May 3, 2007
May 03 01:47 The Lean, Mean DFL Quote Machine May 03 04:05 The Real Negotiations Begin May 03 04:11 We Win, They Lose May 03 04:57 President Bush Vetoes Democrat Defeatist Act With Parent's Pen May 03 22:31 Murtha 'Clarifies' His Impeachment Statement
Prior Years: 2006
The Lean, Mean DFL Quote Machine
I've thought for awhile that Sen. Steve Murphy's great claim to fame would be his quote in the Strib where he said "I'm not trying to fool anyone. There's lots of taxes in this bill." I'm now forced to admit that this quote is far superior:
"Everything is fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out, and the governor just poked out my eye by vetoing this bill," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing. "I think that is a clear indication he wants a train wreck at the end of session. He wants the Legislature to fail, and he wants to blame us."Minnesota Republicans should thank Red Wing voters for giving us a quote machine like Steve Murphy. Think about it. Gov. Pawlenty vetoes a bloated bonding bill that was almost 5 times as large as the amount he originally proposed & Sen. Murphy thinks that Gov. Pawlenty is playing politics with it. Sen. Murphy should consider the possibility that Gov. Pawlenty is simply being responsible with the taxpayers' money.
As for the trainwreck that Sen. Murphy is predicting, there's a reason why Gov. Pawlenty wants to blame the DFL: If not for the DFL's irresponsible spending & tax increases, a budget would've been agreed to long ago. Instead, the DFL decided to read last fall's elections as permission to do whatever they wanted to do.
Instead of listening to what voters said, the DFL instead chose to listen only to their special interest allies. That's where things started going wrong for the DFL. Instead of settling for the GOP budget increase of 9.8 percent, the DFL essentially said that Gov. Pawlenty was being stingy. In fact, Sen. Sandy Pappas said that "We are starving higher education."
Considering how steep the DFL's spending increases were this session, it's impossible to view any budget getting starved.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:47 AM
No comments.
The Real Negotiations Begin
Now that President Bush's veto of the Democrats' Defeatist Act has been sustained, serious negotiations have begun. Here's the details thus far:
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill Wednesday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: dropping a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.I'm betting that the negotiations won't take much time since most of the language was being hammered out even while Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were playing the tough guy photo op game. The bottom line is that President Bush hung tough throughout. The Victory Caucus gave spineless RINO's a shot of courage just when they needed it most.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July.
Party leaders made clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined a second bill that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."
Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement" and assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Budget Director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties.
The lesson conservatives must learn is that they can't abandon President Bush because the activists agree with him that killing the jihadists is imperative if we are to survive as a nation. Tweak the policies that need tweaking but don't abandon the goal of victory. If we stay faithful to the goal of aggressively killing the jihadists, we'll win the foreign policy and national security battles with Democrats.
Another lesson that we must learn is that John Murtha and Russ Feingold don't speak for the American heartland. They bluster alot but Americans aren't defeatists. The United States is a country with a history of winning whatever fights we get into.
Two other dynamics will affect this debate. Presidential candidates like Rudy, Fred Thompson and John McCain will start getting more attention for their policies as we transition into the campaign. The other dynamic will affect the debate is that the Petraeus Surge will start yielding positive results. At the end of the day, that last dynamic would have the most potential impact on the debate.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2007 4:06 AM
No comments.
We Win, They Lose
That's the name of the petition that some victory-minded bloggers have come up with to keep the heat on spineless RINO's & whiney liberals. Patrick Ruffini is spearheading the effort, which means it's in good hands.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2007 4:11 AM
No comments.
President Bush Vetoes Democrat Defeatist Act With Parent's Pen
When Robert Derga met President Bush, Mr. Derga gave the Commander-in-Chief some special instructions for the pen he gave the President. If Congress passed a bill with deadlines in it, Mr. Derga asked President Bush to veto it with his pen. Tuesday, President Bush did as Mr. Derga had instructed him to do. Here's the background to the story:
Mr. Bush had invited a number of "Gold Star Families" those who have lost a U.S. military member in Iraq to the speech April 16 and met with them afterward in the Oval Office. Mr. Derga, 53, said the pen was the one he used to write letters to his son, Marine Cpl. Dustin A. Derga. "It was just a common run of the mill I don't even remember the brand name," Mr. Derga said. "It was just a $2 pen. Nothing special."Not only did President Bush veto the Democrats' Defeatist Act with the pen but he also made sure Mr. Derga knew about it:
Mr. Bush met with the Dergas and other families for about 45 minutes and spoke directly with each family. "I looked the president square in the eye," Mr. Derga said. "I looked at him and said, 'Mr. President, if this Iraq supplemental comes down to a veto, I want you to use my pen to do it.'"
Mr. Bush "kind of looked at me funny for a moment and then said, 'Absolutely,' and then handed the pen to his assistant," he said. "He assured me he would use it," Mr. Derga said.
On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Derga was shutting off his computer at work about 5:30 p.m. when he received a call from Jared Weinstein, Mr. Bush's personal aide. Mr. Weinstein was calling "to tell me that the president had signed the veto with my pen," Mr. Derga said. "They wanted to again give their heartfelt condolences on our loss of Dustin," he said. "I was pretty blown away is one way of putting it. I couldn't believe he actually did it."Mr. Derga shouldn't have been surprised. I can understand him saying that he was "pretty blown away" with the special call he received, though. It isn't every day that the White House calls people.
"It's been painful for this nation and me personally, but I still feel strongly about getting the job done over there and getting it done right," he said. "It meant a lot to us that we were able to make our position known, that we continue to support him."
But Mr. Derga said he is frustrated that many Americans do not think Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. "I really feel strongly that this nation needs to wake up and understand what's at risk here and what's in the balance," he said.
Mr. Derga, I share that concern. Let's hope that the American people get a clear understanding of what's at stake. In fact, let's hope they understand what's at stake quickly.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2007 4:58 AM
No comments.
Murtha 'Clarifies' His Impeachment Statement
Appearing on Chris Matthews' Hardball, John Murtha sought to clarify his impeachment statement. He should've left well enough alone. Here's why I say that:
MATTHEWS: Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania joins us right now. He's been talking about what we should do, what the country should do, with George W. Bush. Congressman Murtha, do you think impeachment is really one of the options that Congress is looking at?John Murtha still doesn't get it. Impeachment isn't an option. The Founding Fathers wrote impeachment into the Constitution but they placed an extra high threshold to trigger it. The statute was only triggered if a President committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Clearly, that standard can't be met with President Bush.
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: No, Chris. What I said was that's one of the options. But the power of the purse is the option that's going to be the most significant this year. What we're talking about is by the end of the year, we'll have the appropriations bill, the big bill. Then we'll have the authorization bill, one right after the other. By that time, we'll know what's going to happen in Iraq.
Here's what's driving Murtha on this:
- George Soros is giving this order to destabilize the American political system so that his hand-picked candidate will get elected in 2008.
- John Murtha is so arrogant that he's started believing that the Constitution can mean whatever he says it means.
- John Murtha is upset because President Bush won't adopt his defeatist policies like Bill Clinton did with regards to Somalia. Murtha can't budge President Bush because President Bush won't accept defeat.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he'd sign a continuing-Congressman, would he sign a two-month continuing? Would he say two months is OK? Do you think he'd actually sign that bill, or he would consider that hobbling him?Now, when I say he didn't talk to Congress, he talked to a group of members. He didn't talk to the committees that have jurisdiction over this legislation.
MURTHA: Well, I am not sure. He made up his mind so early, I'm not sure he even read the bill. I mean, this is the problem with this spinning that goes on. They bring Petraeus back, purely a political move. Petraeus comes back here, doesn't talk to any of us. He only talks to the news media, and so forth, trying to sell this program. Bush was 64 percent when his mission-mission possible, and today he's 34 percent, so he's just turned the opposite. And this bill's not going to make any difference, just like what we say here makes little difference. What's going to count is what happens on the ground. The Iraqis are going to have to decide it themselves.
MATTHEWS: You know, when you read Petraeus statements to the press corps-and I know you said he didn't talk to Congress, but they put out this statement. I read it in "The Weekly Standard" this week, which does have Petraeus's remarks in there. He does say that we're fighting the central front against al Qaeda in Iraq. Is that true?
MURTHA: That's absolutely not true. That's an exaggeration...
MATTHEWS: That's Petraeus saying that.
MURTHA: That's Petraeus saying it. I just gave those comments to General Pace. I said, General-just 5, 10 minutes ago I gave them to General Pace. I said, General, these comments that General Petraeus made are absolutely inaccurate, according to the intelligence we have. Now, that's the kind of stuff he's saying, and that's why I say it was purely political.
MATTHEWS: Well, why wouldn't he tell the truth? If his troops are over there getting killed-as you point out, we lost 100 guys this month, one of the worst months-worst month of the year-getting killed by Sunni insurgents and by militia people on the Shia side-why is he blaming it on al Qaeda?Think about what Murtha just did. Think about why he made the unfounded accusations that he made. Murtha just accused Gen. David Petraeus of lying at the behest of President Bush. What this shows is that John Murtha's hatred of President Bush is so deep that he's started transferring that hatred onto people with whom he perceives as Bush allies.
MURTHA: Chris...
MATTHEWS: The people who blew up the World Trade Center. Why's he doing that?
MURTHA: This whole-whole war, ever since it diverted the attention away from where al Qaeda started, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, where we should have stayed, ever since that time, they've been trying to tie this into terrorism. All of us know there's terrorism all over the world...
MATTHEWS: But he's not-but Congressman, he's not a PR man. He's not a flack for the White House. He's a general in the field. Why would he be...
MURTHA: Hey, wait a minute.
MATTHEWS: You're saying he's singing the song of the ideologues.
MURTHA: I'm saying-I'm saying he came back here at the White House's request to purely make political statements. That's what I'm saying. There's no question in my mind about it.
Notice his last statement:
There's no question in my mind about it.Murtha didn't offer proof that Gen. Petraeus lied. He simply started with the accusation. What kind of man would do that? I don't know but I'm certain that isn't how a man of integrity would react.
There's something underlying this, too. Murtha has painted himself so far into his "the war is a failure" corner that he's forced to attack anyone who challenges him, even if that means calling Gen. Petraeus a liar and President Bush's political pawn.
In that respect, Murtha's response is totally predictable. On the other hand, Murtha's response is reprehensible, disgusting and totally void of verifiable facts.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 03-May-07 10:55 PM
Give 'em hell, Gary!
Comment 2 by dulles at 04-May-07 06:51 AM
The impeachment standard can't be met? Give me a break -- his admitted FISA violation (ahem "4th Amendmend") and his recent retreat on his claim to start obeying that law, is enough. There's also the small matter of misleading the public into a war of choice.
Would you say that Clinton's lie about a blowjob is more clearly the standard of impeachable offenses?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-May-07 07:12 AM
Dulles is forgiven for not knowing that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to the NSA intercept program. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches & seizures.
There's substantial case law on President Bush's side on this one. Let's start with US v. Truong, which held that:
In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
In other words, FISA can't supersede a president's Constitutional authority.
Then there's United States v. Duggan. Duggan states:
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
In closing, Dulles should've done his research of the Constitution on the matter of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment instead of accepting the moonbats' talking points.
