January 25, 2007
Jan 25 04:17 A Pledge Worth Making Jan 25 04:54 Minimum Wage Disaster Looming? Jan 25 05:24 The Case of the Lethal Admission? Jan 25 11:52 Exposing a Liberal Shill Jan 25 15:30 SF Chronicle Spins Pelosi's Majority Jan 25 22:50 Bitter Bernstein Badmouths Bush (Nothing's New)
Prior Years: 2006
A Pledge Worth Making
Follow this link to sign a pledge worth taking. Read this pledge before signing it:
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.This is a pledge that's worth making because we need to tell our leaders that they'd better follow our lead this time. Let's tell them that they'd better filibuster any resolutions that demoralize our troops & encourage the jihadists. Let's tell them that they'd better filibuster any resolutions that demoralize the great Iraqi Patriots who have persevered against the Shi'ite death squads and Sunni insurgents to write a constitution and build a representative government.
Let's tell the NRSC that we'll withhold our contributions if they don't filibuster the Warner & Biden resolutions. Let's let them know that our support is conditioned on winning in Iraq. Anything less is simply unacceptable.
Yesterday, Gen. Petraeus testified before the Senate, saying that Biden's & Warner's resolutions "encourage the enemy."I agree with this suggestion from Hugh's posts. Here's Hugh's suggestion in the first post:
After you have taken the pledge, please call Senator McConnell's office and urge a filibuster of Senator Biden's and Senator Warner's resolutions.Here's his advice from the next post:
Senator McConnell's office number is (202) 224-2541. The capitol switchboard is 202-225-3121.
Senator Coleman is already committed to rethinking the Warner resolution. Please contact Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) to encourage them to do the same.It's time to start policing these senators because it's obvious that keeping troop morale high isn't a priority with them. Shame on them for that.
Senator Collins' phone number: (202) 224-2523.
Senator Smith's phone number: (202) 224-3753.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:17 AM
No comments.
Minimum Wage Disaster Looming?
That's what might await if the House tries dictating to the Senate what it won't accept in a minimum wage bill.
House Democrats demanded a clean bill from the Senate, no tax attachment, setting up a confrontation that could delay final congressional passage of the $2.10 an hour increase.Senate Republicans filibustered the bill, essentially telling Ms. Pelosi that they'd better include tax cuts targeted at small businesses:
The vote was a signal to the House that without the tax breaks a minimum wage bill appeared doomed in the Senate. And the Senate promptly moved to a broader bill, backed by its Democratic leaders, that would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over 26 months and provide $8.3 billion in tax benefits to businesses over 10 years.Upon hearing that, the House Democrat leadership threw a hissy fit:
In the House, Democrats threatened to stifle that effort by enforcing constitutional precedents that require all tax bills to originate in the House.House Democrats are likely hoping to blame this legislation's delay on Republicans but the reality is that they'll face an equally difficult task of justifying their not crafting legislation that would provide tax relief for small businesses. We'll see which path Pelosi and Co. take.
I'd be worried if I were part of the Democrats' freshman class because many ran decidedly to the right of the leadership. If they don't force the issue of small business tax cuts, they'll be mercilessly attacked as being Pelosi's pawns, something that will be particularly unpopular in the South and West. Another reason these freshmen should be afraid is because Ms. Pelosi's political instincts are awful, meaning that they might get forced into something that resembles political suicide. I said last week that "I don't know of a politician who is more tone deaf than Nancy Pelosi." I stand by that statement until she proves otherwise.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:54 AM
No comments.
The Case of the Lethal Admission?
It certainly can't help Patrick Fitzgerald's case when his first witness admits that he's told conflicting accounts of his communications with Scooter Libby:
The government's first witness in the CIA leak trial acknowledged Wednesday that he made inconsistent statements about his conversations with former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now on trial for lying to investigators.OOPS!!! Patrick Fitzgerald once was touted by Chuck Schumer as a "prosecutor's prosecutor." God help us if that's the best prosecutor we've got.
Marc Grossman, the former No. 3 official at the State Department, testified Tuesday about a face-to-face meeting with Libby in June 2003 about a former ambassador who was criticizing the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq.
Under cross-examination Wednesday, Grossman acknowledged that he told a different story in two FBI interviews. In those interviews, he described telephone conversations but no face-to-face meeting.
"You accept the fact that you told the FBI something different on February 24, 2004, than you told this jury?" defense attorney Theodore Wells said.
"Yes, sir," Grossman replied.
I'd also object to this trial being characterized as the "CIA leak case" since this is a trial about whether Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury or whether he simply got the information mixed up. After all, Fitzgerald himself said that the IIPA and the Espionage Act didn't apply to this case. "CIA leak case would be appropriate only if Richard Armitage were on trial, which I'd doubt will happen because Fitzgerald knew almost immediately that Armitage was the leaker. All you need to know is that Fitzgerald didn't seek an indictment of Armitage.
Wells also planned to press Grossman on whether his testimony was inappropriately coached by his friend and boss, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Prosecutors sought to block Wells from inquiring about those conversations but U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton refused.Fitzgerald can argue till he's blue in the face but I'd say this first witness dealt him a crushing blow to recover from. Don't be surprised if jurors tell us after the trial that the prosecution's first witness admitting to telling conflicting stories left a lasting bad impression of the prosecution. I'd have to think that this destroys Fitzgerald's theory of the crime, too. After all, if he's told this jury that it's implausible that Scooter Libby would forget conversations, how does he explain away his first witness telling conflicting stories?
"It seems to me there might have been some inappropriate behavior taking place," Walton said.
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to make the case that it's implausible Libby would forget several conversations he had with officials about Plame.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:25 AM
No comments.
Exposing a Liberal Shill
Liberals have found a new mouthpiece and his name is Glenn Kessler. Mr. Kessler has written this article, titled "President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed". Listen to what he considers proof of his theory:
In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.Does any sane person think that Iran isn't a state sponsor of terrorists? While it's true that Hezbollah is structured differently than al Qa'ida, does anyone with half a brain think that they aren't as much a terrorist organization as al Qa'ida? Based on the fact that Hezbollah is here in the U.S. and could certainly attempt a deadly terrorist attack, why shouldn't we think of them as the main Shia terrorist organization? After all, al Qa'ida is the main Sunni terrorist organization. What's so difficult about seeing that?
Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran, which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade with major European countries, is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said, referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion.
Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization; it fought a war with Israel last summer; but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization.Talk about spinning. Mr. Kessler appears to be saying that Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization because the EU says it isn't. That's an argument that's flimsy at best. Notice, too, the artful wording Mr. Kessler uses: "Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization." He won't use the term terrorist organization, instead characterizing them as an "anti-Israeli militant organization." Would Mr. Kessler care to tell us the difference between an "anti-Israeli militant organization" and a terrorist organization?
Let's just use Mr. Kessler's terminology for the sake of this discussion. Let's acknowledge that they're financed by Iran. Let's acknowledge that they're an extension of the Iranian military carrying out terrorist attacks against the Lebanese and Israeli governments. Does Mr. Kessler think that the Lebanese and Israeli governments would say that they aren't terrorist organizations? Or does Mr. Kessler think that they aren't a terrorist organization because the EU says they aren't?
Let's examine the flaws in that thinking. The fools in the EU, removed from Hezbollah by a thousand miles, say they aren't terrorists. The people of Lebanon and Israel, who have Hezbollah living amongst them, think that they are terrorists. Which would I trust? Remember, too, that Lebanon and Israel aren't exactly soulmates. The Lebanese populace is comprised of people of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. The Israeli populace is mostly Jewish with Muslims making up most of the rest of the population. If they can agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I'll take their word on it.
In his speech, Bush argued that "free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies, and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance." He also said that terrorist groups "want to overthrow moderate governments."Mr. Kessler's arguments keep getting stranger all the time. Now he appears to be saying that President Bush's theory that "free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies, and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance" is flawed because these countries haven't turned totally democratic overnight after decades of terrorist rule. That's typical of the Left. They think that things should happen at the snap of their fingers. They think that transformations like this shouldn't take a generation to complete. Shame on him thinking like that.
In the two of the most liberal and diverse societies in the Middle East, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, events have undercut Bush's argument in the past year. Hezbollah has gained power and strength in Lebanon, partly at the ballot box. Meanwhile, Palestinians ousted the Fatah party, which wants to pursue peace with Israel, from the legislature in favor of Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist organization by the State Department.
I'll give Mr. Kessler credit for one thing though. Not only is he a terrorist shill. He'll also shill for the Democrats on domestic policy, too. Consider this line:
Bush claimed credit for cutting the budget deficit ahead of schedule and proposed to eliminate it over the next five years. He did not mention that he inherited a huge budget surplus, $236 billion in 2000, compared with a $296 billion deficit in the 2006 fiscal year, largely as a result of Bush's tax cuts and spending increases.Just like your average Democrat, Mr. Kessler doesn't think we should take into account events such as the recession that President Bush inherited, the effect 9/11 had on the economy and therefore the deficit and the cost of fighting a world war against the terrorists as legitimate reasons for the current deficit. Does Mr. Kessler really think that, had President Clinton remained in office, we wouldn't have had deficits under those same circumstances? He'd be exposed as an idiot if he'd try arguing that with any intelligent human being.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:53 AM
No comments.
SF Chronicle Spins Pelosi's Majority
Read this article and see if you don't agree that that's what the Chronicle has done. Here's their opening couple of paragraphs:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi publicly and repeatedly pledged before November's election that if Democrats won a House majority and she became speaker they would treat Republicans with respect and comity and would foster bipartisanship.I agree with Edward Epstein's characterization that Pelosi "publicly and repeatedly pledged" a higher level of comity and bipartisanship. I'll also agree that Pelosi's heavy-handed tactics have Republicans angry. I won't agree that the new Democrat majority has passed any important legislation. This is pure Barbra Streisand. Passing a flawed minimum wage bill isn't "important legislation." They have passed major rule changes but they've been mostly negative. One rule change has been to make it easier to pass tax increases.
Instead, three weeks into a session in which the strong-willed Pelosi has rammed through important legislation and major rule changes, increasingly exasperated and angry Republicans are asking when the new Democratic speaker and her leadership team will keep their pledge to create a less-partisan, more-open atmosphere.
"Whine me a river," one senior Democratic House aide said, referring to Republican gripes.This charade of the "era of partnership" has just been exposed. This unnamed aide just said what conservatives already knew. As the old saying goes, knowing isn't proving. That said, this is proof. This aide's attitude is all the proof a sane person needs.
Republicans remain skeptical. "Yeah, the check is in the mail," joked Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House's No. 2 Republican, when asked if he expects Democrats to start acting in the respectful manner they said the GOP should act during the 12 years Pelosi and her colleagues spent chafing in the minority.
Rep. Blunt and the GOP caucus needs thick skin, a positive alternative to the Democrats and a combative attitude. They need to fight liberalism each time the opportunity presents itself. Whining about how unfair Pelosi's Democrats are won't change anything. Presenting a more appealing vision for America will get people's attention. Fighting for that appealing vision will get people's respect. Giving the activists something to cheer about will give them a reason to contribute to campaigns and work hard on GOTV operations.
It's time for a complete abandoning of 'inside-the-beltway' thinking. It's time that McConnell and Boehner and Co. to start thinking like normal people. It's time that the House GOP caucus realized that they can't do much until they're the majority party again. That won't happen by voting for the non-binding resolutions that now litter the Senate and that will soon be proposed in the House. That won't happen by abandoning principles. That won't happen by being a better moderate than liberals. It happens by being optimistic, bold and pro-America.
The electorate didn't sweep Democrats into power because their message appealed across America. They were swept into office because Republicans tried being better Democrats than Democrats.
Shame on the Beltway GOP for believing the Beltway media about that.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:30 PM
No comments.
Bitter Bernstein Badmouths Bush (Nothing's New)
Carl Bernstein has resurfaced just in time to proclaim that he's a bitter liberal. To be more specific, Bernstein thinks that President Bush has done more damage to the Constitution than Nixon did.
After a long explanation of how the American system "worked," eventually, with Watergate, Bernstein said:Bernstein has had BDS from the start. What does Bernstein present as evidence of President Bush's mendacity? According to Dictionary.com, the definition of mendacious is:
"In the case George W. Bush, the American system has obviously failed, tragically, about which we can talk more in a minute. But imagine the difference in our worldview today, had the institutions, particularly of government, done their job to ensure that a mendacious and dangerous president (as has since been proven many times over, beyond mere assertion) be restrained in a war that has killed thousands of American soldiers, brought turmoil to the lives of millions, and constrained the goodwill towards the United States in much of the world."
telling lies, esp. habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthfulMr. Bernstein doesn't offer any proof that President Bush is a habitual liar. He simply throws accusations around, which won't cut it with intellectually honest people. That said, it's something that the hateful wing of the Democrats accepts as an article of faith. No proof is needed because progressives know that conservatives are evil, rotten to the core. Most people remember Dean saying that " We're in a struggle between good and evil and we're the good." Dean didn't offer any proof, either. In fact, Dean's had a history of that type of antagonism:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about some of the things you have said about the Republicans.The reason I bring Dean into this is to show that Bernstein is a typical BDS-afflicted progressive. It isn't difficult finding other liberals who think like Mr. Bernstein. I'd opine that it's far more difficult finding liberals who take a more civil tone than finding civil-tongued progressives.
Here's Howard Dean in January: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
Howard Dean in February: "This is a struggle between good and evil and we're the good?"
Do you really hate Republicans? Do you consider them evil?
DR. DEAN: I don't; well, actually that was a little out of context. But I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country.
"In the current administration we have seen from the President down, especially Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, a willingness to ignore the great constitutional history of the United States, to suspend, really, many of the constitutional guarantees that have made us a nation apart, with real freedoms unknown elsewhere, unrestricted by short-term political objectives of our leaders.Shame on Mr. Bernstein for that litany of unfounded accusations. It's obvious that he's referring to the NSA intercept program. The simple fact is that there are a number of rulings that support President Bush's not seeking FISA warrants in intercepting international communications. That isn't good enough for Bernstein, though, because he's a Bush-hating partisan whose mind was closed ages ago.
"But perhaps worst, has been the lying and mendacity of the president and his men and women, in the reasons they cited for going to war, their conduct of the war, their attempts to smear their political opponents.Bernstein's partisanship really shows here. Where were his condemnations of Clinton when Echelon was revealed? I didn't hear Bernstein complaining about Clinton not seeking search warrants for searching Aldrich Ames' house. I guess it isn't a big deal with Mr. Bernstein when a 'virtuous' liberal doesn't get warrants to capture a spy but it is a big deal when a conservative actually tries preventing terrorist attacks by not getting a search warrant.
Mr. Bernstein's accusations are as arbitrary as they are vicious. Mr. Bernstein's double standards are showing and it isn't flattering.
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:53 PM
No comments.
