, I think it is way too soon for a book like this to be published. Such reflections are more appropriate after a president's term ends, now with 16 months left in his presidency.

But there is a quote that some folks are making great fun of in the BDS-afflicted left-o-sphere that I think illustrates something quite interesting about the nature of the modern presidency.

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Now the leftards have been having fun with that three-word "fantastic Freedom Institute" excerpt (wouldn't you like to see the whole quote -- I bet it is significantly more substantive), what strikes me is the latter part of that paragraph.

I think the quote illustrates something very important -- the presidency, for all its power and perks, is a gilded prison. It strips the ability to be normal from the occupant of the Oval Office.

How many of you can decide that you want to make an impromptu road-trip on the weekend because you are bored or stressed? Probably all of you. What you see in Bush's statement is his yearning to be able to do exactly that.

I live here in Houston. I'm a teacher, not anyone of great social importance. And yet I see George & Barbara Bush at community events on a regular basis. They have a freedom to come and go as they choose that they lacked for the dozen years of his Vice Presidency and especially his Presidency. I believe their son is looking forward to that.

Some will argue that Bush's weakness is being exposed here. I'd argue that we are getting a glimpse of his humanity in a way that we have never seen the humanity of a president before.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

I can only assume that the Democrats will start a little housecleaning of their own.

Bruce at GayPatriot offers some suggestions.

These are in the order of importance based on the damage they have done to the Congress and our nation as a whole.

1 - Jay Rockefeller. For illegally leaking classified intelligence material to the news media due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Such acts constitute treason in a time of war.

2 - Nancy Pelosi. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For conducting illegal foreign policy with a sworn enemy of the United States (Syria).

3 - Harry Reid. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition.

4 - John Murtha. For slandering the United States Marines in a time of war for accusing them of murder and rape in the Haditha incident where no charges were filed at the time, and where now most all charges have been dropped, and by all military investigatory accounts — no crimes were committed.

5 - Ted Kennedy. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For violating Senate ethics rules by serving in the US Senate for 30 years following his drunk driving murder of a young woman.

6 - Dick Durbin. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For slandering the US military in a time of war by equating them with Nazi storm troopers.

7 - William Jefferson. For blatant corruption in office and abuse of power during the Katrina disaster.

Might I add Patrick Kennedy for his DUI incident, Patrick Leahy for leaking classified documents and getting a US operative killed, and Dianne Feinstein for steering contracts to her hubby's firms.

Feel free to add more.

UPDATE: Some additional observations from Gateway Pundit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

According to reports, Senator Larry Craig will resign from the Senate today.

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, plans to resign his seat on Saturday after Republican leaders put intense pressure on him to leave in the aftermath of an undercover sex sting, Republican Party officials said Friday.

Through intermediaries and unusually harsh public statements and actions, party officials made it clear they wanted Mr. Craig to quit before Congress returned from its summer recess next week, hoping to quickly conclude an embarrassing episode that threatened to complicate an already difficult election cycle for Senate Republicans.

Republican Party officials said Friday evening that they had been notified of Mr. CraigÂ’s intention to give up his seat as of Sept. 30 and that Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, would name a replacement.

Let me say for the record -- Craig's resignation is probably a good thing, and I think it should be immediate, not effective in a month. That said, I think it is necessary only because of Craig's poor choices in handling his arrest in an airport restroom.

Craig should not have entered a guilty plea to any charge -- at most, he should have entered a nolo contendere or Alford plea. In addition, as Captain Ed points out, there is a serious question as to whether any conduct Craig engaged in constitutes criminal activity and whether the plea was coerced with political threats. Indeed, does the mere act of seeking gay sex constitute criminal activity in the post Lawrence v. Texas world, where consensual sodomy has been held to be a constitutional right? This is especially true if, as in this case, there was no exchange of money, no indecent exposure, and no actual sexual contact in a public place. Are shoe-bumping and hand gestures actually barred under disorderly conduct statutes?

This is not to say that I approve of Larry Craig's actions in that lavatory, if he was, in fact, seeking sex. I just wonder where the crime is -- and how homosexual activist groups can stand by and not argue that arrests such as this one are legally wrong. Is the greater hypocrisy being a homosexual or bisexual opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate-crime laws, or in objecting to the criminalization of homosexual activity but remaining silent while a political opponent faces criminal charges that in other circumstances you would argue are legally and constitutionally dubious? I'd argue it is the latter.

And let me add that while I oppose homosexual marriage and certainly reject the notion that the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the US Constitution or the constitutions of any state that requires homosexual marriage, that does not indicate an antipathy toward gay individuals -- I simply believe that the authors of any of those documents had any intention of legalizing that which they all condemned. And while I reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas as flawed, I personally stand with the view expressed by Justice Thomas that laws like the statute struck down in that case should not be on the books because of the nonsensical restriction on individual liberty they impose -- but they do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. And while I oppose including homosexuals under hate-crime laws, it is because I oppose the very notion of hate-crime laws and believe that such statutes undermine the notion of equal protection of the law and potentially impact First Amendment rights if used to restrict so-called "hate speech". But as I have said in the past, I am fully supportive of removing any restriction on military service based upon sexual orientation, and I have see no reason to legally restrict individuals from any profession based upon their sexual orientation.

And as for the issue of homosexuals holding public office, I have no objection to it. I have supported candidates I have known to be gay in the past, and will do so in the future. All other things being equal, I'd be supportive of keeping Larry Craig in office as an open homosexual. But the pattern of conduct -- especially in the face of the investigation into his activities by the largest newspaper in his home state -- shows a profound lack of discretion and judgment. That, my friends, is why Larry Craig has been so damaged by this incident, and why he needs to leave the Senate.

Early speculation has already begun about Craig's eventual replacement in the Senate.

A slightly different perspective at The Van Der Galiën Gazette.

UPDATE: Craig has announced his resignation, effective September 30.

Early word is that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will appoint former governor and current Lt. Gov. Jim Risch as Craig's successor

If Jim Risch becomes the U.S. Senate's newest member, expect him to hit the ground running.

"I don't see him sitting around and saying, ‘I better learn the ropes here and take it easy and see how things are going,'" said Albertson College of Idaho political science professor Jasper LiCalzi.

"It will be interesting to watch him in a different legislative body," Boise State University professor emeritus Jim Weatherby said. "He's been so effective in the state Legislature, but he goes in as senator No. 100, as an appointed senator.

"But knowing Jim Risch, he is going to make the most of it."

Sources told reporters Friday that Gov. Butch Otter had chosen Risch, a fellow Republican, to succeed Sen. Larry Craig, who is expected to resign this morning. An Otter spokesman said that wasn't true, but Risch makes a lot of sense to Statehouse watchers like LiCalzi and Weatherby.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Amy Proctor

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 10 kb.

A man who never should have been US Senator has now announced he is leaving the US Senate after three decades in office.

John William Warner, who was best known for marrying actress Elizabeth Taylor when he entered the Senate 28 years ago but who grew into an elder statesman and Republican maverick highly regarded for his expertise in defense matters, announced his retirement Friday.

Warner, 80, chose the north steps of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, where he studied law a half-century ago, to reveal his widely anticipated decision not to seek a sixth term next year.

"So I say that my work and service to Virginia as a senator . . . will conclude upon the 6th of January, 2009, when I finish . . . my career of . . . 30 years in the United States Senate," Warner said. The former Navy secretary and past chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wrestled with the question, coming to closure only "in the last day or two." He postponed a decision, he said, until completing a trip to Iraq last week. Warner has been a leading GOP critic of the Bush White House's war policy.

The rigors of Senate service as he enters his 80s and the importance of letting the next generation of Senate leaders step up drove his choice, he said.

"I'm going to quietly step aside," he said as his third wife, Jeanne, stood at his side.

Warner's departure triggers a round of political jockeying that will change the political landscape nationally and in Virginia.

Some view this departure as a negative for Republicans. I do not. And not just because of Warner's mushy moderation in recent years. At age 80 and finishing his fifth term in the office, Warner needs to step aside so that a new generation of Republican leaders can step to the lead.

For my own part, I have mixed emotions about John Warner.

I met his several times, the first when I was twelve and he visited Guam during the Bicentennial celebrations, which he headed up under President Ford. Later, as a student at Warner's alma mater, I met Senator Warner at a number of GOP events while I was active in the College Republicans. And in the years since, I've encountered him a time or two. My mpression is one of a decent man who has been a competent public official -- but whose views I don't always agree with.

And I remember, too, that he was not the man who should have become US Senator from Virginia in 1978. Only the unspeakable tragedy of August 2, 1978 allowed Warner to become the GOP candidate for US Senate in 1978, when Dick Obenshain the man who can rightly be called the father of the modern Virginia Republican Party was killed in a plane crash. I knew Obenshain's son, Mark Obenshain, several years later through the state College Republicans, and have always wondered how the presence of his more consistently conservative father in the Senate would have changed the face of America.

And yet that historical reminiscence and speculation is today less important than determining how we as a party can hold on to the Senate seat Warner is vacating next fall.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, maybe that isn't exactly what she said -- but it is the only way this woman can plausibly claim she does not understand the conservative and Republican disdain and contempt for Hillary Clinton.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says "hatred" of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election.

"I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified," Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. "I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

Well, let's see.

HillaryCare.

Cattle futures.

Whitewater.

Gennifer Flowers.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Rose Law Firm.

FBI files.

Craig Livingston.

"I don't recall."

And I think that only takes us through 1995. Does any of that ring a bell, Liz?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 4 kb.

Is there no seditious extreme to which the Democrats will not go in an attempt to undermine the war effort for political gain?

Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP. He cited bringing up legislation after Labor Day that would require troops to have more home leave, forcing military leaders to reduce troop levels, a measure that has drawn some Republican support.

The Surge is working. Progress is being made. And yet we again see the Democrats seeking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in order to gain political advantage in 2008.

And let me be clear -- I know of no Republican who does not want the war to come to an end and all the troops brought home. However, speaking as the son of a Vietnam vet, I know that we want to see it done in a way that honors the troops -- and the only way to do that is to pursue a strategy of victory an success, not retreat and surrender.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

The waiting game is almost over. Fred Thompson will declare his candidacy for the presidency next week.

Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site, followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time; the global threat of terrorism; taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a statement Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.

Thompson, 65, is vying to be seen as the most consistent mainstream conservative in the race.

Aides disclosed details about how he will formally enter the race in a conference call with supporters.

Evening house parties will be held nationwide on Sept. 6. A tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will quickly follow the Internet announcement on http://www.imwithfred.com, with later stops in Florida, and a homecoming event in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., on Sept. 15.

Next Wednesday, Thompson will appear on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" but he won't participate with his Republican rivals in a debate that same night in New Hampshire.

Thompson brings to the eight-man GOP field a right-leaning Senate voting record with a few digressions from GOP orthodoxy and a healthy dose of Hollywood star power. He is hoping to attract conservatives who are lukewarm about the current crop of candidates.

I personally think it is about time that he make the move -- but that he should make the announcement on September 4 and participate in the big GOP debate on September 5. I don't think he is intentionally dodging that event, but it would have made for a great opportunity to place himself next to the otehr candidates at the start of his formal campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Or at least of the Second Amendment – they will continue to engage in absolutist idolatry of the First Amendment, even if it undermines the war effort.

As the Army's suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there's small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government's record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans' medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front.

If Congress can somehow guarantee confidentiality, I'd support this bill. But unfortunately, Coburn is correct in fearing that these records could somehow be abused . After all, I remember some 900 FBI files turned over to political appointees in the Clinton White House, the disclosure of top secret national security programs by the NY Times – and today's lead story at the Washington Post is all about a leaked copy of a classified report. Imagine the concern that this confidential information will get out and be used to deny veterans the right to own a gun!

I'll tell you what – I'll give up my absolutism on the Second Amendment when the New York Times gives up its absolutism about the First Amendment. Until then, I'll stick by the views of the Founding Fathers.

Oh, and I can't help but be struck by the ignorance of our founding documents exhibited in the editorial as well.

But that's to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Guys – that isn't a constitutional right. It is a statement of principles in the Declaration of Independence. My tenth graders even know that.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, DeMediacratic Nation, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 4 kb.

This really doesn't even rise to the level of a human interest story.

Karl Rove, your car is ready.

White House pranksters wrapped Rove's Jaguar in plastic wrap on the private driveway next to the West Wing. Rove's car is easily recognizable because of its "I love Barack Obama" bumper sticker and the twin stuffed-animal eagles on the trunk. Oh, and there's a stuffed-animal elephant on the hood.

Rove, the top White House political strategist who recently announced his resignation, left his car on the driveway while visiting Texas and traveling with President Bush.

He got back to the White House early Wednesday evening, ventured out to the driveway and — wearing a big smile — began unwrapping the car. Rove got some help from a few eager children who had come by the White House to watch President Bush arrive on the South Lawn in the Marine One helicopter.

Rove seemed to assign blame for the prank on Al Hubbard, the chairman of Bush's National Economic Council. He playfully pointed the finger at Hubbard while the kids ripped off the plastic wrap.

So what? What does this story tell us, other than that Rove has friends and coworkers who play practical jokes -- and not even particularly original ones?

Posted by: Greg at 09:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems to me that liberals just can't follow the rules that they insist be applied to the rest of us.

The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle's biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.

America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.

The group's big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union.

The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission's 33-year history.

I don't know about you, but illegal campaign practices seem a lot more important than Larry Craig's non-BJ. Which will the press cover extensively?

Seems to me that the bumper sticker slogan that the Democrats need is "Got Corruption?"

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep – that is the latest John Edwards mantra.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."

Doesn't Edwards often travel in an SUV? Doesn't he often fly on private jets? Isn't he the owner of a palatial mansion that uses a superabundance of energy? In other words, isn't John Edwards a carbon sasquatch?

I've never owned an SUV, and won't unless my wife needs one to get around in a wheelchair. But let me say this – I resent being called on to sacrifice by an individual who annually consumes more energy than I do in the course of 5 years.

MORE AT Captain Ed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that felons really are a Democrat constituency.

For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

Hsu has donated or raised over $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential run -- and over $1,000,000 for Democrats since 2004.

And Hillary's response to this?

"Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday.

"During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."

Could you imagine the outrage if this were a Republican candidate refusing to return funds raised by a fugitive felon? And given the unusual patterns of some of those donations, it is clear that there is a serious question about Hsu's integrity and his commitment to playing by the rules.

I wonder if the Clinton PardonMart is already open for business.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

The Firefighters Union has endorsed. . . Chris Dodd.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) picked up the first significant prize in the competition for labor union endorsements yesterday, winning the support of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) in what his advisers believe will be an important boost to his presidential primary campaign.

The firefighters count 281,000 members, meaning they are only the 10th-largest union in the AFL-CIO. But they are among the most politically active and symbolically prized labor groups in the country, in part because of the heroic actions of firefighters at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

Just let that one sink in. Chris Dodd.

That certainly makes me take them seriously when the union thugs in charge of this organization attack Rudy Giuliani. After all, if you want evidence of bad judgment, this endorsement is it.

Chris Dodd? Good God!

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

I condemned it when the Democrats did it. Now I fear that my own party may follow them in the same sort of mistake -- even if not nearly as extreme.

The Republican National Committee plans to penalize at least four states holding early primaries, including New Hampshire and Florida, by refusing to seat at least half their delegates at the partyÂ’s national convention in 2008, a party official said Tuesday.

Much of the focus in the primary scheduling fight up to now has been on the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s moves to penalize Florida by not seating its convention delegates because of the stateÂ’s decision to move up its primary. But the Republican rules are even more stringent, and the national party said today that it would not hesitate enforcing them.

I agree that we need to get a better hold on the nominating process, but disenfranchising the voters is not the way to do it. And make no mistake, that is what such penalties do.

To the legislators of the four states involved, I offer the same advice that I offered when the Democrats took action against Florida.

1) Deny access to the November 2008 ballot to any party which holds a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

2) Exercise its constitutional power to direct the votes of the state's electors by prohibiting the awarding of any of the state's electoral votes to a candidate nominated at a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

Disenfranchisement is wrong when the GOP does it, every bit as much as when the Democrats do it. I urge my party to pull back from the brink of a serious political and moral wrong.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, , Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 4 kb.

And they are all George Bush's fault.

Five years into a national economic recovery, the share of Americans living in poverty finally dropped.

The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200.

Individual earnings dropped for both men and women in 2006, but more members of each household worked, resulting in the overall increase in household income, said David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

Remember -- the burst of the tech bubble in the final months of the Clinton Administration, followed by the Enron debacle (caused by lax enforcement and supervision by the SEC during the Clinton years) and 9/11 (again, brought on by lax Clinton terrorism policies) led to an economic downturn in 2001 and 2002. Tax cuts brought us out of that slump -- the Bush tax cuts opposed by the Democrats. Had we followed their policies, we would still be in the midst of an economic depression.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

I frankly don't care whether or not Senator Larry Craig is gay or bisexual.

I don't even care if he attempted to solicit sex in a bathroom.

We determined in the 1980s and 1990s that sexual orientation and sexual misconduct are irrelevant to fitness for office -- and any Democrat who didn't support the removal of Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds from office has no basis for raising a fuss over Craig.

What I do find disturbing is the hypocrisy charge -- based upon the presumption of his sexuality and his positions on gay marriage and hate crimes.

I've been trying to figure out how to explain my position, but ran across something that reflected my thoughts in a manner better than I could express them.

The liberal view of homosexuality is based on two claims: an empirical one and a moral one. The empirical claim is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. The moral claim is that homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality; that a gay relationship, like a traditional marriage, can be an expression of true love and a source of deep fulfillment. Out of these claims flows the conclusion that opposition to gay rights is akin to racism: an unwarranted prejudice against people for a trait over which they have no control.

For the sake of argument, suppose this liberal view is true. What does it imply about the closeted homosexual who takes antigay positions? To our mind, the implication is that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices, which he has internalized and turned against himself. "Outing" him seems an act of gratuitous cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if one also claims to believe in the right to privacy.

According to the Statesman, the blogger who "outed" Craig did so in order to "nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights." But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.

Defenders of "outing" politicians argue that the cruelty is not gratuitous--that politicians are in a position of power, which they are using to harm gay citizens, and therefore their private lives are fair game. But if the politician in question is a mere legislator, his power consists only of the ability to cast one vote among hundreds. The actual amount of harm that he is able to inflict is minimal.

Anyway, most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.

Of course, liberals don't really believe that those who disagree with them are worthy of respect or rights. From Stalin's USSR to the Clinton White House to the local Democrat official who called for the murder of a prominent Republican for supporting the Iraq War, those who oppose the position of the liberal is seen as an enemy to be destroyed, not a fellow human being with a different point of view.

Some interesting takes on the Craig issue at Captain's Quarters, Slate, Lawyers Guns & Money, Talking Points Memo, Crossed Pond

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

Seems rather oxymoronic to me -- but then again, most anarchists I've met have been morons, so there's no surprise.

A group of activists who describe themselves as "anarchists and anti-authoritarians" will hold a private strategy session over the Labor Day weekend to discuss plans to protest at the Republican National Convention to be held in St. Paul Sept. 1-4, 2008.

The group, called the RNC Welcoming Committee, held a news conference on Monday at the Jack Pine Community Center on Lake Street in Minneapolis, where Bea Bridges, speaking for the committee, showed a video that hinted at confrontational tactics, read a statement and walked out, taking no questions.

It seems pretty clear they are planning violence -- like such anarchist groups do every time they seek to express their displeasure.

Captain Ed has a great analysis of this group and the article.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

A great many Harris County GOP activists became quite upset after last spring's bait-and-switch resignation of County Judge Robert Eckels and his replacement with Ed Emmett only weeks after Eckels had been sworn in for a new term of office. We have been looking around for a candidate that we could support -- one selected by the voters, not foisted on us as a part of an inside deal.

The day is rapidly approaching when our candidate makes his formal announcement.

Harris County District Clerk Charles Bacarisse is expected to announce his candidacy for county judge on Wednesday, ending months of speculation about whether he would seek the job after being passed over for it earlier this year.

Bacarisse told the Houston Chronicle last week that he had no plans to declare his intentions before Labor Day. But a close political adviser, Jim McGrath, indicated Monday that Bacarisse would make it official this week.

Asked if that was true, the district clerk hedged.

"I want to wait until I speak at the press conference to say anything, for obvious reasons," Bacarisse said. "I don't want to trigger the 'resign to run' provision until I trigger it."

Charles has done a great job in his current office, and has the skills needed to be a fine County Judge. He has been popular among Harris County voters, while Emmett has not been before the people for election in about 20 years, and holds his job because he was chosen by a constituency of one -- Eckels selected his friend and pulled the strings to get him selected.

Charles Bacarisse has my whole-hearted endorsement for the office.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

John Edwards has jumped on the defeat-at-any-cost bandwagon.

Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."

And Edwards kept insisting that there has been no political progress in Iraq, even as the Maliki government announced exactly the sort of compromises and steps forward that Edwards called a necessary step to stability.

Iraq's top Shi'ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.

The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States, which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands.

It seems that the Breck Girl wants to go down in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

And I don't doubt that Hillary will be throwing lamps at her husband again, this time for being off-message as she attacks the Bush record in the course of her presidential run.

In an interview for a high-profile magazine cover story just hitting newsstands, President Clinton offers praise for several foreign policy initiatives undertaken by President Bush.

Speaking with Condé Nast Traveler, Mr. Clinton lauds Mr. Bush mostly for decisions that involved overruling hard-liners in his administration.

"He has done three things that I think the world generally approved of: restoring cooperation with the Latin American countries, making a diplomatic agreement with North Korea instead of continuing to have a frigid standoff, and sending Americans to the conference to discuss the future of Iraq with the Iranians and the Syrians," Mr. Clinton said. "Those are, all three, things that signify we're trying to do better in the world."

The former president said more inflexible positions the Bush administration took earlier on those and other issues were the understandable product of the trauma America incurred on September 11, 2001. "It took us a couple of years to regain our bearings, and I think we have now," he said. "I think that we're getting our balance back."

Mr. Clinton also gave Mr. Bush credit for pressing for an end to the genocide in Darfur. "I think the fact that he's pushing really, really hard through the diplomatic channels on Darfur is a plus. People see that we're pushing harder than some of the other countries are to try to get an acceptable UN force in there that will save more lives," he said.

Clinton's rhetoric is so moderate that it can only further alienate the mouth-frothing leftoids that claim to be the new center of Democrat politics. Not only does he praise Bush, but he also praises Wal-Mart at a time that his wife is having to distance herself from the company. I don't see this as being any help to the Senator .

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

What can I say -- even when the New York Times explicitly concedes the legitimacy of the President's position on an issue, it still feels it necessary to delegitimize that position.

I mean, consider this in today's editorial on the SCHIP program and the new regulations put into place by the President.

There is a legitimate argument to be had over how far up the income scale the federal-state partnership known as the State ChildrenÂ’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, should climb. When it was created, the program focused on children whose family incomes were no higher than twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 today for a family of four. The goal was to cover the near-poor, who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance.

After all, who can argue with the notion that those intended to be helped by the program should be effectively served before it is expanded to cover others -- especially when the new "market" is the upper middle class, including families making over $82,000 a year (also called "the rich" by the NYT editors when they get a tax cut)?

Well, the New York Times, that's who!

Yet the Bush administration wants to return to a darker age. Its letter to state officials seems intent on virtually eliminating such coverage for middle-income children, or at least drastically reducing it.

In other words, the position advocated by the President (making sure the program fulfills its primary mission) is legitimate, but not legitimate because it is advocated by the President.

It must be so easy to be a part of th NYT editorial staff. You just need to see what W is doing and declare it illegitimate.

Posted by: Greg at 07:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

This is David Broder.

This is David Broder on drugs.

Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska, describes himself as a "tidal" politician, one who believes that larger forces in society shape careers more than the ambitions of individuals. "The only mistakes I've made," he told me last week, "were when I tried to go against the tide."

Today, that tide may be carrying him away from his Republican Party and toward a third-party or independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a development that could reshape the dynamics of the 2008 presidential race.

Any questions?

Where, exactly, would Hagel and Bloomberg draw their support? Neither has any significant GOP support. Neither would appeal to the Democrats. And third party/independent bids are generally insignificant things. Why would this one, with two politicians with limited national recognition, be any different?

Posted by: Greg at 07:16 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

In an attempt to control the primary dates of the states, the DNC has declared that Florida delegates selected this January will not be seated at the 2008 presidential nominating convention.

The Democratic National Committee, threatening to take the toughest line possible, voted Saturday to refuse to seat any Florida Democrat at the Democratic presidential convention in 2008 if the state party did not delay the date of its 2008 primary to conform to the partyÂ’s nominating calendar.

The committee gave Florida Democrats 30 days to propose a primary date that conformed with Democratic rules prohibiting all but four states from holding their primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5. But Florida leaders, who seemed stunned by a near-unanimous vote and the severity of the punishment, said they were doubtful they could come up with an alternative.

They said they were bound by the vote of the Republican-controlled State Legislature, which set the primary for Jan. 29.

Beyond what is emerging as a clear embarrassment for the party, the practical results of this dispute were unclear. To a considerable extent, it could prove to be little more than a reminder of how little authority the party appears to have over its nominating process this year.

It strikes me that the Florida legislature may need to take a firm hand in resolving this dispute. As i see it, they have two options.

1) Deny access to the November 2008 ballot to any party which holds a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

2) Exercise its constitutional power to direct the votes of the state's electors by prohibiting the awarding of any of the state's electoral votes to a candidate nominated at a national nominating convention which refuses to seat the delegates duly elected on the primary date established by law.

The first of these might be subject to a court challenge, but the second is clearly within the power of the legislature to implement, and would not even require the signature of the governor to implement.

And I'd like to pointedly suggest to my own GOP that my proposal is not a partisan one -- they apply to any attempt to sanction the Florida GOP as well.

On the other hand, this does point up the need for some nominating structure that is more structured, more coherent, and arrived at through a process of consensus.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , , Stageleft, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, , The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 5 kb.

What else do you call Martin Lewis' direct call for the overthrow of the Constitutional principle of civilian control of the military by having a general relieve the President of his constitutional role of commander-in-chief during time of war?

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

That is, of course, a military coup and a direct abrogation of the US Constitution. The military is subordinate to the President.

What is most shocking is this disingenuous disclaimer.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY commandÂ…

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Now let's break this down -- he is urging the general to violate his oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution by preventing the President from exercising his powers under that Constitution, and to do so by illegally (indeed, unconstitutionally) using military force to that end. That would be unlawful, an insurrection, an act of mutiny, and, consequently, a military coup. And the call for a military trial of the President while he is detained under military arrest prior to and during a military trial is undeniably one which would interfere with the President's civilian duties -- one of which is to be the civilian head of the armed forces exercising civilian control over the same.

In effect, the author is calling on the general to dispense with the constitutional method of removing a president -- impeachment. Given that the House lacks the votes to impeach and the Senate lacks the votes to convict, Lewis is calling for the subordination of the Executive Branch to military control, but also the Legislative Branch. No doubt any attempt to use the courts to legally challenge this military coup would be suppressed, so we would also see the constitutional role of the Judicial Branch overthrown. Interesting how quickly this Leftist is prepared to dispense with the Constitution just to get rid of a President and policies he disagrees with. Who is the fascist?

Captain Ed points out a number of flaws, some of which I have touched upon.

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the presidentÂ’s election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isnÂ’t C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs — and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President — nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It’s what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

Lewis wants to turn America into just that kind of nation. His Bush-hatred runs so deep that he would willingly see the military take control over the federal government just to get rid of him. The Left likes to talk about supposed fascism among conservatives, but the Huffington Post is literally calling for a military coup to reverse an election, not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.

I'd argue, as my title suggests, that this post at HuffPo constitutes treason on Lewis' part -- and possibly on the part of Arianna Huffington for allowing it to continue to run on her site. However, Clayton Cramer suggests that it might merely be sedition, and points out that Lewis has taken a course of action that could legitimately lead to his imprisonment for the next twenty years.

OTHERS COMMENTING: Stop The ACLU, Hot Air, Blue Crab, American Mind, California Yankee, Sister Toldjah, Macker's World, Second Hand Conjecture, QandO, Say Anything, The Moderate Voice, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, J's Cafe Nette, Patterico, Rusted Sky. Old Controller, ShySpeak.net, Pal2Pal, Willisms , Pink Flamingo, Daily Pundit, Wake Up America, Hegemonic Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , , Stageleft, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1061 words, total size 11 kb.

Looks like the big announcement is coming VERY SOON.

A round of applause, please, for former Virginia Sen. George Allen, who finally got likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson to hint when he plans his big announcement. Filling in for Richmond's WRVA morning host Jimmy Barrett, Allen just came out with it, asking the Law & Order star what's up.

Said the Fred, who's been testing the political waters: "Well, the water is pretty warm. I like the temperature a lot." He also told Allen, "It won't be very many more days" before he declares.

During the five-minute chat, Thompson addressed the complaints that he is taking too long to make up his mind.

"This is not an attempt to be cute or game the system," he promised. Thompson said instead that he's just working on more of an old school schedule, when candidates didn't announce until the fall before the election year.

And he said that running for president isn't something he's planned all his life. "I'm doing in a few months what people have taken a long, long time period to do," he said.

It will be interesting to see how the announcement jumbles up the already tight GOP race.

Posted by: Greg at 03:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Proving that the Democrat legacy of hatred and violence is alive and well today, one local blogger and Democrat leader has called for a prominent Jewish Republican to be tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged like James Byrd.

And there is no question of my misinterpreting the post in question. Not with this title.

Time to drag Ari Fleischer out of town

And certainly not when it is combined with this conclusion.

The ads are running in states where Senators are possibly waffling on whether to continue to "stay the course". Nothing like using the war and our vets for political purposes. Someone needs to volunteer to give Ari, the rotten bastard, a ride out of town.

Behind the back of a pickup truck.

Sorry about the language, folks, John Cobarruvias tends to be a crude, profane individual. He clearly doesn't believe that his political opponents have a right to speak, and obviously isn't above urging/threatening violence to silence them.

Since John is a good enough friend with Congressman Nick Lampson to be admitted to his hospital room following heart surgery, I wonder what he has to say about such a close friend and political supporter engaging in calls for political violence. Why don't you call him and ask?

Congressman Nick Lampson
Washington Office Phone: 202.225.5951
Stafford Office Phone: 281.240.3700
Clear Lake Office Phone: 281.461.6300

For that matter, how about making a similar call to John's new best friend, Senate candidate Rick Noriega. Does Noriega support calls for dragging Jews and Republicans behind a pickup truck like James Byrd?

Exploratory Committee Office Phone: 713-921-7425

Political violence has no place in the American political system. That calls for such violence are coming from a Democrat leader is despicable -- and presents an opportunity for that party to prove whether it has really progressed beyond the era when it held on to power via the noose and the burning cross.

As an aside -- John makes an accusation about me here (note the juvenile name-calling) that is false and libelous. The comments in question raised the issue of his call for violence and a tendency towards anti-Semitism. He deleted them and then made the accusation -- but you know that had they REALLY been racist he would have left them in place, given his history of attempts to frame me as a hate-monger for opposing illegal immigration and jihadi terrorism.

UPDATE: Looks like John is calling for the lynching of more folks who disagree with him -- now he is going after Lone Star Times blogger/managing editor Matt Bramanti

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, CommonSenseAmerica, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 6 kb.

Within the GOP, there is a wide-range of positions on abortion. And while the official platform position is one supportive of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, there is a sizable group that simply believes that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned and the matter left to "the several states". This latter group includes folks who are vocally pro-choice and vocally pro-life, but who agree that the major flaw of Roe is its nationalizing the so-called "right to an abortion" in a manner that cut off political debate and imposed a "one size fits all" policy on a sharply divided nation. Such folks prefer that the issue of abortion be dealt with as a question of federalism not federal preemption.

Mitt Romney seems to have placed himself in this camp with his latest statements about abortion.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."

Some are going to accuse Romney of waffling on the abortion issue. I don't think that is fair, and believe that such criticism is coming from those who were opponents from the get-go -- both from the hard-core pro-life advocates who cannot be reconciled to his previous pro-choice rhetoric and the liberals who would never have supported a clean-living conservative Mormon under any condition.

Frankly, I fall into the same camp as Romney. There is no way that a Human Life Amendment is going to pass in the short term. And the legislative solution of a congressional resolution stating that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn would be legally weak and politically unsustainable as partisan control of Congress shifts back and forth. The best we who are pro-life can hope for is a situation in which we can fight and win the battle on the state level, with the ultimate goal of creating a political reality in which stronger defenses of the unborn can be enacted. That doesn't indicate tepid support for a pro-life position -- it reflects a reasoned strategy towards the goal of protecting innocent human life. And I say that as someone who has been involved in pro-life activities for over 30 years, including service as the founding vice president of the pro-life group at my college.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Nanotechnology Today, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Inside the Northwest-Territory, third world county, Right Celebrity, , The World According to Carl, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 6 kb.

Since we mentioned the reading survey, let's take a look at it.

One in four adults read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and older people were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven.

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

That choice by Bustos and others is reflected in book sales, which have been flat in recent years and are expected to stay that way indefinitely. Analysts attribute the listlessness to competition from the Internet and other media, the unsteady economy and a well-established industry with limited opportunities for expansion.

This reflects what I saw when I taught English -- the comment that stood out to me came from a student seven or eight years ago.

"Mr. RWR, books today are called movies."

Younger folks today have a variety of media sources for getting information and entertainment. At 44, I was raised with books and television. Those who are two decades younger have many more outlets vying for their attention, and the book is simply an archaic communication form for them.

The study notes that men don't read books -- something I have long found to be true, though I am very much an exception. Other than "purposeful reading" (work and education), I never saw my father read a book growing up. Mind you, he was a career military officer, and earned a masters and a doctorate during the latter part of his military career and in retirement, but I just never saw him reading for pleasure. Indeed, neither the book about a colleague's experiences as a POW nor Tom Clancy's jack Ryan novels interested him when I got them for him. In fact, the Clancy books went home with me in my suitcase three years later -- without the cellophane having ever been stripped from the boxed set. I think this is true of many men -- reading is a work skill, not a leisure activity.

But again, I will caution folks that not reading books does not necessarily translate to not reading at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

This headline looks just awful.

Book chief: Conservatives want slogans

Certainly more so than this one which would disclose more information

Longtime liberal pol: Conservatives want slogans

Unfortunately, the first headline is the one placed on the article, while the more honest one was left on the scrapheap along. I suppose that is because it would make the criticism much easier to dismiss.

Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

The book publishing industry is predominantly liberal, though conservative books by authors like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and pundit Ann Coulter have been best sellers in recent years. Overall, book sales have been flat as publishers seek to woo readers lured away by the Internet, movies and television.

I suspect that a lot of that has to do with what is being published today. How many conservatives have given up on the publishing world because of the amount of crap coming out? And I'm also curious how many of those conservatives have, in fact read a book in the last year -- the Bible, cover to cover -- but do not count it as "reading a book" due to its sacred nature?

Oh, and speaking of my personal habits, I certainly meet the conservative average of eight books.

Oh -- that was eight books a year. I'm sorry -- I've read that many from cover to cover just in the month of August.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, isn't a cut-off of 250% of the poverty line sufficient?

The Bush administration, engaged in a battle with Congress over whether a popular children's health insurance program should be expanded, has announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.

New administrative hurdles, which state health officials were told about late last week, are aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program. But Democrats and children's advocates said that the announcement will jeopardize coverage for children whose parents work at jobs that do not provide employer-paid insurance.

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level -- or $51,625 for a family of four -- must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state must also demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children's health insurance program or Medicaid -- a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

These and other steps must be implemented within a year, Dennis G. Smith, director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, advised state health officials in a letter on Friday.

As written, the current legislation could allow families making over $82,000 -- 400% of the poverty level for a family of 4 -- to enroll their kids in the program. And without the changes being implemented here, the law would also allow/encourage parents to dump the health insurance they are paying for through an employer plan and shift the burden to the taxpayers. After all, the reauthorization legislation will declare 75% of American families to be "poor" for purposes of the program.

Now, if we can just find a way to keep illegal immigrant kids from getting the benefits, eliminating one more incentive for folks to jump the border.

What I find particularly interesting, though, is that the Democrats are complaining that folks they call "wealthy" when they got tax cuts pushed by the Bush Administration in 2001 are now considered "poor" when the Democrats want to expand government-funded insurance. Setting aside the hypocrisy of the Democrats (which is never in short supply), could it be that they simply don't like folks to be able to choose how they spend their ow money, and prefer for the government to decide how to spend it for them?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hey Greg I've been to that site... nice. I know of a secret HAUNTED HOUSE backdoor that gives your a discount coupon. HA! It's right there in your face and nobody knows about it. Should I tell you? OK twist my arm.

Backdoor: Go to their homepage halfway down and click on the comma in the line that reads “Our Store now has over 14,000 masquerade items for you to choose from!”

...but shhhh it's a secret.
Susan

Posted by: Susan West at Tue Aug 21 17:06:22 2007 (wh2Cz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been waiting for this.

A liberal blogger has filed a federal complaint against former Sen. Fred Thompson, the actor and unannounced Republican candidate for president, accusing him of violating election laws as he ponders his entry into the race.

The blogger, Lane Hudson, submitted his complaint to the Federal Election Commission on Monday saying Thompson has raised far more money than he needs to explore whether to run for president.

Federal law allows potential candidates to raise money to travel, conduct polls and pay for other expenses related to "testing the waters" for a political campaign. During that exploratory period, a potential candidate does not have to file financial reports with the FEC.

The law prohibits anyone who is "testing the waters" from hoarding the money for use during his actual campaign. Potential candidates also cannot refer to themselves as candidates, can't run ads that publicize their intention to campaign or take steps to qualify for the ballot in a primary or caucus state.

According to a financial report filed late last month, Thompson had raised nearly $3.5 million and had had spent $625,000. Thompson must raise money within federal contribution limits and must report it to the FEC once he becomes an official candidate.

"We're following the law," Thompson spokesman Jim Mills said in response to the complaint.

Under federal guidelines, the FEC will now give Thompson 15 days to respond to the complaint. Following Thompson's response, election commissioners will decide whether to dismiss the case or investigate further.

I pointed this out when Fred's contribution numbers came our last month.

2) Exploratory committees are only supposed to raise "what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities”. As Captain Ed has pointed out, Politico (which now is questioning the "low" numbers) raised that issue weeks ago -- and there have already been accusations by the KOS-sacks are, in fact, accusing Thompson of raising TOO MUCH money under that provision.

I'm just surprised that it has taken so long for someone to file a complaint. I suppose this will help clarify the incredibly vague rules on such activities -- as well as making it clear that efforts to regulate political contributions are fatally flawed no matter what you try to impose beyond full disclosure.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | Comments (300) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, we've been told that the President's low approval rating is indicative that he is a failure. But if Bush has numbers more than twice as high as Congress, how can we argue that they are a success?

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has taken a small dip, dropping to 32% positive, down from 34% who gave him positive job marks in mid-July, a new Reuters/Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The survey also shows that the overall job approval rating for the work of Congress remains far below the President's, as just 15% give the national legislature a collective positive rating, up one point since last month. Changes in both the ratings for the President and Congress are statistically insignificant.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll included interviews with 1,020 likely voters between August 9-11, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

What i find really interesting, though, are these numbers.

Just 35% said they are pleased with current U.S. economic policy, but 60% said their own personal economic situation is good or excellent. Overall, 65% said they feel secure in their current jobs, and most are optimistic about the long-term future of the nation: 64% said they expect their children to have a better life than them.

More than three-quarters - 77% - said they feel America is facing threats from abroad, while 21% said they are not concerned about such things.

It is fair to say that the doom and gloom pronouncements of the Democrats have managed to convince people that our nation's economic policy is bad, despite the fact that they are finding their own economic status to be pretty good. Indeed, a closer look by these folks would probably force them to admit they don't know anybody facing serious economic issues (unless they bought too much house on too much credit using a gimmicky loan, like this WaPo reporter). And contrary to the notions promulgated by John Edwards, most Americans recognize that the Crusade Against Jihadism is not merely a bumper sticker.

H/T Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , The Florida Masochist, Wake Up America, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Public Domain Clip Art, Pursuing Holiness, Faultline USA, Stageleft, , Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 5 kb.

It's a cute stunt -- bringing in a waitress to give the Democrat's message this week. The only problem is that she betrays her ignorance as she parrots the Donk talking points.

A North Carolina waitress on Saturday lauded the Democratic-initiated increase in the minimum wage, saying in the party's weekly radio address that the extra money will have a ripple effect on millions of lives.

Fawn Townsend, a nightshift server in Raleigh, N.C., criticized Republicans for blocking efforts to raise the minimum wage over the last 10 years. The Democratic-led Congress approved the increase earlier this year and President Bush signed it into law in May.

"Millions of Americans now have a little more in their paychecks to help pay for basic necessities like food and clothing. And now more Americans can save to build a better future for themselves and their families," Townsend said.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says about 1.7 million people made $5.15 or less in 2006. The federal minimum wage increased from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour last month. Increases of 70 cents are scheduled each of the next two summers.

And I wonder what Ms. Townsend will have to say over the next couple of years as prices rise following these increases. Will she thank the Democrats for the inflation? Or will she blame greedy business owners (Dem code-word for Republicans) for daring to raise their prices to cover the higher labor costs? Or when she (or a co-worker) gets fired because the restaurant can't afford as many employees? How about when her employer closes because teh new, higher costs make him less competitive?

But there is more.

Townsend criticized Bush for threatening to veto a bill that would provide more money for the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate has voted to add 3 million lower-income children to the plan at a cost of $35 billion, and the House has approved a more ambitious and expensive version. Bush has proposed spending just $5 billion more on the program.

Yep -- now parents who make $82,000 a year and currently have private insurance for their children will be able to shift the burden on to the American taxpayer. Are these the "lower-income" families and children that Townsend thinks ought to be getting a share of the tax dollars taken out of her check?

In the future, Townsend said she hoped to attend nursing school — and she applauded Democrats for passing legislation to make higher education more affordable.

I encourage her to enroll in an Economics class, where she might discover hatt every time the government has acted "to make higher education more affordable" we have seen massive increases in college costs -- both because of the increased federal mandates on colleges and universities, and the economic reality that the cost of an item will increase to match the number of disposable dollars available to purchase it. That is why education costs have spiraled well-ahead of the rate of inflation for decades.

"I'm grateful that our Democratic leaders in Congress are taking our country in a new direction," she said. "They have accomplished more this year than Republicans accomplished in the past six years combined — including giving people like me a long-overdue raise."

Now that Townsend thinks that it is the place of the government to give her a raise, I also suggest that the take an American Government class along with that Economics class. That way she will read the US Constitution and will be shocked to find that nowhere is the government granted the power to raise anyone's pay, unless they are a government employee.

But she is right about one thing -- the Democrats have and will lead us in a new dircetion.

Towards higher taxes for all Americans.

Towards a substantial weakening of an economy that has grown strong under a GOP Congress and a GOP President.

And towards a surrender in Iraq and the Crusade Against Jihdism.

Yep -- they had to find someone pretty ignorant to deliver this weekly address. No one with a lick of sense would have believed a word of it.

Others commenting include Carolina Politics Online, The IDIOT, and The Media Blog. The last of these also notes that Fawn Townsend isn't some random waitress -- she is an activist with ACORN, a radical left-wing group that is noted for its efforts to subvert American elections through registering face voters and other sorts of election fraud.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , The Florida Masochist, Wake Up America, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Public Domain Clip Art, Pursuing Holiness, Faultline USA, Stageleft, , Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 7 kb.

After all, every administration has engaged in the sort of political calculus and activities that angered Democrats over the last several years.

Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees with senior federal officials, and held some political briefings for top Cabinet officials during the 1996 election.

But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.

Under Rove's direction, this highly coordinated effort to leverage the government for political marketing started as soon as Bush took office in 2001 and continued through last year's congressional elections, when it played out in its most quintessential form in the coastal Connecticut district of Rep. Christopher Shays, an endangered Republican incumbent. Seven times, senior administration officials visited Shays's district in the six months before the election -- once for an announcement as minor as a single $23 government weather alert radio presented to an elementary school. On Election Day, Shays was the only Republican House member in New England to survive the Democratic victory.

"He didn't do these things half-baked. It was total commitment," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), who in 2002 ran the House Republicans' successful reelection campaign in close coordination with Rove. "We knew history was against us, and he helped coordinate all of the accoutrements of the executive branch to help with the campaign, within the legal limits."

And while the Democrats are demanding investigations and shouting about possible Hatch Act violations, it thus far appears that Rove's work violated no law -- simply was more coordinated and more effective. Indeed, there is only one meeting which may have strayed over the line -- and the individual who did so was not even a part of Rove's staff.

Indeed, despite the tone of the article, the reality that comes through is that Rove's offense is not the breaking of the law, but rather his effectiveness.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems that Democrat Rick Noriega has a problem with Senator John Cornyn -- he represents the state of Texas the way that Texans vote.

From Noriega's new campaign video:

For the past six years, the junior senator from this state has merely represented the Administration. The other 23 million Texans need representation, too.

Well, let's consider how Texans have actually voted. In 2000, George W. Bush received 1.37 million more votes than Al Gore. In 2004, George W. Bush received 1.7 million more votes than John Kerry.

Now I don't know about you, but based upon those numbers, the people of Texas seem to have given George W. Bush a pretty decisive mandate in 2000 (59% of the vote) -- and increased that mandate in 2004 (61% of the vote). It seems pretty clear to this observer that John Cornyn has been doing precisely what we sent him to Washington to do with 55% of the vote. That is the essence of representation -- unless you are an arrogant liberal who believes that the voters are too stupid to understand who and what they are voting for, given the fact that Texans have not given a majority of their votes to a Democrat seeking the presidency since 1976.

Noriega's entire video plays to the Kos Klownz Krowd, not to real Texans.

CLOSING QUESTION FOR NORIEGA: Having attended a conference at which a member of the US military was silenced for saying that the war in Iraq is going well while wearing his uniform, how do you dare include so many pictures of yourself in your uniform while you do voice overs on political topics?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Pursuing Holiness, Stop the ACLU, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, Right Pundits, Blue Star Chronicles, Outside the Beltway, The Pink Flamingo, Right Celebrity, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 5 kb.