OK -- it is supposed to be the speech to overcome the Jeremiah Wright situation. Let's take a look at the thing and see if it worked.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched AmericaÂ’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nationÂ’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

Great words -- seriously great words. Indeed, words that I agree with completely, and will likely include in my course materials the next time I teach American government. Why? Because Obama has it exactly right here -- the Constitution is not and never has been a perfect document and can probably never be perfected due to the flaws of humanity -- what those of us from certain faith traditions call "Original Sin". But to the degree to which we work to perfect the Constitution, we fulfill the Founders' vision. I am struck, though, by the fact that Barack Obama left out the most important means by which we perfect that document -- though the process of amendment, which is the means by which the document was intended to grow and change, rather than through the activism of judges of either the Left or Right.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

Beautiful rhetoric, but does it really mean anything? After all, every candidate argues that they are working to bring the hopes and dreams of Americans to fruition in the better futures of succeeding generations, and that they are best suited to make that happen. In other words, he's just said nothing of significance.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in PattonÂ’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. IÂ’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the worlds poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

ItÂ’s a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

True -- but do ancestry and biography really add up to competency?

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either too black or not black enough. We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

Indeed, it has been the folks on the Left who have engaged in that discussion, not those of us on the Right. We on the Right have long-since embraced the color-blind vision of Martin Luther King and other great Americans -- and when we echo his call we are accused of being unrealistic and insincere. I really don't care that Barack Hussein Obama is a man of mixed racial heritage whose father was raised in a faith other than Christianity -- I care solely about his competence and his character. Sadly, I find it necessary to question both because of the Wright affair.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Because you say that your candidacy is not about race while playing upon your racial heritage -- and condemning any opponent who raises the same issues.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that its based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

And it has only taken you two decades to recognize that those statements are offensive and say so in a public fashion. That, sir, is a sign that you are either oblivious to the extremist, racist rhetoric of your pastor or dishonest in the claims you have made over the last several days. Personally, I believe the latter to be the case, given your sudden exclusion of Rev. Wright from the festivities surrounding the announcement of your candidacy over a year ago AND the inclusion of some of his race-based rhetoric in your other writings, quoting Wright as describing the world as a place where "white folksÂ’ greed runs a world in need." You didn't denounce that rhetoric, sir -- you joined his church because you were inspired by it. That isn't my claim -- it is yours! You clearly cannot have it both ways.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.

Except for the ones you have praised.

For some, nagging questions remain.

Such as, "Why is this man lying to the American people, and does he really believe that we are dumb enough to fall for it?"

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.

And that is not, in and of itself, a problem. After all, many of us disagree with this or that element of American policy in very strong terms. But that isn't the issue, and you know it.

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

Again, not a problem. I've been on both sides of that pulpit, sir, and I have both said and heard controversial things. That is not, in and of itself, a problem.

Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Sure I have -- at times I have felt that they have strayed from the Gospel, at other times I have thought that they were simply incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture or politically naive. And I include in that a particular former pastor of a United Church of Christ congregation with whom I chose to maintain a particularly close personal relationship -- my wife, who I love with all my heart even when I believe her to be dead wrong.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leaderÂ’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wrights comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Well, at least you are honest enough to get to the heart of the problem. You are honest enough to condemn the indefensible -- statements that are incompatible with the Gospel and with patriotism. But you have been aware of these sorts of statements for a long time -- if not with the particular ones currently cited, then with similar ones made in your presence. You did and said nothing, and remained a member of this man's congregation, dedicated a book to him and proudly declared him to be your spiritual mentor? Where was your concern about bringing people together then, Senator? Or did that only become a priority when Wright's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic rantings became public?

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

Indeed, Senator, renouncing your membership in Trinity UCC is precisely what you should have done at this point -- as well as calling for an IRS investigation of the church's tax-exempt status because of Wright's explicit support for you and attack upon your major opponent from the pulpit in his Christmas sermon. Instead you have begun an attack upon those who have brought the words of Jeremiah Wright into the light.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing Gods work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Yeah, he has done a lot of good things. However, that doesn't negate his hatemongering from the pulpit. But then again, given you include a domestic terrorist among your friends (William Ayers), I guess you have a high level of tolerance for those who hate America and attack this country rather than its enemies. That is not, however, a quality that is acceptable in a President.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverends voice up into the raftersÂ….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lions den, EzekielÂ’s field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame aboutÂ…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild.

Interestingly enough, you fail to note that comment I mentioned earlier about "white folksÂ’ greed" -- despite the fact that it is quoted on the page just prior to this passage in your book. Great job with the creative editing -- but lousy job with the candor and honesty.

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

So are you trying to say that anti-American rhetoric is a staple of the black church? If so, you have just set race relations back decades, Senator, and made it clear that while America may be ready for a black president, the black community is not fit to produce one.

That is not, fortunately, the case. Great Americans like JC Watts, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Kenneth Blackwell, Michael Steele, and so many others have risen to great heights in this country and loved this country. That you choose to associate with those who do not love this country and embrace them shows your unfitness for office. I would gladly vote for any of the above individuals for any office -- but never, ever, for you. Not because of your race, but because of your willingness to defame your race to embrace the black equivalent of Fred Phelps.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

But we now know that he does these things from the pulpit -- and yet you refuse to definitively break from him.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Again, you defame the black community to justify your embrace of a black David Duke. You are sowing division, sir, not unity. And let's not forget -- your grandmother merely echoes the words of Jesse Jackson when she expresses fear of young black men on the streets.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not.

Yes, Senator, it is. Quit lying to the American people.

I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

The difference, of course, being that Ferraro was correct and Wright is wrong. Ferraro made the truthful observation that it would be virtually impossible for a white candidate of such meager qualifications to be the front-runner for the nomination of either party's presidential nomination, while you have really gotten a pass up to this point because of the notion that your candidacy is the litmus test for America on race.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

So now your candidacy is about race? I thought it wasn't about race. or is it only about race when it is to your advantage to have your candidacy be about race?

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past. We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still havenÂ’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between todayÂ’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of todayÂ’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for ones family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Interesting -- you tell us we don't need to recite the litany of injustice and racism and then proceed to recite it. Why?

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. WhatÂ’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicians own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Actually, it is more important to condemn it than to understand it. And it is important to denounce and renounce the racial dinosaurs like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan as apart of coming of age and unifying this country. Just as no one insists that we "understand" David Duke or Fred Phelps, it is wrong to extend such understanding to African-Americans who are equally bigoted in their beliefs and their rhetoric.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no ones handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

In other words, the demands of the Jeremiah Wrights of this world and their willingness to denounce any criticism as racist has brought about a justified resentment.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Not true, Senator -- when we attempt to engage in those discussions we are told that we are guilty because of our race and that we have nothing to contribute. When we embrace the vision of Dr. King, we are told that the color of our skin somehow disqualifies us from actively participating in the conversation about race.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

How much did your wife make in that corporate culture? And do you want to talk about the greed of associates like Tony Rezko and your insider dealings with him -- you know, the ones that your campaign tried to hide by dribbling them out on Friday during the height of the Wright crisis?

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

How about if we try to get beyond our racial divisions by doing away with the racial spoils system that is affirmative action, and instead look at character, qualifications, and merit? Oh, that's right -- if America did that, your candidacy would be over.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

Well, then, Senator -- why don't you start embracing some of that conservative vision instead of promoting more left-wing, statist solutions that have failed again and again in the past. Government did the most to keep black people down in this country, and individuals who acted to bring about change.

The profound mistake of Reverend WrightÂ’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. Its that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

I can agree with you here, sir -- but then again, that has been the view of conservatives during my entire lifetime. Why should we embrace your liberalism -- a philosophy that thrives on exploiting those divisions and the notion of victimhood -- to solve the very problems that liberalism needs to succeed?

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the worlds great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brotherÂ’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sisterÂ’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

There is a way to do that -- VOTE REPUBLICAN!

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wrights sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

And yet somehow the fact that 90% of blacks are voting for you can be ignored -- and will be called "playing the race card" if someone does comment upon that reality. And the fact that the white male vote is split between all three remaining candidates is a reality -- so quit building up strawmen.

We can do that.

And you have and you will.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, Not this time. This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

And as a white man teaching in a classroom in which I am sometimes the only white person, I can offer you some suggestions. But it comes not from another government program, but by raising expectations from every segment of society. It comes from allowing us to hold students accountable for learning and behavior, and not having parents scream "racism" every time a kid gets in trouble or holding a protest march because someone doesn't like a decision or objects to an expectation.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

Excuse me -- you will get treated in any emergency room in this country, and the government will pick up the tab. You don't even have to be a citizen -- or even in the country legally -- to get that benefit.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; its that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

And your solution? More government intervention in the economy? Like that has worked! More government always equals less freedom.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how well show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

In other words, cut-and-run. And, as you and your aides have admitted, go back after allowing the enemy to rest, rebuild, and rearm.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and thats when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why heÂ’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, I am here because of Ashley.

I'm here because of Ashley. By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

Nice fluff story -- but all it proves is that you believe that government's role is to take from the wealthy to give to the poor. That, sir, is not America.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Unfortunately, your vision is incompatible with the vision of the band of patriots you praise in your conclusion. They would stand against you and your vision for America. And so do I.

And since you won't take a forthright stand against your dear friend the anti-American racist who preaches hate from his pulpit, none of it really matters -- you are unfit for office.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | Comments (289) | Add Comment
Post contains 6966 words, total size 41 kb.

One of the things about being out of the loop for the last week was that I missed the Elliot Spitzer story when it was timely. I would, however, like to say a few words about it.

1) You know, I don't care about the extramarital affair part of the story. That truly is between him and his wife, and how they handle that situation is not for me to comment upon. Indeed, it would be my hope that an extramarital affair alone would be deemed not to be newsworthy by the media. The private failings of a human being are precisely that -- even when that human being is a public person, such a politician. It is why I don't care about the story that Democrats tried to push last week regarding John McCain. Marital infidelity alone is simply not a disqualifier for me.

2) What I do care about in this case is the issue of illegal conduct. In this case, "Client 9" broke the law against prostitution. Now we can argue about whether or not there SHOULD be a law against prostitution (after all, as my libertarian friends would argue, is there a compelling government interest in banning prostitution?), but the reality is that laws were broken by Spitzer -- laws against prostitution, against interstate trafficking in human beings, and regarding certain sorts of financial transactions. As such, his continuance in office really was not an option. Indeed, this is where my problem with Bill Clinton arose -- it was the perjury and other possible illegal actions related to his involvement with Monica Lewinsky that led me to believe he should be removed from office, not the sexual infidelity itself.

3) The fall-out. Spitzer was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton. As such, this should have really hurt her by calling to mind her husband's illicit deeds. I expected this to be a net positive for Barack Obama -- until it was overshadowed by the Jeremiah Wright story. Given the way that latter story broke, the Spitzer story becomes a was -- neither hurting nor helping either of the presidential contenders.

Oh, one last comment -- good luck to the people of New York and their new governor. Here's hoping that this story dies the death that it deserves -- because as I said above, an extramarital affair alone should not be fodder for the press or grounds for disqualification from office.

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

But does Wyoming really matter?

Sen. Barack Obama captured the Wyoming Democratic caucuses Saturday, seizing a bit of momentum in the close, hard-fought race with rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party's presidential nomination.

Obama generally has outperformed Clinton in caucuses, which reward organization and voter passion more than do primaries. The Illinois senator has now won 13 caucuses to Clinton's three.

Obama has also shown strength in the Mountain West, winning Idaho, Utah, Colorado and now Wyoming. The two split Nevada, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama more delegates.

Let's be honest here. We are talking a 7-5 split in caususes in a state so red that it is impossible to imagine it going Democrat in the fall. Given Obama's general success in caucus states, it strikes me that what we really have here is something of a draw. Yes, Obama can claim a win, but it was hardly decisive. And while Hillary lost, she can claim a moral victory in keeping it so close in a caucus situation.

What will matter is Pennsylvania on April 22. Until then, expect the race to be nasty.

Posted by: Greg at 07:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Eleanor Clift sees the Democrat convention needing more than one ballot to select a nominee -- and even proposes her own scenario regarding the outcome.

What happens if the superdelegates are just like the rest of the voters—i.e., they can't definitively decide between these two candidates? "What happens if they split the superdelegates?" asks an adviser to the Clinton campaign. The roughly 350 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed are all free agents. There's nothing that says they have to act in concert, and they'll work to avoid anything that fuels conspiracy theories. "My real worry is there is no back room," says this adviser. Clinton says she'll go all the way to the convention in August. If there's a stalemate, the superdelegates could decide to pass on the first ballot to test the candidates' strength at that juncture. We could then be way back to the future, the first time in the modern reform age that a candidate is not chosen on the first ballot.

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

Really?

Al Gore?

The guy who has become a cartoon character over the last several years, with his promotion of the junk science of global warming?

Oh-please-oh-please-oh-please!!!!!!!!!!!!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 4 kb.

Good grief -- who would have ever thought I'd agree with McGovern on much of anything? But as Rick Sincere points out, the liberal icon makes a lot of sense from a libertarian, free market perspective in his column in the Wall Street Journal. After all, what else can you say about a call for both sides of the political spectrum to stop regulating behavior -- in particular, economic behavior -- because some individuals make bad economic choices?

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

As McGovern points out, most folks who get payday loans and sub-prime mortgages do so with plenty of forethought and do not default on their loans. Why should the government limit or eliminate those options because of the few who do? Why should the government decide what health insurance options are available to the public, thereby pricing many folks out of the market completely (are you listening, Barack and Hillary -- McGovern sounds as if he likes the McCain plan)? Why doesn't the government trust the American people to make its own choices -- and allow those who make bad choices to suffer the consequences and learn from them?

MORE AT HotAir

Posted by: Greg at 05:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

This guy is a gift that keeps on giving, isn't he.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says he is "a vagina-friendly Mayor."

Nagin made the remark while welcoming the author of the Vagina Monlogues, Eve Ensler to the city to promote the "V-Day" celebration in New Orleans next month.

* * *

Mayor Nagin began his comments at the news conference by saying, "How am I gonna stand up and say, I'm a 'vagina-friendly' Mayor to these cameras after 'Chocolate City' and some of the other stuff that I've done. But you know what? I'm in."

Unfortunately, though, Nagin is saying that in the context of endorsing a play that endorses sexual molestation of under-age girls as a liberating experience. Far from promoting the event, I'd argue that he should be condemning it. But that's just my opinion.

And let me offer this observation -- I'm no speech writer, but it seems to me that there are two sentences that should never be used together in the same paragraph.

"I'm a 'vagina-friendly' Mayor."

and

"I'm in."

And I say that as someone who is proud to be "vagina-friendly" (the friendlier the better, in my opinion).

H/T Michelle Malkin, Protein Wisdom

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 4 kb.

But don’t worry – he wants to make sure that you cough up your own hard-earned cash to pay for a government insurance scheme that will give many Americans worse coverage than they already have.

New York state has fined the personal corporation of Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken $25,000 for not carrying workers'-compensation insurance for almost three years.

The New York Workers' Compensation Board levied the fine against Alan Franken Inc. in August 2006 for failure to carry the insurance from June 2002 to March 2005.

Brian Keegan, a board spokesman, said a number of notices were sent to the address the New York agency had listed for Franken. But the TV personality and liberal political commentator didn't become aware of the fine until Tuesday, said campaign spokesman Andy Barr.

Three years of failure to pay for the insurance, and 18 months of failing to pay the fine. Could you imagine the media outrage – and left-wing rants – if this were Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? But the outcry of the MSM chatterers and liberal pols has been quite subdued. After all, it is one of their own who has been caught.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, according to this poll -- but is it relevant?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kicks off his general-election campaign trailing both potential Democratic nominees in hypothetical matchups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

The problem with this poll? First, it is eight months before the election. A lot can happen in that time, and will certainly include plenty of in-fighting among Democrats in this bitter race. Expect some of their supporters to peel away as that continues. Second, there will be the nomination of VP candidates, which can also blunt concerns about McCain's age while possibly exacerbating the Clinton/Obama split among Democrats. And then there is simply the tightening of the race that is inevitable as we see both sides get more balanced amounts of press coverage. So while i don't like these numbers, they don't necessarily frighten me.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

John McCain clinched the GOP nomination with wins in Texas and Ohio yesterday. Mike Huckabee conceded that he was beaten following his mathematical elimination from the contest. That was no surprise to anyone paying attention to the dynamics of that race.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton turned the Democrat race for the White House upside down with her victories in both of the big jewels in yesterday's primaries, Texas and Ohio.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, ending a string of defeats and allowing her to soldier on in a Democratic presidential nomination race that now seems unlikely to end any time soon.

Mrs. Clinton also won Rhode Island, while Mr. Obama won in Vermont. But the results mean that Mrs. Clinton won the two states she most needed to keep her candidacy alive.

Her victory in Texas was razor thin and came only after most Americans had gone to bed. But by winning decisively in Ohio earlier in the evening, Mrs. Clinton was able to deliver a televised victory speech in time for the late-night news. And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.

“No candidate in recent history — Democratic or Republican — has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “We all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win Democratic states just like Ohio.”

On the Republican side, Senator John McCain swept to victory in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont and claimed his partyÂ’s nomination, capping a remarkable comeback in his second bid for the presidency.

Mr. McCainÂ’s main remaining rival, Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, announced he was dropping out minutes after the polls closed and pledged his cooperation to Mr. McCain. Aides to Mr. McCain said he would head Wednesday morning to Washington to go to the White House and accept the endorsement of President Bush, his one-time foe, and begin gathering his party around him.

Let's be clear about what this means -- Barack Obama just saw his cake walk to the nomination ended. Hillary CLinton now has a very realistic possibility of surviving all the way through to the Democrat convention, which is quite likely to be brokered. There is absolutely no telling what that will mean -- however, I'd have to say the institutional support the Clintons have makes it more likely that she will win the nomination through the decisions of the super delegates.

Expect increasingly bitter rhetoric from both Obama and Clinton over teh next few weeks -- and expect the eventual nominee to emerge from the process bloodied and an easier target for John McCain and the Republicans.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

If you already are insured, you will probably get less -- especially if you are a senior citizen on Medicare or covered by Medicaid.

The two programs, for older Americans and low-income people, cost $627 billion last year and accounted for 23 percent of all federal spending. With no change in existing law, the Congressional Budget Office says, that cost will double in 10 years and the programs will account for more than 30 percent of the budget.

Economists and health policy experts say the federal health programs are unsustainable in their current form, because they are growing much faster than the economy or the revenues used to finance them. The Medicare program is especially endangered; its hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run out of money in 11 years.

But the need for cutbacks is not a popular theme for political candidates wooing voters who want more care at a lower cost.

The Democrats do not say, in any detail, how they would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid or what they think about the main policy options: rationing care, raising taxes, cutting payments to providers or requiring beneficiaries to pay more.

So, Hillary and Barack, what are you going to do to Grandma and Great-Uncle Sid? Provide them less care? Make them pay more of their fixed incomes for medical treatment? Raise everyone's directly taxes to pay for them? Cut payments to medical providers so that the rest of us pay a hidden tax in terms of increased fees when we see a doctor? And how will you prevent these same pitfalls from entering into your universal health care schemes, bringing us higher costs or rationed medical care?

After all, the American people deserve to know before you sell us a bill of goods.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Spot on!..dont u love the vagueness of the Lib economic promises~!

Posted by: Angel at Tue Mar 4 12:33:30 2008 (VSLD3)

2 respect

Posted by: Stalo at Tue Aug 26 00:16:19 2008 (jzBrH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

She said WHAT?

Un-FRIGGING-believable!

Steinem raised McCainÂ’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Let's set aside the fact that this malignant old bitch is wrong about the reaction of the media -- when we have had female POWs they have been treated with respect and adulation and their sacrifices have been honored.

And that this wrinkled old crone and her audience would find the respect given Senator McCain and the 5 1/2 years of torture he endured bewildering and funny (note the laughter) is indicative of how far in to the depths of anti-Americanism the Democrats have sunk. She certainly is not worthy of breathing the same air as John McCain.

But then again, why should we be surprised. She was one of those out on the front lines of the anti-war movement in the 1960s and 1970s, calling heroes like John McCain baby-killers and murderers. She is more supportive of America's jihadi enemies today than she is of the US, and she has more sympathy for the jihadis getting fat at Gitmo than she ever had for Americans starved and tortured by our nation's enemies. And she is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. -- one who indicates that she could be quite happy with Barack Obama because they are at least 90% the same on the issues.

The Clinton campaign has made a weak attempt to distance itself from Steinem's comments. The Obama campaign has remained shamefully silent. Those of us who love America and respect her men and women in uniform will remember this incident.

More at HolyCoast, Nick Ragone, Forum Politics, Shoe-Fly Pie, American Princess, Paxalles.

UPDATE: HotAir has more -- including Wes Clark's denigration of McCain's military service, in which he places time as First Lady ahead of time as a military officer in terms of preparation to lead the nation.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, , Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Wake Up America, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:34 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 6 kb.

1 comment6, river hills country club sc social membe, 89185,

Posted by: hausz resurfacing machine at Sun Feb 15 04:11:09 2009 (2xysY)

2 comment2, licensed teaching positions manhattan ka, 792631,

Posted by: family rape porn at Sun Feb 15 22:53:36 2009 (4s6Pj)

3 comment4, manhattan stemmed glasses, 63952,

Posted by: interior designer manhattan at Mon Feb 16 03:07:21 2009 (PyRtp)

4 comment1, jada fire squirt, D,

Posted by: dildo squirt at Sat Feb 21 11:44:26 2009 (t1JNc)

5 comment4, welding angle iron, jgec,

Posted by: hobart stick welding at Thu Mar 5 00:39:00 2009 (u+zEx)

6 comment5, birth control pills in cold temperatures, lmn,

Posted by: is jason mesnick engagged at Thu Mar 5 00:41:28 2009 (ayDOm)

7 comment3, homeopath birth control, %-]],

Posted by: best birth control pills to stop hair lo at Thu Mar 5 00:42:30 2009 (wEZDO)

8 comment4, mig welding definition, > (,

Posted by: liver abscess and birth control at Thu Mar 5 00:43:57 2009 (WnP9t)

9 Glucophage buy

Posted by: Glucophage at Fri Mar 6 04:12:36 2009 (o6fC6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm curious why this story gets so little play, and Democrats dismiss any reference to it as mud-slinging.

Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper articles about corruption and fraud.

None of that stopped Mr. Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Senator Barack Obama from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.

Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. ObamaÂ’s relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. ObamaÂ’s campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger as Mr. Rezko goes on trial on corruption charges starting Monday.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Mr. Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the State of Illinois. Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developerÂ’s decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood.

But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. RezkoÂ’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

As Mr. Obama and Mr. Rezko were completing the property purchases in June 2005, Mr. Rezko was fighting to keep lenders and investors at bay over defaulted loans and failing business ventures. But he side-stepped that financial dragnet by arranging for the land to be bought in his wifeÂ’s name, making it the only property she owned by herself, according to land records.

As a result, when the Obamas bought part of the land from Mrs. Rezko seven months later to widen their yard, the money they paid was beyond the reach of Mr. RezkoÂ’s creditors, including one conducting a court-ordered hunt for his assets to recover a $3.5 million debt.

Politics of change? Yeah -- keeping a nice chunk of change in the hands of a corrupt crony and out of the hands of those he defrauded.

But this is Barack Obama -- he's young, he's hip, he's cute, and he's Democrat. We dare not look too closely at this deal between him and a corrupt businessman -- especially because we don't know what skeletons will come tumbling out of the closets back in Chicago, where corruption is the oil that keeps the Democrat machine rolling.

And so while the Daley Administration running Chicago and the Blagojevich Administration running Illinois are tarred by their associations with Rezko, we are somehow expected to believe that Barack Obama is the only politician who somehow remained above the sleaze, despite this sweetheart deal and the long association between the two.

All it requires is that one suspend rational thought until November.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.

One of the neat things about local publications is that those who write for them are often more blunt when they speak about local politicians and issues. That's what makes this piece about the race for the GOP nomination in CD22 so fun.

Southbelt-Ellington Leader

February 24, 2008



PublisherÂ’s Opinion


ItÂ’s probably not necessary to remind our readers that election day is right around the corner, and everyone should vote.



There is plenty of information available to encourage you to vote for specific candidates. The Leader is not going to endorse candidates at this point.



But there is one candidate in a race, the congressional race for the 22nd District, for whom we are going to urge people not to vote for. That candidate is Pete Olson.



In May of 2007, he quit his job in Washington, D.C.



He left his $700,000 home to buy a house in Fort Bend for approximately $185,000 in August of 2007. At that time, he reported his mailing address as his home in Virginia.



When he filed with the Republican Party in December to run for the local congressional seat, he was asked how long he lived in the state, county and district.



Olson reported he lived in the state, county and district for four months.



Olson thinks he can use the big bucks he is getting from lobbyists to buy our congressional seat.



In his third campaign filing period, he reported receiving $175,000; with 90 percent of his funds coming from out of the state of Texas, most of it from well-known lobbyists.



He avoided his fellow opponents in the one televised debate, telling Channel 13, he was declining attending the event.



LetÂ’s see, home base really in Virginia; living in Texas for a few months out of the last couple of decades and most of his campaign money being donated from out of state.



Seems clear to me.



If elected, when his constituents want something for the district, they are going to have to get behind the long line of out-of state lobbyists.



He canÂ’t have, in such a short time, learned what he needs to know about representing this community.



Sorry, Mr. Olson, you must earn our vote, not buy it with out-of-state dollars from big lobbyists.



– Marie Flickinger

Well said, Marie. The problem with Olson is that his roots in the district are incredibly attenuated, and his position in the race is owed to those from outside of the area -- and the state -- who are financing his race. We deserve better.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

But it gave the wrong answer.

Obama then got the answer just as colossally wrong.

Playing on anxieties about national security, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has produced a “red phone moment” advertisement that suggests she would be better able to respond to a crisis than Senator Barack Obama.

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” says a narrator as threatening music surges over dark black-and-white images.

There’s a world crisis and the White House phone is ringing. “Your vote will decide who answers that call,” the narrator says. “Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”

It ends with a photo of Mrs. Clinton wearing glasses and picking up the phone.
Mr. Obama, responding to the ad during a stop in Houston, said it raised “a perfectly legitimate question.”

But let's be honest here -- the presidential candidate who is best qualified to pick up that phone is not Hillary Clinton. It is Senator John McCain, whose experience in and knowledge of the United States military is head and shoulders superior to that of either Democrat.

McCain knows, from personal experience, the cost of an incorrect decision to use -- or not use -- military force in defense of the United States. Neither of the Democrats has such experience. Neither of them has children currently serving in the US military.

McCain knows those world leaders, too -- and has greater experience with and greater respect from those leaders. After all, he has been in a policymaking role for decades, not making good-will visits and hosting state dinners as First Lady or voting present in a state legislature.

Who do I want picking up that phone at 3 a.m.? Who should any American want taking that call?

A neophyte politician -- long on rhetorical skills but short on qualifications?

A woman who loathes the military and who is seeking high public office the old-fashioned way -- using her husband's coattails to obscure her own lack of accomplishments?

Or a bona fide military hero from a family that has served the nation in the United States military with distinction for generations?

The answer should be obvious -- and I respectfully question the wisdom of anyone who disagrees.

OPEN TRACKBACKING ATOutside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, A Newt One, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 5 kb.

Let's be serious -- who really cares about this photo?

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

"The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya," the Drudge Report said. The photo created huge buzz in political circles and immediately became known as "the 'dressed' photo," reflecting the Drudge terminology.

Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.

Clearly, the photo does not show that Obama is a Muslim. It falls into a long line of photos of American political figures putting on goofy-looking native gear for a photo-op or as part of some event as a show of respect. That he may look a bit silly is not in and of itself a problem -- at least he isn't riding in a tank like Mike Dukakis or wearing the "bunny suit" at NASA like John Kerry.

I guess I really don't see it as proving anything.

But unlike the Clinton spokesperson in the article, i do see a problem with those connected to the campaign circulating the photo. After all, it is an attempt to play into the old false rumor about Obama being a Muslim -- and that is a bigoted attack.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 AM | Comments (328) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Many of my fellow Republicans have received this letter or will be receiving it in the days to come. I thought I would share it with you.

Dear Fellow Republican:



It is never an easy decision to reject an incumbent and support a challenger in the primary. There are loyalties and friendships that develop over the course of years, and the benefits to the district that come from seniority. And yet in this particular race, we have reached the conclusion that the people of District 129 would be better served if the Republican nominee were the challenger, Jon Keeney, rather than the incumbent.

HereÂ’s why we have reached this conclusion.

1. Jon Keeney has a clear vision for District 129 and the state of Texas. In the last sessions of the legislature, the incumbent has fallen short in meeting basic Republican principles like controlling public spending, cutting taxes, and promoting economic development in the district and the state as a whole. Jon Keeney recognizes the necessity of controlling property taxes so that Texans can afford to keep their homes and of encouraging business growth.

2. Jon Keeney recognizes the need for leaders to have high ethical standards. The incumbent has shamed District 129 with his unethical use of campaign funds. He has been fined for failing to fully disclose these expenditures as required by law and for using those funds for personal purposes. Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle (March 1, 2007) noted that the incumbent has sought reimbursement from both his campaign and the state for gas mileage expenses. This raises serious questions about double dipping, which would be a crime under state law--questions to which John Davis has not provided an adequate answer. Honesty and integrity are values that Jon Keeney will uphold as our state representative, as he seeks to restore trust in government leaders.

3. Jon Keeney supports American security and sovereignty. When there were opportunities to gain more control of illegal immigration, the incumbent voted against HB 13 which funded training to properly apprehend illegal immigrants for all local law enforcement agencies. The incumbent has supported the Trans-Texas Corridor, giving control of our stateÂ’s highways to a foreign country for decades come. Jon Keeney believes in secure borders, the enforcement of immigrations laws, and Texans controlling the transportation infrastructure of Texas.

4. Jon Keeney will be a citizen representative, not a career politician. Jon Keeney is seeking to serve the people of District 129, not his own personal interests.

The incumbent has not been an effective representative in Austin, and has not adhered to Republican principles. Jon Keeney will change that, so that the people of District 129 can be proud of our representative in Austin. That is why I urge you to join me in supporting Jon Keeney for State Representative, to guarantee that we see conservative change in the legislature.

Greg Aydt, Precinct 333 Chair

Laurence W. Tobin, Precinct 90 Chair

Joseph Spence, Precinct 732 Chair

Pat Monks, Precinct 718 Chair

Dennis Hayes, Precinct 378 Chair

Barbara Brehmer, Precinct 782 Chair

There is a problem in District 129. That problem is John Davis. We can solve that problem by making Jon Keeney the GOP nominee for State Representative in District 129. Early voting is underway, and the primary is in 10 days. Get out and vote for Jon Keeney.

Posted by: Greg at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

This looks bad on its face -- but isn't upon closer examination.

Charles Bacarisse, a candidate for the top Harris County government job, offered to use his contacts as district clerk to promote a process-serving company in return for a private consulting fee, according to the company's owner.

Bacarisse would not comment about the allegation Friday, but a spokesman denied any wrongdoing saying the company owner has misinterpreted the meeting she had with Bacarisse on Nov. 30, 2006, at a Starbucks.

The Chronicle reported this month that while serving as the elected district clerk, a job that pays $135,000 a year plus a car allowance, Republican Bacarisse ran a private consulting business that netted him $78,000 a year. Bacarisse said his private clients, a building management company and a process-serving and courier company, had no direct dealings with the county and hired him as a business strategist.

But Angela Clark of Houston, owner of Court Record Research Inc. and a former fundraiser for Bacarisse's district clerk campaigns, said Bacarisse offered in 2006 to use his government connections to help her process-serving operation — the type of private/public arrangement that Bacarisse has said he has never offered.

Could be ugly for a candidate (who I've endorsed) running on a platform of ethics reform.

Except that it appears to be missing any evidence of a quid pro quo that would make this a problem.

Clark said she was afraid to reject Bacarisse's consulting offer because that might lead to the loss of her free work space and afraid to accept because she viewed such an arrangement as a conflict of interest.

So she did nothing -- and neither lost her free work space nor clients.

Makes it seem much more likely that Bacarisse is correct -- Clark misunderstood the conversation and what he was suggesting.

I wonder if the reason for this story is that Ed Emmett is behind in the polls, and the Chronicle would much rather see "good ol' boy politics-as-usual" prevail over the grassroots movement within the GOP to clean up Harris County government that is backing Charles Bacarisse.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey just surrendered part of his reputation as a crusader against public corruption.

There's something to be said for an investigation. Rosenthal was, after all, the man who was in charge of prosecuting crime in Harris County. It would be unseemly for strong evidence that he committed a crime — even a misdemeanor — to go unpursued.

It would also be unseemly to seek much punishment beyond what he has already suffered, the loss of his prestigious position and the public humiliation he has suffered.

Rosenthal would hardly be the first elected official to receive a deal that amounted to resignation and, sometimes, a modest fine.

Yes, Casey backs this position up with examples -- examples that only prove how wrong he is.

These plea deals didn't do a damn thing to stem public corruption. If anything, they make it easier for public officials to break the law. After all, there appears to be no penalty for criminal activity when what you get is a plea deal in public corruption cases. If anything, the policy needs to be NO PLEA DEALS FOR CORRUPT POLS.

If illegal activity by public officials is to be discouraged, then it must be fully prosecuted and punished. And I take this stand in the case of a member of my own party to make it clear that my calls for clean government are based upon principle, not politics.

Chuck Rosenthal needs to go to jail, go directly jail, not passing "GO" and not collecting his government pension.

After all, if three hots and a cot were appropriate for the criminals he spent years prosecuting, it is good enough for our corrupt former DA.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess that these special groups aren't so bad when they let Lady Macbeth Senator Hillary Clinton get a cash infusion and enable attacks on Obama that her campaign couldn't make.

Looking to boost Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging fortunes, a group of Democratic political strategists has assembled an organization that will raise money from wealthy donors and run ads promoting her views in Texas and Ohio.

Called the American Leadership Project, the organization has been formed as a so-called 527 committee, which can raise unlimited amounts of money from some of Clinton's most deep-pocketed benefactors.

The group is targeting Texas and Ohio, the battleground states that hold primaries on March 4 and are considered Clinton's last best chance to keep her campaign alive against a surging Barack Obama. By law, the group cannot coordinate its activities with Clinton.

"We want to shine a light on issues that matter most to the nation's middle class — health care, freezing foreclosures, those sorts of things," Roger Salazar, the president of the new group, said in an interview. "Obviously Senator Clinton is a recognized champion on these issues."

Expect the high tech of Barack Obama to begin at the hands of these Clinton surrogates from California. Expect Hillary to say not a word against those who are running these ads. After all, bad things just coincidentally happen to those who get in the way of the Clintons -- but it isn't their fault.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

To borrow from the Bard -- much ado about nothing.

Early in Senator John McCainÂ’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyistÂ’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Interestingly enough, the story goes on like this for a couple of pages, but every single anecdote lacks one thing -- an actual act of wrong-doing on John McCain's part. The biggest question that arises anywhere in the article relates to one plane trip, and a dispute between different lawyers over whether and hoe it should have been reported on ethics forms. Pretty small potatoes, when you consider all the ink spilled on this story.

And there is, of course, the sexist double standard at work in this article, too. If the lobbyist friend had been male, would the NY Times have felt it necessary to invoke the issue of an extra-marital sexual affair when there was no evidence of one presented anywhere in the article? Doesn't hinting that female lobbyists give sexual favors to advance the interests of their clients while not making the same sort of claims about male lobbyists constitute an egregious attack upon the equality of women?

The biggest bit of evidence that there is nothing substantive to this story was published four weeks ago -- the endorsement of John McCain by the New York Times. This story has clearly been in the works for some time (indeed, dating back to at least December), and if there had been evidence of substantive wrong-doing by the Arizona Senator the endorsement would not have happened.

The Washington Post gives an interesting statistic at the end of its article that would appear damning to anyone who was too lazy to do the math.

Iseman and her firm, which includes high-profile Republicans and Democrats, have also represented a number of other companies that have had issues before McCain and the commerce committee, including Univision, a Spanish-language television network. Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

Let's see -- depending upon how you count that, we would be talking about seven or eight calendar years worth of donations. Assuming that this sloppily constructed sentence means that the Post is only counting donations from the years 2001 through 2007 (it is a bit early to know about 2008 donations) we are talking about an average of $12,000 in donations a year from all clients of Vicki Iseman. That is peanuts when one considers her client list, constituting very small donations from the companies she represents. If anything, it would tend to show that everything is on the up and up in terms of the campaign finance end of things, and that John McCain hasn't been bought and paid for by Iseman's clients.

Now some may want to make an issue of the complaints by John McCain to NY Times editor Bill Keller and this statement attacking the paper.

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

However, I ask those who argue (as one local blogger did) that McCain's objections to the story are proof of its truth a simple question -- if defending yourself from an accusation that you believe to be untrue and unfair constitutes proof of guilt, would you really consider silence in the face of such charges to be evidence of innocence? Or do you really care about the accuracy of the charges at all?

More At Captains Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 864 words, total size 6 kb.

As early voting soars here in Texas, I figure it is time for me to make public my endorsements on various races in Harris County.

PRESIDENT

Mitt Romney

Yes, I know that I’ve been talking for a while about the importance of supporting John McCain in November – but the primary is in March. Stopping McCain isn’t an option, but expressing a conservative vision is. I’m therefore going to cast my vote for the candidate I supported through this nominating process, as my way of supporting a conservative future for the GOP. I urge my fellow Republicans to do the same.

US SENATE

John Cornyn

John Cornyn is a competent Senator with conservative principles and rising star of the GOP. His opponent is running on a platform of secession and independence for Texas.

CONGRESS – CD22

Shelly Sekula Gibbs

Tom DeLay screwed the voters of CD22 in 2006 when he withdrew from the race for Congress after winning the primary. I quickly got behind Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs as she sought DeLayÂ’s spot on the ballot. After a federal court ruled that DeLayÂ’s spot could not be filled under Texas election law, she was the endorsed candidate for both the special election to fill out the remaining weeks of DeLayÂ’s term AND as a write-in candidate for the general election. She won the special election handily, and made a strong showing against a Democrat whose name was actually on the ballot. She spent her short time in Congress highlighting conservative principles and issues in a series of speeches and press releases.

Fast-forward to 2008. Ten candidates seek the Republican nomination to take on Nick Lampson. Four are irrelevant no-names. Two, former Judge Jim Squier and former Pasadena Mayor John Manlove gave up secure posts for longshot congressional bids that have simply not ignited much passion. That leaves four serious candidates, who I will talk about in a moment. Ultimately, there will be a run-off in this race – with 10 candidates in the race it is extremely unlikely that any candidate can break 50%. It is a safe bet that the two candidates in the run-off are on the list below.

1) Pete Olson, a former staffer for Phil Gramm and John Cornyn comes highly recommended by Washington insiders and heavily funded by Washington insiders and lobbyists. While he does have roots in the district, he has been away for many years and did not even have a Texas drivers license a year ago. HeÂ’s conservative, but is he just as much a carpetbagger as Nick Lampson?

2) Robert Talton has a great record in the Texas Legislature, but is often perceived as extreme and volatile in his temperament. He was the favorite of most precinct chairman to take Tom DeLay’s place on the ballot during the 2006 fiasco – but he wouldn’t give up his safe legislative seat to make a write-in run. He wouldn’t put it on the line for us two years ago to help us keep CD22 Republican – why should we support him now?

3) Dean Hrbacek is a former mayor of Sugar Land, and compiled a great record in that position. He was strangely absent from the 2006 scramble for the seat, which is too bad – he would have made a great candidate and drawn many votes from the western half of the district. His experience and character would serve him well were he to be elected – but I think he missed his best chance in 2006.

4) Shelley Sekula Gibbs, as recounted above, hit the ground running in 2006 and hasnÂ’t stopped running since. After her brief time in Washington was over, she began an immediate effort to take the seat she held for those few weeks after winning the special election. She has clearly and consistently enunciated a conservative platform during that time. She has high name identification and has raised significant funds for the race. I believe her to be the best choice for us in 2008.

I therefore urge my fellow Republicans to once again cast their ballot for Shelley Sekula Gibbs.

HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE

Charles Bacarisse

Ed Emmett became Harris County judge through a corrupt bargain between former County Judge Robert Eckels and the rest of the Commissioners Court. Rather than selecting a replacement who had the faith of the voters, they chose an Eckels crony who had not stood for office in two decades. This did not inspire confidence in the people of Harris County – and Ed Emmett has done nothing to earn that confidence since then. Charles Bacarisse has a solid record of accomplishment in his years as District Clerk, and has put forth solid conservative plans for dealing with ethics in county government and unpaid bills from both legal and illegal aliens treated by the Harris County Hospital District at taxpayer expense. He is not merely the best choice – he is the only choice.

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Jim Leitner

I wonÂ’t recount the recent scandal that led to Chuck RosenthalÂ’s decision not to seek reelection as DA and his eventual resignation. Suffice it to say that IÂ’m pleased he is gone. Of the four candidates to succeed him in that office, three are clearly qualified and two have experience as prosecutors. In an ordinary year IÂ’d be inclined to support Kelly Siegler, the best prosecutor on a staff of highly regarded prosecutors. However, SieglerÂ’s husband is intimately connected with the scandal that brought down Rosenthal, and so I donÂ’t believe she will be able to escape that shadow. Jim Leitner, on the other hand, is a defense attorney with who was also 1st Assistant DA in the office some years ago. He is highly regarded by the Harris County Bar, and has laid out a plan for restoring public confidence in the DAs office. I believe he is our best choice.

TEXAS HOUSE DISTRICT 129

Jon Keeney

There is a serious problem in District 129, and it is the incumbent Republican, John Davis. IÂ’ve already made it clear that I believe he needs to be removed from office due to his ineffectiveness, unresponsiveness, and ethical lapses. Fortunately, retired businessman Jon Keeney has stepped forward to offer us a choice in the primary. He is running on a platform that supports high ethical standards and economic development in the region. Keeney is not only the best choice, he is the only choice.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 8, PLACE 1

Holly Williamson

We have the good fortune of having three excellent candidates in this race. Indeed, I struggled with this one before deciding on Holly Williamson. Of the three candidates, Williamson strikes me as the one who is best suited to the position. Long active in the community in the Clear Lake area, Holly is a respected attorney with strong support form the grassroots Republican activists in the area.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1208 words, total size 9 kb.

How does campaign finance law apply here.

The founders of Ben & Jerry's endorsed Barack Obama on Monday, and lent his Vermont campaign two "ObamaMobiles" that will tour the state and give away scoops of "Cherries for Change" ice cream.

I’m curious – does this constitute a personal donation from Ben and Jerry? What is the value of that donation? If they market this “Cherries for Change” Ice cream, will any reference to Obama be counted as a donation? Is Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream a partnership or a corporation – and if so, how do the rules on corporate donations come into play here? All in all, this hearkens back to my earlier post on campaign contributions.

H/T The Campaign Spot.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 3 kb.

Two wins each, thank you very much. Whither Hillary?

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept to victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii yesterday, bringing to 10 the number of consecutive contests he has won over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and raising the stakes for crucial votes in Ohio and Texas next month.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) easily beat former governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.) in Wisconsin and the Washington State caucuses, two wins that further cement his status as the race's front-runner.

The big difference is this -- with the nomination more or less secure, John McCain can work on defining himself relative to the two Democrats. On the other hand, the two Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, will find it necessary to focus on securing the support of their own party base as they attempt to win the nomination. COnventional wisdom says this favors McCain -- but we shall see. After all, a string of victories for Obama (he is now up to 10 straight) could boost Obama's image as a strong candidate even higher.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

And quit exploiting the real people of America?

After all, she works managing hedge funds -- and those are bad people, according to Hillary Clinton.

ABC News' Jennifer Parker and Eloise Harper Report: Sen. Hillary Clinton took a swipe at her daughter's profession today at an economic roundtable discussion at a restaurant in Parma, Ohio, suggesting wealthy investment bankers and hedge fund managers on Wall Street aren't doing real 'work.'

The former first lady's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, works for New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group. She previously worked in New York for McKinsey & Company, her first job after graduating with her master's degree from Oxford University.

"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That's very discouraging to people."

You just feel like, 'wait a minute. I'm working as hard as I can.' All those people you see in your law office. They're working as hard as they can and they feel like they're just getting further and further behind," Clinton said.

It's not the first time Clinton has taken a swipe against her daughter's profession. Campaigning in Wisconsin yesterday, Clinton railed against hedge funds as Chelsea sat off to the side.

"I saw a sign over here - someone has a t-shirt on, tax hedge fund dealers," Clinton said Monday, "well in this economy we are going to have a fair tax system again. A Wall Street investment manager, a hedge fund dealer, should not pay a lower percentage of taxes on his 50 million dollars worth of income.”

Gee -- David Shuster was suspended from MSNBC for criticizing the Clinton campaign's use of Chelsea Clinton as a surrogate. Now that Hillary is attacking her daughter's profession -- and, by implication, her daughter -- will there be some sort of penalty for the attack on Chelsea? Or does the Clinton campaign hold out a double standard on attacks on Chelse?

And by the way -- will Hillary insist that her daughter get a real job?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 4 kb.

Mike Huckabee says that his reason for not withdrawing from the race for the GOP nomination is passion.

Mike Huckabee said Tuesday passion for his beliefs — not his ego — was the reason he remains in the Republican presidential race despite near-impossible odds.

Rival John McCain collected another primary win in Wisconsin and moved closer to the 1,191 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Huckabee hasn't won a contest since Feb. 9.

"It's not about ego," Huckabee told reporters at a Little Rock hotel. The former Arkansas governor said he still wanted to deliver his message about issues important to him, such as opposition to abortion and a revised U.S. tax policy.

Sorry, Mike, I disagree. The issue is one of ego -- of the sort of pride that goeth before the fall. You are unable to win, and have never really been a serious candidate. Indeed, then electoral math shows that you cannot win this race. And yet still you run, pretending that you have something of significance to offer the GOP at this moment rather than working towards healing and reconciliation between conservatives and the presumptive nominee, John McCain.

Get out, Mike -- get out now.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm certainly not an Obama supporter -- anyone who has spent any time reading here knows that. But I do have to defend him against the silly plagiarism charge leveled by the Clinton campaign (and some of my fellow conservatives).

Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, today accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of committing “plagiarism” in a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday night.

Wolfson made the explosive charge in an interview with Politico after suggesting as much in a conference call with reporters.

On the call, Wolfson said: “Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.”

"When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader," said Wolfson.

Now I'll be honest -- the idea is similar. And both Patrick and Obama admit that they had discussed the idea that underlies their respective statements. But the idea expressed is hardly original with Deval Patrick -- the notion that words are powerful things in and of themselves, and that they have the capacity to move entire societies and change the world.

When did I first encounter that idea? In Mr. O'Keefe's ninth grade English class. I heard it again in any number of classes -- speech, English, history, and political science -- during the rest of my academic career. I've said something similar to my students in my own classes

And let's look at what both men did -- they strung together some of the most electrifying words of American history and noted that they were "just words". It isn't an original idea. And while the phrasing is nearly identical, which initially raised some questions in my mind, there is really nothing distinctive what was said. Heck, it wasn't even a particularly profound idea -- I'd almost call it a platitude.

And one further point -- our politicians today rarely speak an unscripted word. Even the ad libs are planned in advance, as I would suggest this one was. Few and far between are the Daniel Websters and Henry Clays who produce all their own material -- most political speechifying is the result of the work of hired guns and advisers. Barack Obama took an idea proffered by one of them and ran with it. Hardly indicative of a character flaw. How many of her words on the campaign trail actually originated from the pen of Hillary Clinton, and how many came from those of her staff and supporters?

In my opinion Barack Obama is an empty suit -- but this particular issue doesn't prove it.

And it looks like at least one Clintonoid agrees with me.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (310) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

With John McCain the presumptive nominee at this point, the talk has turned to the selection of a Republican running mate. This is important for a lot of reasons, of course, but three in particular stand out.

1) John McCain has issues with the conservative base of the GOP, and he needs to woo them.

2) John McCain will be 72 years old when elected in November, and though his health is good his age makes it important that he have a qualified successor.

3) John McCain may very well be a one-term president due to his age, and his vice president is likely the presumptive front-runner in 2008.

So who are some possibilities? Well, other than a decision to reach out to a former rival like Mitt Romney (a good choice in light of point 1) or Rudy Giuliani (a bad choice for the same reason), one of the names I have heard on virtually every list is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Even through the McCain campaignÂ’s darkest days in 2007, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained a steadfast ally to the Arizona senator in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

As a result, with John McCain as the clear GOP front-runner and insider talk turning to speculation about his possible running mate, party insiders are now buzzing about the 47-year-old, second-term governorÂ’s vice presidential prospects.

Why Pawlenty?

“First of all, his age is attractive,” Weber says, hinting at the nearly quarter-century difference between his fellow Minnesotan and the 71-year-old McCain. “Second, he’s from outside Washington. Third, he represents a battleground part of the country. And he has a nice balance of, on one hand being totally acceptable to the conservative wing of the party, especially to social conservatives, but at the same time sharing a couple of key maverick strains of thought with McCain.”

And let's be honest -- Pawlenty has a great following within the conservative blogosphere, which has been none-to-pleased with the rise of McCain. One of his big backers is none other than Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters. Ditto Hugh Hewitt, who it appears has spoken highly of the governor for years. That can't hurt a young governor with a proven record of success. Expect to here more speculation about Pawlenty in coming weeks.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

In my eyes the question is not if the junior Senator from Illinois will get it, but when.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) paid a secret visit to his former rival, John Edwards, in quest of his endorsement on Sunday.

The meeting in Chapel Hill, N.C., where Edwards lives, is the latest effort by Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to win "the Edwards primary" — the heatedly sought endorsement of the third-place finisher in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton also pulled off a secret meeting to the Edwards mansion earlier this month. Speeches by both candidates have been including frequent references to Edwards' message about ending poverty.

In a delegate race that's essentially tied, with Obama in a slight lead, the Edwards nod could be very valuable.

Obama's campaign said in a statement: "Sen. Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families."

What I find amusing is the need for this to be a secret meeting at all. Everybody knows that both Obama and Clinton want -- need, actually -- Edwards' endorsement right now to make clinching the nomination quickly a real possibility. If Edwards withholds that endorsement, the Democrats will be facing a race that runs through May or June -- if not the convention itself due to the superdelegates.

Pictures and video can be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

I am not into rubber stamping, but my wife is. She passed on this little bit of political humor from one of her favorite stamping sites.

Dear Paperlicious,

I live in South Gambusta and am unfamiliar with the US system of politics.  Do politicians stamp?

Signed,
Want to Know As Much As You Do

Dear WTKAMAYD:

Hey there other side of the world person!!  Welcome to my explanation of politics USA and its relationship to stamping.

First, here is a brief summary of the Presidential race.  The President runs the country.  Kind of like the Shelli Gardner of the USA. Not quite as influential, but pretty important.  Up until this year, the President has always been a POWG  (pretty old white guy).  This year, he may be John McCain (POWG), but may be a YAAG (young African American guy) -- Barack Obama, or a MAWW (middle age white woman).  Our heads are spinning at the thought!!!

Right now the Repubicans are about to select McCain to be their nominee for President but half the Repulicans hate McCain so we have no idea what's up with that.  The Democrats are in a knock down drag out fight between Obama and Clinton, so we have no clue where that is going.

Basically, we have no clue.

UNTIL TODAY!!!! 

I was lucky enough to interview each of them.

You'll have to click the link to read the actual interviews, which to my way of thinking seem to have captured the personalities of each of the three major candidates. If you have ever been dragged to a craft store by your wife visited a craft store with your significant other, this one will bring a smile to your face.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, , The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 4 kb.

I've started this post about three times since yesterday afternoon.

I've dumped everything I've written each time -- mainly because I've been unable to prevent myself from veering off into a profane rant against Chuck Roesnthal.

After all, as I have indicated earlier, I believe he should have left office weeks ago.

Instead he hung on and damaged the DAs office here in Harris County in ways which could and should have been avoided.

Besieged by an e-mail scandal and perjury accusations, Texas’s most powerful prosecutor resigned on Friday, saying that a combination of prescription drugs had “caused some impairment in my judgment.”

The resignation of the prosecutor, District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr. of Harris County, the stateÂ’s busiest criminal jurisdiction, ended removal proceedings by the Texas attorney general.

It was a relief to fellow Republican leaders who last month quashed Mr. RosenthalÂ’s bid for a third term.

The office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who will appoint a successor, said it had not been formally notified by Mr. Rosenthal and had no immediate response.

Asked by e-mail for comment, Mr. Rosenthal, 62, sent a terse answer: “Yeah. Right!”

The resignation, announced in a one-page statement, followed by hours the filing of a state suit seeking Mr. Rosenthal’s removal “for intoxication, incompetence or official misconduct.”

Frankly, that is a pretty good summary, and decent reporting for the New York Times. And for what it is worth, I think that Rosenthal's response to the Times is indicative of the attitude he has shown throughout the recent scandal -- that he was a law unto himself and needn't answer to anyone.

The resignation press release itself is rather interesting.

As the Houston Chronicle points out, only ten days before he had been denying medication issues.

>As recently as 10 days ago, Rosenthal publicly denied having any problems with medication to deal with pain.

At a Feb. 5 meeting with about 20 of his upper echelon administrators, Rosenthal addressed "rumors that he was addicted to painkillers" that he had heard was going around, said Julian Ramirez, a division chief.

Rosenthal said he didn't even take painkillers, Ramirez said.

So if it isn't an issue op painkillers, what medications have been rendering Rosenthal unfit for office? Has he, as accused in a lawsuit filed by Democrat activist and C.O. Bradford surrogate Lloyd Kelley (his former law partner), been self-medicating with alcohol in the office?

Now some speculate the resignation -- and the reason for casting it in terms of involuntary intoxication due to prescription medications -- has less to do with the medical issues and more to do with legal ones surrounding possible perjury charges.

Rosenthal might have admitted pharmacological drugs impaired his judgment so he can raise involuntary intoxication as a possible defense if he is charged with perjury, Kelley said.

Involuntary intoxication — such as unawareness that a combination of drugs could have a certain effect — is a fact issue that can be considered by a jury in a perjury case, said attorney Pat McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association.

"It is a circumstance that could make it difficult to prove you intended to lie," McCann said.

And once again, we find Dr. Sam Siegler, husband of ace prosecutor and DA candidate Kelly Siegler, right in the middle of the entire mess. The information that comes out over the next few days could be critical in determining how badly damaged Kelly Siegler's candidacy is by this continually unfolding scandal. However, it confirms in my mind the correctness of my decision, communicated to Kelly Siegler in person at the GOP Executive Committee meeting on February 11, to endorse Jim Leitner for the DA nomination because he is not married to one of the principals in the unfolding scandal. She may be the single best courtroom advocate that the Harris County DA has had in recent years, but until the dust settles in this case I believe someone from outside the office and not closely related to a major figure in the case is a better option, even if her conduct has been undeniably above reproach.

And i agree with the Houston Chronicle on this point about the temporary replacement for Rosenthal.

Gov. Rick Perry now will have to appoint an interim replacement. The Chronicle urges Perry, a Republican, to pass over any of the four Republicans and the lone Democrat now seeking election to the office. Appointing a political candidate to fill Rosenthal's unexpired term would give that person an unfair advantage in the voting to permanently replace the outgoing district attorney. That would interfere with the voting public's right to choose the office's next leader.

The person who steps in to replace Rosenthal in the months before the November general election should be independent of politics, have a reputation for integrity and judgment that is beyond reproach, and have no desire to be elected to the office.

The ideal candidate, who would serve until an elected successor takes office Jan. 1, would be a person from outside the District Attorney's Office who has previous prosecutorial experience, perhaps in the federal system. Experience on the defense side of the bar would be an additional plus, because it would offer the balanced perspective that many have complained is lacking in the office.

The governor cannot be seen as taking sides between the GOP candidates two weeks before the primary, or between general election candidates. I tend to agree with the proposed qualifications as well, though I can think of candidates without all those qualifications who would help restore public confidence in the prosecutor's office again. Among these would be former DA Johnny Holmes, who built the office into one of the finest District Attorney offices in the nation during his tenure.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 9 kb.

Obama insisted that other candidates adhere to campaign spending limits -- but he has been raising cash like they don't apply. Seems a wee bit hypocritical to me. And he is getting hammered for it.

Hammering Senator Barack Obama for a fourth straight day, Senator John McCain said here on Friday that he expects Senator Obama to abide by his pledge use public financing for his general election if Mr. McCain does so as well.

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.”

“If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

Actually, at this point Senator Obama DOES know who the GOP niminee will be, and he has agreed to abide by the spending limits, so his refusal to commit is disingenuous.

Especially since his campaign is claiming that Barack Obama has never ACTUALLY committed to public financing.

“Obama is not the nominee, but this is a question we will address when he is," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement Thursday. Burton rejected the idea that Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue.

The context here is important. Obama made his original comments when his campaign was just getting started and his fundraising ability was largely unknown. Obama has since emerged as a record-setting fundraiser who likely would eclipse the $85 million public financing limit.

In other words, that commitment was back when he didn't know if he could raise much more then the spending limit -- but now that he sees he can, he doesn't consider what he said to be binding. Seems like the "candidate of change" is really the "candidate of change his mind".

And the Washington Post offers this observation.

But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It's not befitting Mr. Obama's well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman's statements that she would "definitely consider" forgoing public financing.

Why not let the candidates raise as much cash as they can and save the taxpayers' money? Because it's better for voters if candidates spend more time talking to them and less time cozying up to donors. It's better for democracy if candidates are less indebted to big bundlers who have raked in six- or seven-figure amounts for their campaigns. Mr. McCain seems to understand this. What about the Democrats?

Now I personally disagree with the whole premise of Political Speech And participation Limitation Laws like those supported by the liberal media, John McCain, and, supposedly, the Democrats. I believe it is better for the American people and the American political system if individuals (not corporations or unions, but individuals) are permitted to freely speak and donate money to campaigns without limits. I believe that it is better if candidates and campaigns and political parties are not muzzled by spending limits. And I believe that this piece in today's Washington Post makes a compelling case that such laws are inimical to the First Amendment. But if Barack Obama is going to argue that clean politics require the suppression of political speech and participation, he ought to bind himself to that regime right now.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 7 kb.

For those on the Left who want to argue that C.O. Bradford, former Houston police chief and Democrat candidate for Harris County DA, should become our chief prosecutor in the county, let's take a look back at one of the two best-know scandals of his tenure. You know, the one that resulted in HUNDREDS of unjustified arrests of innocent individuals in the space of an hour and which will likely cost the city MILLIONS in damages by the time the lawsuits are through.

A federal judge has declined another city request to end the 10 lawsuits filed by people arrested in a 2002 Kmart street racing raid.

It's the second time U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas has ruled that the lawsuits can go forward.

In a decision this week, Atlas wrote that the more than 100 plaintiffs could sue about whether the Houston Police Department had a "custom of mass detention without individualized reasonable suspicion."

* * *

In 2005, the judge ruled that the police plan that led to the mass arrests was unconstitutional. In a scathing opinion, she called HPD tactics to detain and arrest people who were not observed violating the law "an unjustified, almost totalitarian, regime of suspicionless stops."

Civil rights lawsuits were filed after almost 300 people were arrested in August 2002 during a surprise raid on the Kmart parking lot in the 8400 block of Westheimer. The HPD operation was an attempt to combat street racing.

All of the cases name former HPD Chief Clarence C.O. Bradford, who is running as a Democrat for Harris County district attorney, and allege he knew about the plan. The lawsuits also accused police of brandishing firearms and being verbally abusive during the incident.

What a timely article!

It serves as a reminder that C.O. Bradford had no respect for civil liberties as police chief.

Add to that the fact that he, not the Harris County DA, was responsible for the crime lab debacle, and it becomes clear that he isn't competent to run a hot dog cart, much less the Harris County DAs office.

Posted by: Greg at 04:04 AM | Comments (167) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

We in the GOP have only one living ex-President, having lost two in the last four years. On Monday, George H. W. Bush will endorse John McCain for the presidency.

Former president George H.W. Bush will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Houston on Monday during a media availability at 9:30 a.m. Texas time, Republican sources say.

President Bush will be in Africa at the time. He told “Fox News Sunday” last weekend that he would help make the case for McCain’s conservative credentials as soon as there was an official nominee.

The endorsement by the former president does two things that are crucial to McCain as he tries to capitalize on the potential advantages of being the nominee when Democrats are still fighting it out:

— It begins to make former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee look like he’s not being a team player, raising expectations that he should drop out or run a quieter campaign.

— It also undercuts Republicans who are reluctant to fully support McCain because of his past differences with the party’s right wing.

This endorsement is important in that it serves as the second leg of the Bush trifecta of endorsements. Jeb Bush has already endorsed McCain, and President George W. Bush will give his endorsement after McCain numerically secures the nomination.

But here in Harris County, Texas, it is likely that this endorsement will carry some weight. After all, the former president lives here among us in Houston, where he and Barbara are respected and beloved members of the community. That might be enough to carry Harris County (and with it all of Texas) for McCain on march 4.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama is talking Second Amendment.

At first he sounds really good.

Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

Like I said, pretty good – and I think most of us are open to some discussion about what constitutes a “commonsense regulation”.

Unfortunately, Obama then turns around and proves that he is really just another gun-grabber.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.

The problem is that the DC law in question sweepingly bans an entire class of guns and limits the rest in such a manner as to render them inoperative. Indeed, under that law the act of meaningfully bearing arms within the District of Columbia is a criminal offense when that “individual right to bear arms” is exercised by an average citizen.

Obama, then, is trying to have it both ways. While he pays lip service to the Second Amendment, he actually is willing to see it eviscerated through legislation that restricts the individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue for something like the DC law is like arguing that the expansive right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment is subject to “commonsense regulation” so that it includes only the right to be a member of a government-approved and licensed church.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 4 kb.

IÂ’ve always been troubled by the notion that a president or potential president is expected to release his or her tax returns and lots of other personal financial data to the public. For that matter, IÂ’m troubled by the amount of information made available to the public through ethics disclosure forms. ThatÂ’s why IÂ’m in complete disagreement with this NY Times editorial.

As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate.

Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it. Both Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and she owe it to their parties and to voters to promptly make available their Internal Revenue Service filings, and to respond to any questions about them. It is true that as senators, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are required to file financial disclosure forms. But those forms present only general parameters of family financial resources, not the detail available on tax returns.

I fundamentally disagree. John McCain and Hillary Clinton don’t owe ANYONE the information available on their income tax returns. Indeed, it would be healthy for America for them to flat-out REFUSE to release their tax information even after they are nominated. And while I have questions about the business dealings of Bill Clinton, I respect his privacy enough to recognize that the American people are not entitled to the details of his speaking fees and other financial dealings just because his wife is running for the office he once held. For that matter, we don’t need to know the detailed medical information related to post-cardiac care for Mr. Clinton following his heart problems or any medical conditions for which the younger McCain children may be receiving treatment – information that might well be a part of the two families’ tax returns.

Speaking personally, I’m often curious about the business dealings of certain commentators, certain reporters and members of certain editorial boards. Their slant on the news is of great public import – and yet we never get a glimpse into the nitty-gritty details of, for example, the finances of Keith Olbermann. What about the public’s right to know?

When down to it, this isn’t a matter of the public’s right to know. Rather, it is a matter of the right to privacy of American citizens – which, let us recall, is the highest title that will ever be held by either of these two senators or their fellow candidate, Senator Obama.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

What would Reagan do?

Michael Reagan tells us how his father would respond to the McCain nomination.

In 1976 the Ford vs. Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination got so heated it looked as if my father and Jerry Ford would never again talk to one another.

When it was over and Ford had won, what did Ronald Reagan do? He simply went all-out to help Ford win his re-election, as did I and as did my sister Maureen. My dad simply followed his rule of backing the Republican candidate no matter who he was.

Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.

In other words, those of you claiming to be Reagan conservatives who persist in stating that you will not vote for John McCain for president are posers and imposters. You appropriate the good name of the father of modern conservatism and the architect of nearly three decades of GOP dominance of the executive branch in order to justify political behavior diametrically opposed to that he engaged in himself.

WhatÂ’s more, what was the outcome when a group of conservatives failed to heed his example in 1976 and chose to sit out the election or vote third party?

Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long lines at the gas pumps. And donÂ’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.

By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald ReaganÂ’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.

We were still in the middle of the Cold War in those days, and by staying home conservatives risked losing that war by allowing an incompetent leader to become commander in chief.

We stand at a crossroads this election. We can choose to back a leader willing to pursue a policy of victory over Islamism, or we can allow the election of a president dedicated to a policy of weakness and surrender. We can capitalize on the advances of conservative principle over the last three decades, or we can squander them by refusing to back a candidate who isnÂ’t pure enough. We can aid the election of a moderately conservative president, or ensure the election of an unabashedly liberal one.

The real question, though, is not “What would Reagan do?” That is in the past, and we know what he did when confronted with precisely this situation.

My friends, the real question is “What will we do?”

As for me, I choose to follow in the footsteps of Reagan – and urge you to do the same.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 5 kb.

Mitt Romney does the honorable thing in the name of party unity and the good of the country.

One of the bitterest feuds of the 2008 presidential race ended Thursday when Mitt Romney threw his support — and vowed to try to throw his delegates — behind his former archrival for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

The formal backing of Mr. Romney was the latest coup, though an expected one, for Mr. McCain as he seeks to unite a fractured Republican Party behind his candidacy. And while the fate of Mr. RomneyÂ’s delegates will be determined by rules that vary from state to state, his request that they vote for Mr. McCain at the convention is expected to push Mr. McCain closer to the 1,191 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination.

“I am honored today to give my full support to Senator McCain’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States,” Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said at a hastily arranged news conference with Mr. McCain in Boston. “I am officially endorsing his candidacy. And today I am asking my delegates to vote for Senator McCain at the convention.”

Mr. Romney decided to make the endorsement on Thursday morning during a meeting with his advisers. Mr. McCain, who was already on a New England swing through Rhode Island and Vermont, quickly added a stop in Boston to collect it.

These two went against each other tooth and nail. John McCain won. Mitt Romney recognized -- quite appropriately -- that there is more that unites us with McCain and his supporters then divides us from them, and that the best way to advance our goals is to work with McCain to reach a conservative result. It isn't an abrogation of principle -- it is an accommodation with reality.

Do I minimize my differences with John McCain? No, I don't -- and I stand by every criticism of him that I have offered during th course of the campaign for the GOP nomination this year. That said, I know he is a lot better than either of the options that the Democrats will offer the American people, and so I choose the good of America over ideological purity.

More At Michelle Malkin, including some deluded sounding Huckabee comments.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Barack Obama wants to ensure that retirees who make more than I do a year pay no taxes.

"We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect."

I'm curious -- as a public school teacher who makes less that $50K a year, will I be given the opportunity to work with dignity and respect? After all, I struggle with rising prices, too!

Somehow I doubt it. After all, the junior Senator from Illinois wants to ensure that my Bush-sponsored tax cut is eliminated, effectively giving me a tax increase.

So much for respect and dignity for workers – you know, the very folks the Democrats CLAIM to represent.

H/T The Campaign Spot

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor,, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 3 kb.

Now if he would just have the decency to get out of the Senate immediately.

Oh, wait -- if he had any decency he wouldn't have been trying to pick up guys in bathroom stalls.

So I don't expect this aciton by the Ethics Committee to have much effect.

Senator Larry E. Craig was admonished by his colleagues on Wednesday for conduct that reflected poorly on the Senate as the result of his arrest and guilty plea last summer in an undercover sex sting in a menÂ’s bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.

The reprimand handed down by the Senate Ethics Committee said that Mr. CraigÂ’s conduct in the bathroom was improper and that his actions after his arrest appeared to be an effort to evade the legal consequences in violation of the code of ethics for government service.

Committee members also raised questions about Mr. CraigÂ’s conversion of over $200,000 in campaign money to pay legal fees, noting that he had not cleared that action as required with the committee. The panel said it would consider further use of campaign money without approval as showing a continuing disregard for ethics rules.

Unfortunately, the committee didn't recommend more serious sanctions, especially in light of the financial misconduct that was cited. That's too bad, because it signals that there is a serious flaw in the ethics process.

The GOP has called upon Larry Craig to get ut of the Senate. I wonder why the Ethics Committee failed to take steps towards making that a reality. Could it be fear by top Democrats -- including San Francisco's own Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee -- that taking that drastic step could be seen negatively by the gay community?

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

That's what it looks like, with the campaign's firewall (Ohio and Texas) not coming until March 4.

ItÂ’s a high-risk play for the once undisputed Democratic front-runner. It also may be the only maneuver she has left after rival Barack Obama managed to effectively counter her planned Super Tuesday knock-out punch.

Since then, heÂ’s seized momentum by racking up eight wins on friendly turf, including three more Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

“How do you survive all of the Obama money, momentum and media between now and March 4 when it looks like you are going to lose everything in between, including the Democrats Abroad vote?” asked unaligned Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh.

And there is a particularly dangerous aspect to this strategy -- she has to dismiss Obama voters as somehow unimportant and unrepresentative of America.

But her strategy is fraught with risks, not the least of which is dismissing the relevance of thousands of pro-Obama Democratic voters in small caucus states and in the seemingly hostile terrain of traditional Republican strongholds.

“It’s not a factor,” was how Clinton dismissed Obama victories in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands and Washington state in an interview with WJLA and Politico on Monday.

“We had a great night on Super Tuesday. We’re winning the states that we have to win. The big states that are really going to determine whether the Democrats win,” she said during the televised discussion.

So got that folks -- if you live in a state won by Barack Obama, you really aren't all that important to Hillary. I'm sure that will leave you motivated to get out and vote for her in November, right?

Yeah, Hillary Clinton is starting to look and sound a lot like Rudy Giuliani -- without the charm.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.