Wednesday, February 28, 2007

What? John McCain is Running for President?

Tonight on David Letterman, John McCain will announce what everyone in the country already knows: That he is running for President.

Now, McCain doesn't really need to do this in order to inform people of his aspirations, but he does need to do this as a way to remind people that he still exists.

He is currently getting trounced in GOP primary polls by Rudy.

He is losing Republicans who once viewed him as the front runner due to his refusal to embrace the Bush tax cuts, and the constant drumbeat coming from conservative talking heads that he is not Republican enough, too eager to compromise and has been in Washington too long.

But McCain is still quite popular with independents and Democrats.

McCain will boost his visibility by going on Letterman and in a sense that's good. We want a popular, likable candidate to represent our party in '08, especially if the current President is unpopular.

He may be taking a page from Arnold, who announced on Jay Leno, but Arnold was running in California, and there was no primary.

What McCain should be doing however is brandishing his conservative credentials (yes, he does have them) on O'Reilly and on the talk radio circuit.

He can sit on the couch of far-left talk show hosts until everyone who gets their news from comedians supports him, but those are not the people who are going to be deciding whether he's the GOP nominee.

Well Senator, we're in the process of deciding right now, and your nomination is becoming less and less likely.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Liberals Cheer: "Go Terrorists Go!"

When this story broke last night, I knew that the liberal blogs wouldn't be able to maintain their human decency or control their Bush/Cheney derangement syndrome. The beautiful and talented Amy Proctor took the time to collect some of the more atrocious quotes and posted them on her blog. Here's the post:

Taliban Targets Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney was the target of an apparent assassination attempt outside the U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, where the VP was staying. Approximately 20 people were killed in the attack but Cheney was unharmed.

Update on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 12:00PM by Amy Proctor
Sickening but true, leftist liberal whacko blogs are saying "maybe next time" and "too bad you missed" to the Taliban on the Cheney assassination plot. The Huffington Post blog has a headline "Suicide Bomber Fails to Stop World's #1 Homicide Bomber". The Huffington headline featured "Over 20 Die in Attack Aimed at Cheney" with a photo seeming to blame the VP for military and civilian casualties in the blast. Here are some of the liberal comments on Huffington's Post:

*"Better luck next time!"
By: TDB on February 27, 2007 at 08:18am

*"Dr Evil escapes again...damn."
By: truthtopower01 on February 27, 2007 at 08:18am

*"Another 14 people dead, and their blood is literally on Dick's hands".
By: micdago on February 27, 2007 at 08:24am

*"So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people...and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of shit!"
By: fantanfanny on February 27, 2007 at 08:15am

*"Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull to them for such a remarkable achievement."
By: hankster2 on February 27, 2007 at 08:32am

*"Let's see...they're killing him over there so we don't have to kill him over here?"
By: ncjohn on February 27, 2007 at 08:57am

*"Forget the bombs fellas, next time just expose him to a big magnet and turn his pace maker into an 'in body' IED"
By: pinehermit on February 27, 2007 at 08:58am

*"I am so sorry. I should not have felt that electric surge of anticipation when I read the headline. I feel so guilty, so dirty. Still, that tingly feeling just won't go away."
By: ncjohn on February 27, 2007 at 09:00am

*"And they missed!? Oh, Hell. Like Mamma used to say, I guess it's the thought that counts..."
By: Anachro1 on February 27, 2007 at 09:02am

*"You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one."
By: Mark701 on February 27, 2007 at 09:28am

*"If only Cheny and Chimpy traveled together. They could kill two turds with one stone. And then---President Pelosi! Neocons wake up screeming."
By: TOMVICKERS on February 27, 2007 at 09:35am

*"Da-da-da-da-da, I'm loving it!"
By: BJasinBeetlejuice on February 27, 2007 at 09:23am

*"Cheney's pure evil. The sooner he goes, the better."
By: bookish on February 27, 2007 at 09:52am

Liberalism is a sickness" isn't just a mantra, it's a fact. These people need serious therapy. But what would expect from a bunch who supports the Iraqi Insurgency?

I'm wondering now how sincere all those liberal well-wishers of D-Sen. Tim Johnson were after his near death experience with arteriovenous malformation just after the midterm elections of 2006. They were more concerned with him losing the balance of power for them in the Senate than regaining health. Republicans sincerely wished him well.

Viscous, disgusting people. No wonder they have to rely on illegal aliens, dead people and felons to win elections.

Ask yourselves why the Taliban has never tried to assassinate John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or the other few Democrats who have ventured abroad. Hmmmm......

Thanks Amy.

So what's wrong with these guys?

This, in addition to the Edward's blogger fiasco speaks volumes about the willingness of the left-wing bloggers to use vile personal attacks and even wish physical harm upon those politicians with whom they disagree.


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Betty Not Just Ugly, Also Dumb

Yet another reminder that the vast majority of celebrities are imbeciles. I'm sure they will give us a few more examples of their warped world view tonight at the Oscars. I won't be watching.

From News Busters

At 'Spirit Awards,' Star of ABC's 'Ugly Betty' Quips U.S. Won't Be 'Free' Until Bush Gone
Posted by Brent Baker on February 24, 2007 - 20:22.
A preview of the political commentary we can expect at Sunday night's Academy Awards? As a presenter at Saturday's “Film Independent's Spirit Awards” carried live at 2pm PST/5pm EST on the Independent Film Channel (IFC), actress America Ferrera (IMDb page), the title role star of ABC's Ugly Betty, interjected a bit of political commentary suggesting the U.S. will not be “the land of the free” again until President Bush leaves office. Taking the stage inside a tent on the Santa Monica beach, Ferrera was joined by actor Zach Braff, a star on NBC's Scrubs, to present the award for the “Best First Feature.” In the scripted exchange, Braff asked: “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?” Ferrera replied: “I guess I'm a free-spirited person and America's supposedly the 'land of the free,' right?” She then added, to loud applause from the left coast film industry audience: “Or at least we will be in 2008.”

Of course, Ferrera needs to study up on the U.S. political system. The new President will not take office until 2009.

The awards ceremony will re-air twice for two hours in “edited” form on AMC, presumably meaning with advertisements and sans the vulgarities, at 10pm EST Saturday night and 9am EST Sunday morning.

The exchange at the February 24 event:

Zach Braff: “You know America, here's a little interesting tidbit you probably don't know about me. My middle name is Israel. We're both named after countries. “

America Ferrera: “Wow, that is interesting.”

Braff: “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?”

Ferrera: “Well, you know, I mean I guess I'm a free-spirited person and America's supposedly the 'land of the free,' right?”

Braff: “Well, I guess.”

Ferrera: “Or at least we will be in 2008.” [loud applause] Well how about you, Zach, I mean do you have anything in common with Israel?”

Braff: “Let me see. Well, I'm predominantly Jewish, I'm very hot and all of my neighbors hate me. So yeah.” [audience laughter]

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 23, 2007


I've been out with the flu for the past week, so I haven't gotten a chance to post anything other than a picture of former President Chester A. Arthur (did any of you know who it was? Be honest.)

I'll be back with a vengance early next week however, examining the Hilary, Obama tiff, the end of the Edwards campaign, and why I'm almost ready to make an endorsement for '08. I'll give you a hint, It's not Duncan Hunter.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 19, 2007

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Congressional Cowards

Ralph Peters, New York Post
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.

Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?

As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."

As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.

And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.

If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?

On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.

The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.

Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.

They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.

As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.

Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit The Fight."

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Return of McGovernism

The Democrats have abandoned what's right, for what's popular right now.

We have reached a dark time in our history when in order to appease their base many Democrats are actually willing to cut off our troops financially.

Pelosi says Bush lacks the authority to take military action against Iran. I take this to mean that Pelosi, like most other Dems wouldn't use military force against Iran for any reason. Ever.

Now, Pelosi's assertion in ridiculous.

Of course Bush has the authority to invade Iran. There's a reason that the founders gave almost all authority over the military to the President. It was so 535 members of congress don't waste perfect opportunities for military action by endlessly debating the issue.

It's not that Bush lacks the authority. It's that the Democrats lack the will to do it, even if its necessary.

Their Presidential candidates appeasement to their anti-war base over the past few months will continue on until after the primaries.

If elected, their reliance on this base will tie their hands so that they will not have the courage or political ability to do what is necessary to protect the nation and the world from terrorism and rogue regimes.

If this happens, and every reasonable American should hope that it doesn't, things are going to get real bad, real fast.

But, hopefully it will thrust the GOP back into a long-term position of power and once again solidify their standing as the party of National Security, just like it did following the far-lefts political abandonment of anti-communism in the mid-seventies.

From The Washington Times:

Murtha's plan for defeat
February 16, 2007

In the wake of September 11, McGovernism -- that is, the reflexive opposition to the use of force by the United States against foreign enemies that has dogged the Democratic Party since Richard Nixon's time -- became more of a liability than ever. At least, it appeared that way judging from the 2002 and 2004 election results. But in last year's congressional elections, the Democrats came up with a shrewd, cynical new P.R. strategy that has until now served them well: saying lots of nice things about American soldiers fighting in Iraq while simultaneously advancing resolutions that denigrate their mission. But the decision to effectively cut off funds by micromanaging their use -- rather than by doing so directly -- may also be unconstitutional.
When the House votes today on the resolution denouncing Mr. Bush's plans for additional troops to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq, members should be under no illusions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are trying to do: to make it impossible for American troops to properly do their job in Iraq. In an interview yesterday with, a Web site for a coalition of anti-war groups, Mr. Murtha, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, explained that by placing conditions on $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would make be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said.
"We will set benchmarks for readiness," a top Democratic leadership aide told the nonpartisan Web site, which summarized the Democrats' strategy this way: "If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops in Iraq."
Aside from doing severe damage to the war effort in Iraq, the Democrats' political strategy to cripple the war effort by attaching thousands of legislative strings to war funding may also be unconstitutional. Noted attorney and constitutional scholar David Rivkin makes a strong case that Congress cannot act like a "puppet master" appropriating and authorizing funds while attaching conditions that would effectively transform the president into a marionette. If Congress wants to cut off funding, it must do so honestly and directly, rather than dishonestly through micromanagement. In addition to paving the way for a geopolitical catastrophe for this country, the Democratic leadership may be setting the stage for a constitutional confrontation with the White House.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 12, 2007


We have now established that a majority of Americans no longer consider infidelity to be a big deal when it comes to their politicians.
Bill Clinton opened the door for our leaders to pretty much do whatever they want with whomever they want, in bed (or on a desk) and pay no price politically.

Those who found what he did to be inappropriate for a sitting President were silenced with the new conventional wisdom, established by the Democrats: Everybody cheats; it’s none of our business.

So now, it’s not a big deal if San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is drinking martini’s and having sexy-time with the spouses of his staff members. He’ll still get re-elected as long as he keeps marrying gay couples. No one in the Bay Area seems to care much. Then again, San Francisco isn’t known as a haven for values voters.

So infidelity is okay. But what about smoking?

It has now been established that the Democrats' fair-haired boy, Barack Obama, is a smoker.

I don’t really care if people smoke or not. I used to smoke and many of my friends do. The difference is that none of my buddies are considering a run for the White House.

So why should we care?

Obviously, smoking is bad for you. We all know this, but it’s my view that if you enjoy it to the point where you don’t care whether it’s going to kill you or not, then that’s your business.

But the President isn’t just some low-profile schmo. He’s the leader guy.

Despite the sour taste that people usually have in regards to their political leaders, the President is still a role model. He sets a moral tone and his behavior is more closely watched than ever in this era of mass media.

So, if the president is lighting up, and everyone knows it, doesn’t that serve as a pass (or at least an excuse) for young people to pick up the habit?

Isn’t it a bit harder to explain the dangers of smoking to your teenager, when he holds the Trump card of being able to say ‘The President does it, why can’t I?'

Bill Clinton’s behavior, which was viewed as harmless by his supporters, certainly did not help the insanely high, out of wed-lock birthrate in black communities where the former President is viewed very favorably.

A much higher percentage of the African-American population smokes than does the white community. Would having a cigarette smoker as the first black President help improve that situation? I doubt it.

So just quit Barack! Cold turkey. Right now.

I know it’s hard, but get some gum, or a patch. It couldn’t be any more difficult than some of the problems which you will inevitably face in your tenure as Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

And therein lies the rub.

If your willpower and resolve are too weak to quit doing something that is very likely to kill you at an early age, how can we expect you to overcome the obstacles that lie in wait for you in the Oval Office?

It’s very similar to the recent debacle eating up the John Edwards campaign where he refuses to fire a couple of bloggers whose writings contain vile, anti-Christian diatribes.

Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's bigoted statements would have easily gotten them dismissed from almost any other job, but for some reason, Edwards refuses to fire them. It’s an easy call. If you’re running for the nation’s highest office, you shouldn’t struggle with a decision that’s this simple.

If elected to the Presidency, one will most likely agonize over life and death decisions every day. It shouldn’t spark a lot of confidence among the electorate if two of the leading Democratic contenders for the job, are struggling to such an extent with a couple of no-brainers.

Obama’s smoking habit should also be a concern to Democrats who have made it their crusade to ban smoking everywhere.

Here in California, I believe you can now only smoke in your room, in the dark and while completely covered by bed sheets or a large comforter.

Second only to the dangers of global warming, Democrats have made it their goal to pass anti-smoking legislation in order to save us from ourselves.

Some of their laws have been good ones, like banning smoking in restaurants and in the workplace. Others have been Draconian, such as extending the ban to bars and in some cases, public sidewalks.

So how is it going to look if Obama is given the nomination and the Democrats' standard bearer’s own behavior flies in the face of 20 years of that party’s progress in ridding the country of tobacco smoke. For God’s sake, who will Rob Reiner vote for?

Obama should quit smoking right now. Not just for himself, but for the kids with whom he surrounds himself with at his campaign events, and who see this charismatic, American success story as a role model.

Unlike our current president, Bill Clinton was not strong enough in the character department to leave his bad habits behind when he assumed the Presidency and I believe that America has paid a price because of it. Obama needs to avoid these mistakes, not only if elected, but as a candidate as well.

With all the positive media attention that he has received, he needs to make sure that he lives up to it, by setting a positive example.

Sphere: Related Content

The Blizzard of '07

Helplessly snowed in, two New Yorkers come to grips with the fact that they will not be able to return their copy of An Inconvenient Truth, to Blockbuster Video, on time.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 09, 2007

More Little League Reporting From the Left-Wing Press

This is from a blog called Ace of Spades HQ. I just added a link. Yet again the MSM jumps the gun in order to try to discredit the administration.

WaPo Exclusive: Pentagon Inspector General's Report States Conclusively That Bush Admin Official Cooked Pre-War Intelligence!!!
Oh, Minor Correction: It Was A Report From Anti-War Democrat Carl Levin Which "Concluded" That. Whoops, Our Bad.

Long headline, but for one of the most egregious "twisted intelligence" debacles of all time.

The correction, of course, does not quite capture the enormity of this error -- breathlessly labeling a partisan liberal Democrats' "conclusions" as if they were the indpendent, nonpartisan official conclusions of the Bush-run Pentagon. How could they really convey how massively they fucked up here? This is, in journalistic terms, simply catastrophic.

"Confirmation bias," they call it-- the press simply will run anti-Republican stories that ought to sound a little implausible or sketchy because, to them, they sound pretty darn reasonable. Such "facts" are "self-checking" -- they just prove themselves by how wonderfully they fit in with the liberal worldview.

Meanwhile, anything that shows the Democrats in a bad light is vetted, checked, confirmed, re-confirmed, and subject to a complete full-office rewrite to insure all appropriate mitigating "context" was included before ultimately being buried on page A37 beneath a short blurb on Icelandic geese migration.

Carl Levin Wouldn't Lie To You: Consider how astoundingly easily it was for Levin to get this false report on page one of the Washington Post. He just had to claim what he was reading was from the IG report. (Or be unclear about which report he was quoting.)

No need to see the actual document. Nope -- if Carl Levin tells you something, that itself is auto-confirming. Liberal Democrats don't lie to other liberal Democrats, and they never make errors. So really, who needs to see the actual document?

The standard "two sources" verification rule is apparently suspended if a liberal Democrat is your source.

Better Headline For the Washington Post:

Charges Carl Levin Has Been Making For Three Years Completely Vindicated By 2004 Report Authored By Carl Levin

So their front page story wasn't merely based upon a partisan document written by Carl Levin, misattributed to the Pentagon IG -- it was based on a 2004 partisan document written by Carl Levin.

I think this is where Dave from Garfield Ridge is supposed to step out from behind a wall and say, "It's old."

The first-to-market effect should be fun to watch-- the media just got a late Christmas present in a report confirming everything they believe (which is, of course, also everything Carl Levin believes).

One problem: None of it is true.

But they don't want to give back their Christmas present. Who would?

So it will be enjoyable to watch the media spin the actual report as "substantially" confirming Carl Levin's various charges even though, you know, it actually doesn't.

But they now have that idea in their little pointy immune-to-contrary-facts heads: Report proves Bush twisted intelligence. That idea is in there (as it always has been) and they'll be damned if stupid little facts get in the way of "The Truth."


Oh, wait -- they are "guilty" according to charges filed by DA Mike Nifong.

Sorry, minor mistake of attribution there. Could happen to anyone, really.

See, Mike Nifong was reading his indictment to us over the phone, and he sort of gave the impression that he was reading from the jury's verdict, and, see... well, who has time to check on these things.

It sounded pretty good when he was reading it to us.

Reporting is hard, man.

The Washington Post

Where Our Motto Has Always Been, "Oh well! That's why God gave pencils erasers!"

More here on National Review On-line:

Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Almost all the truly damning quotes came from the office of Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, not the DOD inspector general.

As I write this, Chris Matthews is peddling the phony WaPo scoop on Hardball, prattling on about how this report proves that Doug Feith "cooked the intel" to get us into war.

How did the WaPo screw this up so badly? (h/t James C.

This is the second Washington Post embarrasment in the last two weeks. William Arkin was exposed as being a left-wing military hater posing as a "military analyst" last week in a situation which the Post is yet to address.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

O'Reilly and Obama: Two Articulate Americans.

Those who watch O'Reilly on a regular basis know that the first few minutes of his show are dedicated to the Talking Points Memo. A commentary by O'Reilly on an important issue of the day. It usually consists of hard-hitting social commentary, and while often controversial, it is just as frequently the most interesting part of his show.

Here is one of his best, from last week:

Today, the Talking Points Memo was O'Reilly questioning why so many blacks were offended when the President described Barack Obama as "articulate".

He then had two black women on, who bashed Bush for his choice of words, describing his description as being an example of white condescension, when it comes to African Americans.

In my view this belonged in O'Reilly's "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day", another popular segment on the show.

Barack Obama is articulate. Either Bush meant it as a compliment, coming from someone who is admittedly not very articulate, or those who have been bitching about Bushes lack of sensitivity doth protest too much.

The truth is, too often when we see an African American being interviewed by the media, portrayed on a sitcom, in a movie or performing a rap song, they do come across as being inarticulate.

Isn't it possible that the reason so many Democrats have been swooning over Obama, despite the fact that he has thus far had almost nothing to say in terms of what his policy views are, is because he is so different? Not only when compared to how we are used to seeing blacks portrayed in the media, but also when compared to the black politicians that we have come to know over the last half-a-century?

Couldn't the word articulate just as easily be used to describe a pleasantly surprising attribute for a young, untested and inexperienced politician, like Obama to have?

Maybe that's the conclusion blacks should be coming to, instead of trying to find racist undertones every time a white person says something about a black person. Even when it's something positive.

Wait. Are those sirens? I gotta go. The PC police are here.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

More From The DNC Winter Meeting

Also at the DNC Winter Meeting, a convocation was given by a Muslim Imam who said this:

"We thank you god, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, god, to make us a great nation. We thank you, god toss send us your messages through our father Abraham, and Jesus and Mohammed, through you, god, we unite, so guide us to the right spot we wish for peace, equality and help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation."

"Oppression and occupation" huh? Sounds a lot like Sean Penn or Code Pink to me.

If this guy had given the convocation at a GOP function, and said this, he would have been booed out of the building. And with good reason.

What was the reaction from those at the DNC Winter Metting? Silence.

Was the silence due to cowardice or was it tacit agreement?

I don't know the answer, but whatever it was, it speaks volumes about the Democrats who strive to regain control of the White House.

The Democrats need to take a long hard look at Islam and decide whether they wish to confront its radical elements or allow their blind hatred of George W. Bush to lead them to accepting the hateful rhetoric of the enemy, as their own.

Sphere: Related Content

Have You Seen This Man?

Has Anyone checked in Speaker Pelosi's basement?
She must let him out for events like this one.

February 06, 2007
It's Howard Dean's Party
By Rich Lowry

Washington, D.C. -- At the Winter Meeting of the Democratic National Committee, in a ballroom of the Washington Hilton packed with hundreds of Democratic activists, Rep. Rahm Emanuel seems a distant memory. Emanuel is the Chicago Democrat who masterminded the brilliant, soothingly moderate Democratic campaign of 2006 while clashing with the fire-breathing DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

If there's one thing obvious in this room, it is that Emanuel might be clever, but it's Howard Dean's party. Dean electrified a similar DNC gathering four years ago when he said that he was "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," and launched his antiwar candidacy briefly into the stratosphere. Now, all the Democratic presidential candidates appearing here borrow from Dean and try to appease the party's yowling, antiwar base.

Even Hillary Clinton, who now represents the right flank of the Democratic field. She is sporadically heckled from the floor as she speaks. She desperately wants to find her footing in her antiwar party, but in a way that doesn't damage her national-security credentials. There is a pleading quality to her antiwar lines, as if she's saying: "Please accept this and make me go no further."

She explains that the Senate needs 60 votes to cap troop levels, as she advocates, or cut off the funding for U.S. troops, which leaves it open that she'd be for a funding cutoff as well, if she had more votes. She touts her idea to cut funding for Iraqi troops -- never mind that until now everyone has agreed that training Iraqi troops is an absolute imperative. She concludes by pledging that if Congress hasn't brought an end to the war by January 2009 -- again leaving it open that she might support a congressional cutoff -- she will if she's elected president.

Other presidential contenders implicitly push her to commit herself further. Barack Obama demands plans to end the war in "clear, unambiguous, (no) uncertain terms." John Edwards says that the White House is counting on Democrats to be "weak and political and careful. This is not the time for politician calculation."

Both are shots at Hillary, whose cutoff date of January 2009 seems far away compared with the dates of the rest of the field. Edwards wants the war over in 18 months, by August 2008. Obama wants it over in a little more than a year, by March 31, 2008. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wants it over by the end of the calendar year, and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack wants it over "immediately."

This is a party that is heading toward serious attempts to cut off funds for the Iraq War, especially if conditions don't improve soon. Nonbinding resolutions of the sort the Senate is debating this week won't be adequate for long.

The Democrats are in the throes of a full-fledged Vietnam flashback. Even if the Bush "surge" works, Democrats will stay committed to ending the war -- just as Democrats cut off the war in Vietnam in the mid-1970s, even as it had been put on a more sustainable footing. The party has regressed all the way to its McGovernite roots. The centrist Clintonite interlude of the 1990s is almost entirely washed away, with the Clintonite candidate -- Hillary -- trying not to get washed away with it.

This McGovernite tendency is pacificist and isolationist. Even as Democrats give way to it, they still style themselves idealistic internationalists. Calls to end the genocide in Darfur were applauded here, although no one said how it was going to be done, nor why ending the savagery in the Sudan is such a priority when it is fine to abandon Iraq to its near-genocidal furies.

The Vietnam Syndrome made Democrats allergic to the use of force for two decades. The Iraq Syndrome will be a reprise. Anyone who, like Rahm Emanuel, wants to see the Democrats occupy the sensible center must be dismayed. Howard Dean, however, can only be pleased. He's chairman of this party for a reason.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 01, 2007

In The Shadows of Iraq

Bush's Real Record

Posted 1/31/2007

Economy: The mantra among critics of President Bush is that he's been "incompetent" as chief executive. To which we respond: Looked at the U.S. economy lately?

In his "State of the Economy" speech Wednesday, Bush expressed justifiable pride in his economic accomplishments. Our good friend Larry Kudlow keeps calling it "the greatest story never told." And indeed it is.

The Bush-is-a-failure mantra is, quite simply, out of touch with reality. What the economy's done in the past six years, especially in view of what Bush faced on entering office, has been nothing short of remarkable.

Remember that first bleak week, way back in January 2001? The economy was in a free fall, with job growth having peaked in mid-summer 2000. During Bush's first quarter in office, the economy actually shrank.

This wasn't surprising, given the Fed had been ratcheting up interest rates for two years and the stock market had just suffered its biggest meltdown. Americans took a $7 trillion hit from that debacle, and some feared we might even slide into a depression.

Then came the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, killing 3,000 people, costing $100 billion in direct costs to the economy and untold billions more in indirect costs, and damaging the national psyche. People stopped flying and buying. They cocooned.

It was the worst first year for a president since FDR. But Bush turned a potential disaster into one of the success stories of the post-World War II era. Yet few credit him for it.

His three tax cuts pushed 5 million mostly low-income families off the tax rolls and substantially shifted the tax burden toward the rich. Despite harsh criticism, the cuts revived the economy.

Where are we today? "Across our nation," Bush said Wednesday, "small businesses and entrepreneurs are creating millions of new jobs. Retail sales are up, consumer spending is strong, exports of goods and services have jumped by nearly 35%. The Dow (industrial average) has set records 26 times in the past four months. Productivity is strong, and that's translating into higher wages."

Every word true. And yet, our newspapers and TV talking heads are obsessed with stories of mass "inequality" and "middle-class squeeze" and "jobs shipped abroad" and "falling behind."

Reality is quite different, of course. But reality can never be permitted to get in the way of Bush-bashing — the stock in trade of the mainstream media and their allies in the Democratic Party.

So what's the real record? Since Bush's tax cuts took effect in mid-2003:

• Real gross domestic product is up to $1.33 trillion, or 12.6%.

• Existing businesses have hired 5.9 million workers (not counting the millions of jobs entrepreneurs have created).

• Corporate profits have soared 91% to $1.6 trillion.

• Tax receipts have leapt $503 billion, or roughly 1.1 percentage points of GDP, refuting the notion the tax cuts "caused" deficits.

And thanks to rebounding stock prices and huge gains in home values, Americans' total wealth has soared 39% to $54 trillion — the biggest expansion ever.

After such a stellar performance, a breather — what economists call a "midcycle correction" — would be in order. Yet the economy continues to power ahead.

In 2006's final period, GDP growth was 3.5%, and it has averaged 3% since the tax cuts. Real wages rose 1.7% in '06, much faster than the 0.3% average of the Clinton years. In just the last 12 months, unemployment plunged from 5.0% to 4.5%, near postwar lows.

More of us have jobs, own homes and businesses, and work for higher pay than at any time in history. We're the richest people on earth. For a change, let this story be told.

Those who have opposed this President from the very beggining love to label his entire administration as a "failure", but will history view him as such?

It is of course too soon to tell. Not only in regards to the situation in Iraq, which is teetering on the brink but not over, but also in regards to his domestic policies, which so far, have garnered very positive results, as well as his sucess in protecting the country and tracking down Al-Queda.

So if Iraq had never happened, or if by some miracle, we can end the fighting there and we end up with a stable government in that country, isn't the legacy of the Bush presidency thus far, incredibly positive?

Bill Clinton's entire legacy is based on three things. The amazing economic growth of the late 90's, scandal and his lacking response to events which led to 9/11.

This Administration's legacy should be based on more than the mistakes made in Iraq, and we should not even begin forming that legacy in our minds and especially in our media, until the four years in office which the President earned, have come to a close.

Sphere: Related Content