December 19, 2007
Dec 19 02:49 Pandering to the ACLU More Important Than Doing the Right Thing Dec 19 04:34 Another Romney Boat That Won't Float Dec 19 10:24 Reid Attacks McCain Dec 19 10:58 McDermott Should Leave House Dec 19 11:59 Huckabee: Pelosi Sent Soldiers a "Lump Of Coal" For Christmas
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Pandering to the ACLU More Important Than Doing the Right Thing
Anyone that thinks that Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy and other ultraliberals put a higher priority on preventing terrorist attacks than on pandering to the ACLU is kidding themselves. Thanks to the Washington Times editorial staff , Mssrs. Reid, Kennedy, Feingold and Dodd get their comeuppance:
With the support of groups like People For the American Way, the ACLU and the blog DailyKos, Messrs. Feingold and Dodd have been working feverishly to deny the telephone companies protection from lawsuits over their participation in terrorist surveillance efforts. Mr. Dodd threatened to filibuster any effort to bar the lawsuits from going from going forward. Mr. Reid had tried to broker a compromise between the decent FISA bill, negotiated by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat, and Sen. Kit Bond, Missouri Republican, which contains telecom immunity; and a Senate Judiciary Committee bill, pushed by Mr. Leahy (with an assist from Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and a who's who of the political left) that would deny retroactive immunity. Last month, the House passed a measure that fails to provide such immunity.I'd be remiss not to add Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy to the list of the disgraceful. They should be, but won't be, ashamed of themselves. There isn't any excuse for their disgusting behavior. While they talk about theoretical civil rights violations, terrorists are benefitting from their inactivity and bloviating:
No case on the public record better illustrates the heightened dangers Americans will face than the case of three soldiers from the Army's 10th Mountain Division who were ambushed May 12 south of Baghdad, apparently by al Qaeda. One soldier was found dead on May 23, while the other two remain missing. As coalition forces searched for the missing soldiers on May 13 and May 14, intelligence officials learned about insurgent communications they believed to be related to the ambush. On May 14, a special court overseeing FISA issued an order permitting some suspected terrorist communications to be monitored. The following day, lawyers and intelligence officials spent more than nine hours discussing the need for a FISA order to monitor these communications before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales authorized monitoring. Critics attribute the delays in the search to bureaucratic "bungling" - an intellectually dishonest argument, because it overlooks the fact that the FISA court had issued several rulings earlier this year that called into question the government's authority to act without prior court approval.America, if you're paying even the least bit of attention, it's time you woke up and started giving a damn. It isn't that these senators of disgrace are dragging their feet. It's that these senators of disgrace haven't give our soldiers in the field the tools they need to fight and win this multi-generational war.
Simply put, we can't afford the legislative branch to be littered with people with such poor decisionmaking abilities. It isn't that we just need a House-cleaning. It's that we need a bunch of electoral chlorine to clean up the Senate chambers, too. That must happen ASAP. We can't have imbeciles hindering the fight against the jihadists. That's precisely what's happening.
What makes this all the more repulsive is that Democrats are complaining that the Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan. That's what happens when bureaucrats tie our intelligence community's hands with their inactivity. Though I don't know this for certain, I suspect that the Taliban wouldn't have made the comeback that they did if the FISA Appeals Court hadn't issued a ruling saying that we had to get a warrant to intercept terrorist communications if it passed through an American switch.
It's time we told arrogants like Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Feingold, Reid and Dodd that we won't let them tie our troops hands behind their backs.
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:50 AM
No comments.
Another Romney Boat That Won't Float
According to this AP article in the Boston Globe , Mitt Romney says that he's been pro life since 2004. That's another Romney boat that won't float. Here's Romney's explanation on when he became pro life:
"I attend a lot of events when I run for office. I don't recall the specific event," Romney said while campaigning in South Carolina, according to the Associated Press. "I think I've made it very clear. I was prochoice, or effectively prochoice, when I ran in 1994. As governor I'm prolife and I have a record of being prolife and I'm firmly prolife today."As I wrote here , there's more than ample proof that Mitt Romney's abortion transformation experience is much in doubt:
Romney's campaign had acknowledged in May that Ann Romney made a $150 contribution to Planned Parenthood in 1994. Mitt Romney has said he changed his mind about abortion starting in 2004 after talking to scientists about stem cell research.
I just got an email from Stephen Smith of the Romney campaign. He's provided me with an explanation on including abortion in the health care plan. Here's the information that he provided me:Gov. Romney signed the Commonwealth Care bill into law his last year in office , well after his supposed 2004 transformation:
I wanted you to know that the Commonwealth Care benefit services package was developed by the Connector Authority, an independent authority separate from the Governor's office.
The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. "The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty level." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov/ , Accessed 2/5/07)The Commonwealth Heath Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. "The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don't already have it." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)
And, under Massachusetts law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits, as it is with the subsidized Commonwealth Care products, it cannot refuse to fund abortions.
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The Massachusetts Constitution Required Payment For Abortions For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." In Moe, "[W]e concluded that the State's failure to fund medically necessary abortions, while funding all other medically necessary procedures (including services in connection with childbirth), invaded a woman's constitutional right of choice to a degree that was not counterbalanced by the State's interest in the preservation of potential life." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
So, the inclusion of funding for abortion in the Commonwealth Care benefit services package is an unfortunate consequence of long-standing Massachusetts mandate. It isn't the excuse to question Governor Romney's convictions on life that our opponents might claim it is.
I appreciate the Romney campaign supplying this information. They should be commended for that. That said, it's still a troubling decision considering the fact that Gov. Romney chose to sign a health care plan rather than vetoing it.
Passed by the General Court on April 4, 2006, and signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney on April 12, 2006, the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Plan extends access to health insurance to a larger population of uninsured adult Massachusetts residents through the creation of the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program.Stephen Smith's email to me makes clear that Gov. Romney knew that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that state-subsidized health insurance plans had to provide abortion coverage. A pro life governor would've vetoed the bill before the ink was dry. Instead, he signed it into law.
In other words, Gov. Romney can't pinpoint with any credibility when his transformation happened. The picture of the Romneys attending a Planned Parenthood event is just another reminder of Gov. Romney's shiftiness when it comes to the abortion issue.
This raises other questions, namely:
Gov. Romney says that he's pro life but there isn't any irrefutable, documented evidence that he's changed. Is pro life simply something on his presidential resume or is it a deeply held belief? If it's a deeply held belief, why can't we find proof of that?
Gov. Romney was asked if he'd sign a national health care bill similar to the bill he signed right before leaving office. He said that he wouldn't because he's a federalist, that he'd let the individual states decide for themselves. During the YouTube debate in Florida, he was asked if, in a post-Roe v. Wade world, if he'd sign a bill banning abortions. His immediate reply was that he would sign such a bill. That begs the question whether he's committed to obeying the Tenth Amendment and federalist principles or if that's another coached answer to make him sound like a conservative? Again, there isn't any proof that Gov. Romney isn't viscerally committed to federalist principles. (By comparison, Fred Thompson was the lone vote on many bills because he thought the federal legislation didn't meet federalist principles.)
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney can't prove when his various transformations happened. Instead, we're essentially told to trust him, that he's one of us. This is far too important an election to simply take someone's word on a wide range of issues. This election is so important that we can't take a chance on an unknown commodity. We need someone who's rock solid on the most important issues of the day.
That man isn't Mitt Romney.
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:36 AM
No comments.
Reid Attacks McCain
Harry Reid isn't taking too kindly to a John McCain radio ad running in South Carolina. It seems that McCain's 'gone negative' with the ad by using Sen. Reid's own words against him. According to this Baltimore Sun article , Reid jumped into action within hours of hearing about the ad.
"While I understand that Senator McCain is doing everything he can to breathe life into his presidential campaign, these kinds of attacks, and his consistent support of a failed strategy that has kept our troops mired in an endless civil war, will only further undermine his credibility with voters," Reid said in a statement.Democrats have fought to give "our soldiers...a strategy for success"??? Since when is voting numerous times for a timetable for defeat giving soldiers a strategy for success? Sen. Reid stated in April that the surge had failed. Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi issued a joint statement this summer that it had failed. This week, Sen. Reid said that al-Qa'ida had regrouped in Iraq. Now he's saying that John McCain is further undermining "his credibility with voters"? ( Presumably, Sen. Reid can worry about real politicians credibility now that his credibility has disappeared .)
" Democrats have given the troops a pay raise, increased funding for veterans and most importantly have fought to give our soldiers what they deserve, a strategy for success . We will continue to challenge Bush Republicans like Senator McCain who push a failed war strategy that makes us less secure at home and weakens us abroad."
This is as good a time as any to state something important. Sen. Reid isn't uncommon amongst Washington politicians in that he thinks that news consumers accept whatever politicians say as the final word. Unfortunately, this is one issue in which there's a high level of bipartisanship.
Washington politicians need to realize that the internet allows millions of people access to an unlimited supply of articles on every topic under the sun. We don't just read the morning newspaper anymore. In the course of a typical day, I read a dozen articles from RealClearPolitics and Drudge . That's before I google my usual list of people and/or topics. That's after I've read Captains Quarters , Powerline , Gateway Pundit , Redstate , MDE , Residual Forces , Ladies Logic , Psycmeistr , SCSUScholars and California Conservative .
We don't accept anyone's word at first offing. Personally, I try to verify each story against other articles. the last thing I'll do is trust someone as untrustworthy as Sen. Reid, Hillary or John Murtha. That's plain stupid, considering their low level of credibility.
But I digress.
If Sen. Reid doesn't want to be campaign material, then Sen. Reid needs to stop telling whoppers. Credibility isn't given, it's earned. Thus far, Sen. Reid hasn't earned any credibility because he's trying to serve a pair of insane puppeteers named Daily Kos and MoveOn,.org . Here's the transcript of the advertisement:
ANNOUNCER: "Seven months ago, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war in Iraq was lost. Well, he was wrong. Listen to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham."Sen. Reid can't point out what's inaccurate about that advertisement because the information contained in it is accurate. Simply put, it's time for voters across the United States to restore Republicans to the majority in the Senate because it's too dangerous to have someone like Sen. Reid setting the agenda in the Senate.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "I've been to Iraq nine times. The troop surge is working. Terrorists are on the run, and we need a president prepared to win."
ANNOUNCER: "Only one candidate had the courage to call for the troop surge in spite of the polls, and that's John McCain."
GRAHAM: "John McCain is the only candidate for president prepared to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. No candidate can match his record of service. And as all the polls indicate, he's the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. So our party and our nation need John McCain."
ANNOUNCER: "When we vote, South Carolina can send a big message: Let our troops win."
GRAHAM: "John McCain is the right choice. He's ready to lead, and he's prepared to win."
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
ANNOUNCER: "Paid for by John McCain 2008."
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 19-Dec-07 05:02 PM
that wasn't the only whopper that Harry told recently. Harry was doing a radio interview in Nevada and the host of the show asked about why he hadn't matched the winning $2 million dollar for his smear letter of Rush Limbaugh. Reid claimed Rush had one attacked a solider who had come back from Irag and exressed a negative opinion on the war (for the record the person who Rush attacked had been thrown out of the army in basic training who claimed to an Iraq vet) and two, Rush after the fact had tried to create the lie after the fact that Rush to cover up for "Phony solider" had talked about this guy when it was somebody else still not taking into account Rush had talked about the previous day about this phony solider.
Rush was thinking to try to keep Harry in office he might have to make a donation to Harry Reid.
walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-07 05:48 PM
So I heard
McDermott Should Leave House
Joel Connelly has watched Jim McDermott for years. This morning, he's written a column that I thought I'd never see; he's written that Jim McDermott should leave the U.S. House of Representatives :
WELL-HEELED local liberals ought to perform two public services in 2008: The first is allowing Seattle to put a doer in Congress; the second is to give Congressman-for-life Jim McDermott a new life.Ouch. That'll leave a mark. Saying that McDermott's voice "is usually oblivious to words that will change minds or win allies" is a not-so-subtle way of saying that he's a screaming backbencher to preaches to his hallelujah choir while ignoring the rest of his constituents.
The formula will be familiar to those who have greased graceful exits for past-their-prime college presidents, Episcopal bishops gone dotty, or married executives of nonprofits found engaged in office affairs.
A possible arrangement: McDermott's legal bills are paid off. Something gets named after him. And a new posting, possibly meaningful, allows the globetrotting congressman to pursue his interests in HIV/AIDS and South Asia.
Discretion is vital. McDermott's "amen corner" will entertain no criticism of our quixotic man of principle in Congress. And Seattle needs re-education on potential benefits of having an effective liberal doing its business in Washington, D.C.
McDermott is a voice. At times, it is courageous. Often it irritates. The voice is usually oblivious to words that will change minds or win allies .
I won't be that subtle. Jim McDermott is a worthless legislator. He's as far out there as Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters and John Conyers. He's also a fierce partisan who didn't think twice about saying that Saddam Hussein was more trustworthy than President Bush :
"I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value - at their face value," said McDermott, but "I think the president would mislead the American people."Let's hope that Seattle voters tell him to retire voluntarily or they'll retire him unvoluntarily.
Here's Mr. Connelly's sharpest dig into Rep. McDermott's hide:
Look around locally! What bears McDermott's imprint? Is he a player in discussion of what will replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct? What help has he secured to clean up the polluted Duwamish River?Simply put, he's occupied a House seat. I won't go beyond that because there's little, if nothing, else to point to in terms of accomplishments. He's a disgrace.
Let's hope that Seattle voters put him out of our misery.
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:00 AM
No comments.
Huckabee: Pelosi Sent Soldiers a "Lump Of Coal" For Christmas
I've been critical of Mike Huckabee from the beginning of his presidential run. I'll stay critical of many of his policies but I'll sing his praises for this statement , which he uses to criticize Nancy Pelosi:
"Last night, Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats passed a spending bill that concealed a lump of coal for our troops serving overseas in Iraq," former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said. " Democrats are signaling that they are unhappy with the fact that our surge in Iraq is working. Violence is down. Order is being restored. And terrorists are learning they are not welcomed by the people of Iraq. "The Senate is expected to add funding for the troops in Iraq in debate today. "But why is the House leadership playing politics with funding for the war?" asked Huckabee.
House Democrats haven't noticed that the Iraq war has been gaining support for several months. Not coincidentally, the House's approval rating has been dropping during that same time period. That isn't the only thing that Gov. Huckabee criticized Ms. Pelosi about:
"This serious reduction in security along our southern border was buried in a massive, 3,500-page bill. Nancy Pelosi hoped it would go unnoticed by the American people. Republican are serious about making our borders secure," Huckabee said. "This effort to sneak one by the people is just another move in a continuing pattern Democrats have established to prevent resolving our illegal immigration crisis."If voters want the border crisis to remain unresolved, then vote Democrat. If voters want the crisis solved, then they'd oust Ms. Pelosi as Speaker because a Democratic Congress won't fix the problem. If they had their way, they'd make the problem worse by simply opening the floodgates. That's irresponsible and then some.
I thank Mike Huckabee for giving Ms. Pelosi a well-deserved tongue-lashing.
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:00 PM
No comments.
