So NY’s junior bitch Senator (not to be confused with the senior bitch, Chucky Schumer) is blaming the Bush administration for the fact that North Korea’s nukes can reach American soil! Full story here.
Here’s a delicious quote for you from Her Highness:
“They couldn’t do that when George Bush became president, and now they can,” Mrs. Clinton complained to the New York Times.
I’m going to ignore the obvious: she was bitching to the NYT. They love her over there. She shares their brand of socialism.
Uh, Queen Dumb Ass? I know you were a little busy guarding Fox Bill’s intern henhouse, as well as browbeating subordinates (sidebar: aren’t liberals mad at John Bolton for doing the same thing as Her Highness routinely does? But I digress…) during the 90′s to notice, but your hubby gave the NorKoms the damned nuclear material in the FIRST PLACE! Hello?!?! Are you that stupid, or are you hoping the American public is? I mean, I know the NYT will cover your ass, but don’t expect the increasingly influential cybersphere to do the same!
Damned, this bitch knows no shame! Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to call her on it. Fortunately, though, Andy Card did on Russert’s show. Russert posed the question as though what Shrillary said was a valid point, and Card pointed the finger at her hubby. Russert looked like that was news to him, which it probably was.
New chief obstructionist Harry Reid continuously refers to Social Security as “the most successful program in the history of the world.” It has been so successful, that…he wanted no part of it.
When Reid was in the House, he sponsored a bill that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes. The bill was H.R. 3589, introduced in July 1983. Full story here.
Also, the AARP is making a boatload off of its own private investment options. Full story here.
While AARP is busy bashing President Bush’s plan for personal retirement accounts as unsafe, the organization is raking in millions of dollars from its own private stock and bond accounts.
AARP President Marie Smith declared in a January speech: “Social Security is the only guaranteed, inflation-proof, lifelong benefit that millions of workers, past and present, can count on. We should not be talking about replacing this rock-solid guarantee with a risky gamble.
But AARP, which collects more than $200 million in dues from its 35 million members each year, manages an investment portfolio of over $910 million!
The largest portion of that portfolio, $737 million, was invested in stocks and mutual funds in 2003, earning returns of $60 million, according to AARP’s 2003 consolidated financial statement.
Those in the business sector seem to smell the hypocrisy quite well.
“It seems that as long as AARP gets a cut, investing in the market is fine,” states Investor’s Business Daily. “But if you do it on your own, you’re one step from crushing poverty.”
AARP’s investments in what it calls the “risky” securities market have brought in a healthy average return of 7.29 percent a year since 2000. Only 8 percent of the organization’s portfolio was invested in safe government-backed securities in 2003.
“AARP seems to believe that capitalism is a fine thing as long as they’re the only ones practicing it,” said Pete Sepp, vice president of communications for the National Taxpayers Union.
“How can an organization so heavily invested in the stock market tell others they can’t do it?”
Puh-leeze! Since when have liberals ever been guided by decency, common sense, and logical consistency? With them, they want rules and laws to keep us in check that they don’t have to live by!
For those of you who don’t know, Air America ran a skit on the Randi Rhodes show that parodied President Bush getting shot by a gun. Since it’s a federal crime to even kid about it, the Secret Service investigated. Rhodes was embarrassed and apologized. So I sent her an e-mail of encouragement. It follows:
You got the Secret Service’s attention, which is good news…it means that at least SOMEONE is listening to your show!
Interesting that you had a skit with a gun, considering your kind has always been anti-Second Amendment. I guess what you interpret the Second Amendment to mean is “Individuals cannot own guns, unless it’s for the purposes of blasting conservative politicians!” It takes balls to be that blatantly hypocritical…you go girl!
Byron York has an excellent piece on MoveOn.org in today’s NY Post. Full column here. He makes some interesting observations:
Last month, another MoveOn rally in support of filibusters, held at a hotel near the Capitol, featured an appearance by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy and others. The 87-year-old Byrd worked the crowd into an almost evangelical fervor, waving his copy of the Constitution and yelling, “Praise God!” and “Hallelujah!” as he denounced Republicans.
Well, so much for Hillary’s “centrist” facade. Of course, the MSM will sit on that one. Also, notice that MoveOn’s “dignified” (ahem) speakers included a drunken murderer socialist in Uncle Teddy, and the galloping Klansman Robert “Sheets” Byrd? Byrd does what Klansmen do best: invoke the name of God to perpetrate hate. I’m amazed that Sheets didn’t get lynched himself, for uttering the word “God” to the agnostic masses there. Continuing…
MoveOn was started by the husband-and-wife software entrepreneurs Wes Boyd and Joan Blades. In a conversation last fall, Blades told me it began one day in 1998 when she and Boyd were having lunch in a Chinese restaurant near Berkeley, Calif., where they live. They were discussing the Clinton impeachment battle, then raging in Washington, and concluded that Republicans seemed to have gone crazy.
They found that everyone in the restaurant agreed with them. “We were hearing another table where people were saying, ‘How can we be doing this?’ ” Blades told me. “We were just hearing all around us, ‘This is crazy.’ ”
On the basis of that polling in one of the bluest areas of the United States, Boyd and Blades decided to create MoveOn. “Using e-mail and the Web, we can focus a broad and deep consensus in the American public into action,” they wrote.
Hahahahahahaha! That’s hilarious! They listened to people in Berkeley, and thought they were mainstream Americans! What’s next? Before too long, some liberal running for president will be in front a Hollywood crowd that uses profanity and that liberal will say these Hollywood elites represent mainstream America. Oh wait…that happened last year! My bad!
York points out that MoveOn didn’t stop impeachment in 1998. They lost in 2000. They lost more in 2002. They lost even more in 2004. They haven’t won a single battle yet, but Democrats are rushing to them en masse. Seems to me like liberals are acting an awful lot like the rubes they think make up mainstream America.
See my prior post on the importance of the Senate confirming judges…and fast forward to the part about the purported lack of support for the consitutional option (referred to by liberals and their mouthpieces in the MSM as the “nuclear option”).
The MSM has been touting this poll showing that 2/3 of Americans are supposedly against making Senators fulfill their Constitutional obligations and voting for/against judicial nominees. As usual, the Media Research Center was all over this one, and nails the MSM in distributing DNC talking points. Full story here, excerpt below:
ABC and the Washington Post touted how a new poll found two-thirds opposed to a rul change to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, but the language of the question led to the media’s desired answer. “An ABC News poll has found little support for changing the Senate’s rules to help the President’s judicial nominees win confirmation,” World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson trumpeted Monday night. The Washington Post’s lead front page headline, over a Tuesday story on the poll, declared: “Filibuster Rule Change Opposed.”
But check out the slant of how the questions in the survey were formulated:
– “The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?” Right: 48 percent; wrong: 36 percent.
– “Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?” Support: 26 percent; oppose: 66 percent.
Now, imagine how the results would likely have been quite different if the questions were worded a bit differently to include other information:
– “In a change from long Senate tradition, Democrats have employed the threat of filibusters to block the confirmations of ten federal appeals court judges who would win majority support in an up or down vote. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to use such tactics?”
– “Would you support or oppose restoring the Senate’s traditional procedures which provide for a majority vote of Senators to confirm judicial nominees?”
It’s a good thing that nobody watches these shows or reads the MSM papers anymore. Their influence continues to dwindle.
Always be wary of MSM polls, even if you like their results. They’re just too sloppy and biased.
From Neal Boortz:
Do you know what yesterday was? Just another day? Nope. Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy (known to his friends as ‘Teddy’ and to some friends of Mary Jo Kopechne as ‘murderer’) took time out of his busy schedule to issue a press release reminding us all that it was the first anniversary of the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
Did Ted Kennedy say anything about the first anniversary of the liberation of Iraq? The capture of Saddam Hussein? Nope. When this slime ball wants to celebrate an anniversary, he looks for one that can be cast in anti-American terms.
Make no mistake, Ted Kennedy and his liberal buddies hate the United States of America and especially despise the Military. They will never pass up an opportunity to bash the U.S., make us look bad, or draw attention to what they perceive as our shortcomings. All of this on top of the fact that Ted Kennedy is a backstabbing partisan Bush-hater. Back to his press release, though.
It was filled with all sorts of outrageous claims and outright lies. Right off the bat, he refers to the “torture” at Abu Ghraib. Actually, most of what went on there would barely qualify as prisoner abuse. He also compared the United States Military to Saddam’s henchmen. Nice going. He also bemoaned the damage to our reputation in the Middle East. You see, liberals constantly worry what Islamic terrorists and assorted hate-mongering Muslims might think of us.
Like racism, the left must continue to dredge up problems so that they can continue to draw power from the “problem.” Exploiting the men and women of the U.S. military for political gain is no problem for hardcore leftists like Teddy Kennedy.
Not that anyone seems to care. His brain-damaged constituents have been sending this national embarrassment to Washington for over 40 years.
I detest liberals who think they’re smart and everyone else is stupid, so I can’t accept Boortz’ premise that people of MA are idiots. Shameless, perhaps, but not stupid. I just think they’re so hopelessly partisan and liberal that they could never vote for a Republican for national office. Governor, yes, but never national office.
Story here: link
The Bush administration issued a veto threat again Tuesday against a popular highway bill, saying the president would be likely to reject any legislation that exceeds a White House-set spending ceiling or adds to the deficit.
Excuse me for a second…
Yeah…Bush…(snicker)…will veto a spending bill! Hell, will veto any bill! Oh, that’s funny stuff!
I like the guy, but he spends like a damned liberal. He’s yet to veto a bill in over four years. I thought conservatives were supposed to be the party of fiscal restraint?
It’s clear to any non-myopic American that liberalism in this country has, by and large, been an abject failure. It fails time and again, so much so that liberal politicians repeatedly run for office while hiding their liberal stripes.
Liberals are, for the most part, unable to pass liberal legislation. Why? Because the American people reject most of the tenets of liberalism. When citizens enact legislation or voter initiatives that run counter to liberal orthodoxy, you can best believe that some leftist group (ACLU, People for the “American” Way, etc.) will run to court to stop the will of the “ignorant” masses from prevailing. Californians passed a citizen referendum / ballot initiative that banned state funds from paying for certain state services to illegal immigrants. The state was promptly sued by a liberal interest group, who wanted a liberal judge to overturn the will of the people. Such examples are limitless.
The battle against judicial filibusters is heating up, and libs know what’s at stake. Thomas Sowell’s column sums it up nicely:
This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters’ votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of “interpreting” laws.
Judges who decide cases on the basis of the plain meaning of the words in the laws — like Justices Brown and Owen — may be what most of the public want but such judges are anathema to liberals.
The courts are the last hope for enacting the liberal agenda because liberals cannot get enough votes to control Congress or most state legislatures. Unelected judges can cut the voters out of the loop and decree liberal dogma as the law of the land.
Liberals don’t want that stopped.
No, they do not want it stopped…not at all!
Sowell’s column also contends there will be a political price to pay for changing the filibuster rules, but the price is worth it. I disagree that there will be a price to pay. The price of obstructing has been paid…by Daschle and other Democrats who were guilty by association (see elections 2002 and 2004). The average American doesn’t know what an arcane Senate tactic like filibustering is, and they won’t vote out a candidate who simply makes a Senate rules change. How would a liberal campaign commercial look like that?
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) actually was forced (gasp!) to vote Yea or Nay on a judicial candidate! If you vote for Senator Nelson’s Republican opponent, you can count on Senator Nelson being forced (gasp!) to fulfill his Constitutional duty and vote for or against even more judges! Stop the insanity! Paid for by Nelson ’06. “I’m Bill Nelson, and I approved this message.”
Former Massachussetts governor, Republican William Weld, has lived in NY since 2000. He’s a native of the state. He lived in MA for years, and served two terms as governor there.
Apparently, he’s interested in running for governor of NY, or possibly for the Senate against the Hildebeast, Hillary Clinton. Full story here.
You know, I just think it’s wrong! I mean, he was governor of a different state! You can’t just move to a state you haven’t lived in for years simply because you want a highly-public elected political job! Oh…wait! Hillary did just that, didn’t she?
Yeah…uh…well…that’s different! Right, libs?
Not just filibusters of judicial nominees, mind you…but all filibusters!
National Review points out the hypocrisy of today’s Democrats who gnash their teeth at the possibile loss of their obstruction technique:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) on Wednesday held a press conference to criticize Republican efforts to restore Senate tradition to the judicial confirmation process. But another proposal regarding Senate rules somehow escaped his ire, and has received scant attention despite the New York Times editorial board’s recently saying it would go “even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster.”
That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”
Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven’t heard about this proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you probably haven’t heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush’s nominees. Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.
Unlike the attempts by Democrats to end all filibusters, the effort by Senate Republicans is limited to the judicial confirmation process. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday: “If I must act to bring fairness back to the judicial nomination process, I will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation.”
My, how time flies when you’re always John Kerry-ing your next position! Alas for the Dems, though, while the MSM continues to underreport on issues like that, more and more people are finding this information out elsewhere…like here! OK, delusions of grandeur aside, the point is that the MSM may hide this, but other places won’t.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said recently that the current attempt to restore Senate rules on judicial nominations would turn the Senate into a “banana republic.” Given their attempts to end all filibusters in the past, at least 19 Democrats should take issue with that assertion.
A banana republic? For a twice-elected president and a Congress controlled by the president’s part for the last decade to actually pick judges with majority support is a banana republic? Yet these people think that Cuba and Venezuela and Zimbabwe are models of democracy (despite clear vote fraud), but over here, we’re just a banana republic.
No wonder these bastards keep losing elections!
Howard Scream…er, “Dean”…was at an ACLU of MN fundraiser on Wednesday night. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article, Dean drew “howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.” Yep, this is the party of compassion. A druggie like Marion Berry can be elected and re-elected mayor of the worst city in America (Washington, DC), and he is deemed to be a role model for liberals. “So what that he has a drug problem?”, they used to ask. But let a non-liberal have a drug problem, and that’s just funny stuff!
Here’s some more funny stuff, though, contained within the article:
Dean, 56, outlined his strategy for returning Democrats to electoral success in campaigns large and small.
Here’s guessing that part of his next strategy is to make fun of the homeless and the sick, now that he’s taken his potshots at the addict constituency. Mr. and Mrs. America will swoon at that approach, I’m sure.
“You can’t win the presidency if you’re an 18-state party. I truly believe this is a Democratic country — with a big D.”
Thus the resounding political defeats in 60% of the states in the union, eh?
Dean said: “I’m not very dignified” as he did the Limbaugh impression. What? Aw, Howard, don’t be silly! Nothing says “beluga caviar and merlot” class more than imitating a drug addict! I tell you, take big swigs from a brandy bottle and stagger around the stage in a mock Ted Kennedy routine, and you’ll really slay the audience!
A former Vietnam vet waited 90 minutes to spit tobacco juice and saliva on Jane Fonda. Then he took off, but cops caught up to him. Hanoi Jane did not press charges.
I can’t blame the guy at all, for the treasonous acts that the bitch committed against this country when we were at war. Having said that, you can’t go around spitting on people you don’t like. That’s sinking to the food-fight and violent anti-tolerant tactics of the left. Had he screamed at her, I think he would have been well within his right to do so, and I would have applauded him for it.
The article referenced Hanoi Jane’s apology for the photo with the Commie North. It also said she has never apologized for being anti-war. You know what? She shouldn’t apologize for having been against the war…a lot of people were. But she should apologize (and be prosecuted) for having allowed herself willingly to be used as a mouthpiece for the propaganda perpetuated by the North Vietnamese. What she did clearly falls under the definition of treason, but because she’s famous with a famous daddy, she never had to worry about it.
The turncoat Senator, James Jeffords, Democrat…er, “Independent”…from the People’s Republic of Vermont, is not seeking re-election. Story here.
He’d probably win if he did run. Vermont is a socialist state, as evidenced by their lone rep in the House: Socialist Party member Bernie Sanders. He won the hearts of leftists everywhere (not just Vermont) when he left the Republican party in 2001 and handed control of the Senate over to the Democrats. He said it was a matter of “principle” that he defected. Uh-huh…which is why his thirty pieces of silver came in the form of a committee chairmanship.
However, after the November 2002 elections, the GOP regained control of the Senate, and now Jumpin’ Jim went from being in the plurality to being in the minority. Word has it that he “offered” to Trent Lott to come back to the GOP if he could keep his committee chair, and Lott told him to go pound sand.
Jeffords will be known to some as a man who not only voted against Clinton’s impeachment conviction in the Senate in 1999, but for saying that if allegations were true of Clinton having raped Juanita Broaddrick, then said rape constituted a “private matter.” Don’t take my word for it: link here.
Wes Vernon exposes liberals’ amnesia in dealing with judicial nominees. Nothing damns a liberal more than his/her own words.
Amnesia and an abundance of hot air are the order of the day in the Senate. Liberals are screaming bloody murder because Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is seeking a way to derail unprecedented judicial filibusters by Democrats. But when Democrats were nominating the judges, they sang a different tune.
Senator Frist is seriously considering a measure to allow confirmation of judges on an up-or-down vote by a simple majority. The Democrats, prodded by far-left-wing groups, are resisting. Currently it takes 60 votes (three fifths of the Senate) to break any filibuster. But for over 200 years, judicial filibusters were unheard of.
And it all raises questions as to how the courts have become so blatantly politicized. The minority has blocked 10 of 52 of the president’s appeals court picks.
The April 15 Rutland Herald in the home state of Senator Patrick Leahy reports that in 1975 the Vermont Democrat played an active role in whittling down the number of votes required to shut off a Senate talkathon. At that time, we heard not a word from him, as we do today, about how the filibuster serves as a bulwark against any “assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy.” Now in 2005, Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and uses that exact argument to block judges he doesn’t like.
Oh, but things were so different then, says Leahy spokesman David Carle. Well, yes, they were. The Senate was controlled by Democrats, not Republicans. And the issue was liberal causes, not judges who will interpret the law according to its intended meaning.
Now liberals want only judges who will write into law policies they can’t get past the elected representatives of the people. Thus their previous arguments are out the window, and the filibuster is accorded some kind of sanctity, cloaked in several mythologies.
First of all, they argue, Senator Frist is trying to eliminate all filibusters.
No, he is not. The constitutional option (described by the liberal media as the “nuclear option”) targets only judicial filibusters. (In fact, Senator Frist’s very first Senate vote in January of 1995 was to preserve legislative filibusters).
It is the Democrats who have tried to break all filibusters, most recently in 1995. Nine of them are still there today (Boxer, Bingaman, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman and Sarbanes). They are fully supporting filibusters against well-qualified men and women.
Secondly, let’s tackle the old saw about how filibustering judicial nominations is “part of Senate tradition.”
Absolutely and unambiguously false. For over 200 years, Senate tradition never – never ever ever – required 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to approve judges. In the past, even Democrats favored up-or-down votes.
“Vote them up or down!” thundered Senator Leahy on the Senate floor in September of 1999 and added: “That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise-and-consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what the oath of office should compel Members to do.” Leahy had spoken of how “improper” it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. An up-or-down vote, the senator said then, was “a constitutional responsibility.”
Of course, that was different. A Democrat was in the White House and nominating the judges.
In that same year, none other than Senator Ted Kennedy intoned: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these [judicial] nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”
In March of 2000, Senator Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, said stalling on judges was “an example of government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the president nominates, and we are charged with voting on, the [judicial] nominees.”
A third myth perpetuated by the left is that the constitutional option is “unprecedented.”
No, it is not. Senator Robert Byrd, the octogenarian who sees himself as the last word on Senate history, served as Senate majority leader in 1979. In that year, he laid down the law. “Let the Senate vote on amendments, and then vote up or down on the resolution, he said. “If I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will [change the rules].”
Last month, the Washington Times reported that Senator Byrd “led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987 [all years in which he was majority leader], and in some cases to do precisely what the Republicans are now proposing.”
Fourth, Senator Richard Durbin said on the Senate floor April 15 that filibustering judges “has happened repeatedly in our history.”
No, it has not. The Illinois Democrat cites the case of Judge Richard Paez, a Clinton nominee, and says his nomination was filibustered by Republicans. The fact is Judge Paez ultimately was confirmed on an up-or-down vote, though he had a majority of more than 50, but fewer than 60 votes. Anonymous “holds” have delayed judicial nominations. That is not the same thing as literally talking them to death.
By contrast, Judge Priscilla Owen, a Bush nominee, has more than 50 votes (like Judge Paez) and (also like Judge Paez) fewer than 60 – but (very much unlike Judge Paez), she cannot get an up-or-down vote.
Now we come to a fifth myth bandied about by Senate Democrats through their mainstream media megaphone – that they simply want to debate the president’s nominations so they can come to some kind of compromise with the Republicans.
Oh, sure, That’s why Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has said he will “shut down the Senate” rather than carry out the constitutional obligation to vote up or down on the nominees. The Nevadan has said, “There is not a number [of hours] in the universe that would be sufficient” to talk to death the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen. How’s that for the “spirit of bipartisanship” which Democrats invoke whenever their opponents stand for principle?
What leads the Democrats to such disruptive and desperate tactics to block judges?
Mark Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, traces the fever pitch to radical left groups such as the misnamed People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, and NRAL Pro Choice America. We have also dealt with this issue in “Senate Democrats Under Fire for Plot Against Judicial Nominees.”)
The memos, reproduced in the appendix to Levin’s best seller “Men in Black,” clearly show that these organizations have been pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Most embarrassing to them was an internal note to Senator Kennedy by a staffer on April 17, 2002. Here is the part of it that raised many eyebrows:
“Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) tried to call you today to ask that the Judiciary Committee consider scheduling Julia Scott Gibbons, the uncontroversial nominee to the 6th Circuit court at a later date, rather than at a hearing next Thursday April 25.”
You might wonder what was so important about delaying an “uncontroversial” nominee. Here’s the answer.
“Elaine would like the committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th circuit,” the memo explained. “The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it.”
The Gibbons hearing was postponed. As Levin puts it, “This is court tampering, plain and simple.”
Or there is the memo targeting Miguel Estrada. And what do you suppose was his shortcoming? Read this statesmanlike concern from a staffer addressing Senator Durbin.
“They [attendees at a strategy session] also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”
There you have it in black and white: An Hispanic who might end up on the Supreme Court is “especially dangerous.” This from the party that claims to be holier than thou on the issue of pure bigotry.
This is not a dead issue. As we reported last year, the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary urged that the memos be preserved lest someone “intentionally or inadvertently destroy evidence of a crime.” The coalition’s president, Kay Daly, recently told me her group continues to pursue the matter through every legal channel available.
That again this brings us back to the basic reason the courts have become so politicized. Previously in this space, we explored the origins of the idea that once judges issue opinions or decrees, voila! They become “the law of the land” – no matter how outrageous and wrong. In case after case, the courts ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution or override the elected branches of government and their employers: you and me.
Judicial overreach has led to a situation where elected senators have tied themselves in knots over the confirmation and unprecedented filibustering of judges. Legislators have concluded that if judges are going to act like politicians and override them, the lawmakers might as well submit would-be judges to political grinders and litmus tests before they are seated.
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program of American Ideals at Princeton University, put it this way in a Feb. 17 Heritage Foundation lecture: “[I]n a basically just democratic republic, judicial power should never be exercised lawlessly – even for desirable ends. Judges are not legislators.”
As this writer noted the last time we dealt with this subject (see ” Curbing Abuses of the Judicial Oligarchy”), it was the Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury vs. Madison decision that fostered the idea that the courts always had the unchallenged right to the last word, even if guided more by the judge’s personal ideology than the letter of the law and its true meaning.
Professor George, however, notes that “Chief Justice [John] Marshall himself [along with other early supporters of judicial review] did not imagine that the federal and state courts would exercise the sweeping powers they have come to exercise today.” And as we noted previously, Marshall was simply out to frustrate the will of President Thomas Jefferson, an old political rival from their days in Virginia politics.
In the study “Marbury vs. Madison and Judicial Review,” constitutional scholar Robert Lowry Clinton, Ph.D., writes that the early 19th century decision merely meant that “the Court was relying on its own interpretation of the Constitution in deciding what it could and could not do within its own sphere.”
Dr. Clinton, who is acting chairman in the political science department at Southern Illinois University, adds, “This was entirely consistent with its recognizing a like power of other branches of government to interpret the constitution for themselves in deciding what they could and could not do in carrying out their constitutional functions.”
Nonetheless, over two centuries, the widespread assumption that Marbury vs. Madison was all-encompassing has grown and has led to the fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson’s prophecy, in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams, that the decision would ultimately lead to a form of despotism.
That is precisely why Senate liberals and their far-left allies are using the unprecedented judicial filibuster to block judges who will not enact from the bench the unpopular policies they cannot get through an accountable Congress.
And that is precisely why Americans who want a judiciary that bases its findings on interpreting the law rather than making new law should let their senators know they support the constitutional option that allows an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.
From Libertarian talk radio guru Neal Boortz:
Just when it seemed things were turning around at the much-ballyhooed liberal talk radio network, Air America has hit the skids again. Even though it seems like it’s been longer, Al Franken and company have only been on the air a little over a year. In that time, we’ve had tales of stations being paid to run network programming, checks bouncing and people not getting paid. So what’s new?
The ratings are terrible. Even their flagship radio station in New York, WLIB (really, those are the call letters…that’s not made up) is in 24th place. San Francisco? Terrible. Los Angeles? Not so good there either. So why isn’t the network doing any better than it is?
The radio business is just like any other. You have to be able to attract and hold an audience day after day, in order to sell commercials and make money (capitalism never was the left’s strong suit.) The problem with the whole concept of ‘liberal talk radio’ is they think they have to be the counterweight to conservative talk radio. They think it’s all about politics and ideology. It’s not. When people turn on the radio, they have to be entertained with compelling content. If the show is not entertaining, people are not going to listen. It doesn’t matter what the politics are….it has to be presented in an entertaining way.
Perhaps things will turn around for Air America…perhaps not. They sure haven’t done much with all that free advertising they got in the media when they first went on the air.
For my part, I hope they turn it around. I earnestly want Air America to succeed. Two reasons: First, they draw new listeners to the talk radio genre. Second, they keep the government off our backs. Mark my words; if Air America fails the leftists in Washington will immediately start beating the drums for more control on conservative talk radio. Fairness Doctrine, here we come.
How messed up! In the biggest, most liberal cities in America (NYC, SF, LA), Airhead America can’t even compete! I know…it must be those evil corporations!
The Fairness Doctrine is pure evil and propaganda, and it is nothing more than the left’s attempt to reign in conservative talk radio’s influence by using the deadly force of the Imperial Federal Government. I’ve documented this insidious doctrine before (link to prior post here).
Recall my previous post about Bill Clinton calling GOP advisor Arthur Finkelstein (who is gay) “self-loathing.” Well, the Ragin’ Cajun himself, James Carville, had this to say about Finkelstein on the little-watched CNN show Crossfire:
I wouldn’t attack him verbally. I would have walked up and cold cocked him. I think he should have just laid him out. I mean, you know what I mean? Let’s hit the pavement, boy. I mean, you say you’re going to my wife what these guys did, the way they maligned John Kerry and everything? I want to just — I’d have just hauled off and slugged him. I would have. But at any rate — (Applause). Let me — I think anybody can understand somebody come to their wife saying — I tell you what, if he wouldn’t have said that, I would have called him and said, “What kind of man are you? What kind of husband are you?”
Ah, yes…those peace-loving liberals! Don’t attack Saddam Hussein, but attack a gay Republican instead! I guess because gaybashing isn’t a hate-crime yet (though the libs purport to want to make it one), he wouldn’t be guilty of anything beyond simple assault.
You have to love those “pacifists”, don’t you?
I’m not late to the punch here. I haven’t commented much on the DeLay issue, because anyone who follows this blog likely knows that the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the press are after Tom DeLay, and they want him personally and politically destroyed. The latter is fair game, while the former is not.
A HUGE problem I have, though, is that the discredited New York Times went fishing for a story by a Republican that was anti-DeLay. They contacted former Representative Bob Livingston, who was Speaker of the House right after Newt Gingrich (until he confessed to an extramarital affair and resigned thereafter). When Livingston told the NYT that he would be glad to write a pro-DeLay column, the Times told him in so many words: “Don’t call us…we’ll call you!” Livingston concludes that the libs are after DeLay because he’s been an effective leader.
The nation’s largest fishwrap wasn’t interested in that! I mean, just how in the hell are you supposed to defame someone when people in his own party have the temerity to say nice things about him? Geez, that’s no fun!
Personally, I don’t care about DeLay one way or the other. He seems like a pretty abrasive and arrogant man. Having said that, seeing the MSM go after him reflexively makes me want to see him screw the left really hard and come out on top.
A judge cleared the way for federal officials to have a feeding tube inserted in a Cuban exile who is on a weekslong hunger strike to protest his detention as a suspected spy.
Juan Emilio Aboy was at Jackson Memorial Hospital’s inmate ward, hospital spokeswoman Lorraine Nelson said Friday.
A day earlier, U.S. District Judge Paul Huck agreed with another judge’s order to “involuntarily administer nutrients” to Aboy through a stomach or intravenous tube, and to restrain him if he attempts to remove it.
“The decision to not eat was his choice. A court order was issued allowing the U.S. Public Health Service to take any necessary precautions in the interest of his health,” said Nina Pruneda, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami.
It was not immediately known when a feeding tube might be put in. A hearing was tentatively set for next Friday to hear from Aboy and consider whether the government has legal authority to feed him.
His attorneys didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.
Aboy, 44, has been held for three years without criminal charges but faces immigration charges. Federal investigators claim he worked as a Cuban spy in the 1990s.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee requested a court order on April 8, saying Aboy had lost 29 pounds. Aboy has said he has lost 35 pounds and is becoming weak. Judge Shelby Highsmith then issued a temporary order that was upheld Thursday by Huck.
Aboy denies the espionage claims.
I hate to touch on the Schiavo thing again, but this once, I will: Does anyone think it’s a tad bit inconsistent (to say the least) that an American citizen can be deprived of food and water and starved to death, while a non-citizen who doesn’t want food or water has a judge force it upon him?
I don’t care what your views were of Terri Schiavo…I’m interested in your views of this Cuban detainee. Just so long as you don’t say that it’s OK to force-feed the Cuban because it’s for “national security” purposes!
Read this column on the California Democrats’ convention yesterday, and note the tone of the “article.” It’s slanted against the popular California governor, which is to be expected, but note how the writer (Beth Fouhy of the AP) exposes her ignorance.
Some in the convention hall held signs reading “Stop Arnold’s Arrogance!” while others carried bobblehead dolls depicting the Republican governor in a pink dress with an automatic rifle strapped to his shoulder. A video mocking Schwarzenegger’s campaign fund-raising and fondness for cigars drew laughter from the crowd.
During the budget fight last year, he branded Democrats “girlie men,” infuriating some who called the remark sexist and homophobic.
Emphasis mine. First of all, note the remark that he angered “some”. This is a common journalistic practice that allows the bias of the reporter to make its way into a story. When I was in college, there was a story of two lesbians who went to get a FL marriage license. They, of course, were refused. The anchorwoman said that they were going to sue the state, and (I quote) “Many think they will win.” Who were these “many”? Don’t know, because the news refused to show any sound bites, clips, interviews, printed statements, etc., from anyone who thought they would win. So just who the hell were these “many”, when the news couldn’t even find one? So there’s your lesson for today in spotting media bias: ambiguous terms like “some” or “many” when talking about a position or reaction.
The “article” is hilarious, especially since it’s framed with a serious tone. Arnie calls some people “girlie men”, and libs are aghast and call him sexist and homophobic. Yet these same people have Arnie bobblehead dolls of him in a pink dress, and it’s funny? Personally, I think it is juvenile, but not offensive. What is offensive is their hypocrisy, in that a bunch of leftists can put him in a dress and ignore any sexist or homophobic overtones.
In short: liberals can make fun of non-liberals by challenging their manhood and questioning their sexuality (see recent post on Clinton’s outing of Arthur Finkelstein), but let the tables get turned and all hell breaks loose!
One more tidbit:
Two days after the Democrats took a drubbing at the polls in the November election, Schwarzenegger referred to leaders of the party as “losers.”
Uhhhh…he was right! Based on the results of Election Day 2004, whereby nearly every Democrat who ran in competitive races lost (and in most cases, lost miserably), those losses by definition make those who ran and lost…losers! Yet here’s Fouhy, acting like the truth is offensive and reality is disturbing. Then again, for her and her ilk…it probably is!
When I read the ludicrous quote from liberal Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, that non-liberals are averse to “fact-driven debate” (which implies that liberals engage it), I laughed so hard that I almost launched my Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi from my nostrils. Note to self: Don’t drink beverages while reading political commentary.
The column illustrates how conservative speakers have been assaulted by “fact-driven” leftists who “relished academic debates” while on college campuses. Uh-oh…wooks wike wittle Jeffey has been pissing Mummie and Daddie’s money away while off at the university! From Coulter:
Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in the New Republic: Bush is an “instinctive anti-intellectual” and his administration hostile to “fact-driven debate.” In a favorable contrast, Clinton is “the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates.” Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is “dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research.”
I’m not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals’ “fact-driven” ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)
On March 29, liberals’ intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.
What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don’t like but can’t come up with words to dispute.
But Ann…that’s the modus operandi of the left: when you’ve lost the argument (which is often), attack the winner! Geez, it’s like watching pro wrestling! And Hulk Hogan defeats Andre the Giant for the World Heavyweight Title! WHOA! Andre smacked him with the chair…what a sore loser!
Isn’t it funny that liberals can muster outrage when we attack Saddam Hussein, but nary a peep when fellow Americans are attacked? I know, food fights aren’t exactly military warfare, but I thought libs were supposed to be peace-loving pacifists against all violence? Well, I guess they are, but only to murderers and Islamic fascists, not to conservative speakers!
Oh, well…like Coulter says about the food hurlers: “Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls.”
An excellent column points out a recent episode where Bill Clinton said that gay Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein, who recently married his male partner, “may be blinded by self-loathing.”
Ah yes…those tolerant liberals! Those same liberals who are committed to diversity, yet trash every homosexual (Jeff Gannon, Arthru Finkelstein), black (Condi Rice, Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown), Latino (Mel Martinez, Linda Chavez, Miguel Estrada), or any other minority that dares to stray from the liberals’ plantation.
But is Bill Clinton doing his wife a favor? I mean, while the MSM will whitewash this, it’s clear that hypocrisy knows no shame with these people! A man whose presidency is defined by his sexual behavior and his “skirt-chasing guilt” has the gall to criticize someone else’s private behavior? And defending his wife over something trivial implies she cannot defend herself (which I have always believed to be the case, and Bubba’s confirmed my suspicion).
For the record, Finkelstein clearly disagrees with his party’s view on gay marriage. And…? So what? Politicians and their family/friends frequently disagree with their own parties: pro-choice Republicans, pro-life Democrats, pro-government Republicans, pro-American Democrats (don’t laugh…some of them do exist)! Isn’t that this diversity thing we keep hearing from these liberals…the same thing they’re now trashing? Plus, Finkelstein didn’t flaunt his sexuality…he chose to keep it personal and not public. It wasn’t self-loathing, Bubba…it was irrelevant!
“Good enough for me, but not for thee”, eh liberals? Story here.
Congressman Bernie Sanders is a Socialist from Vermont. You’ll see him referred to by the MSM as an “Independent”, because he’s not a Democrat or Republican. But he is a member of the Socialist Party. Not surprisingly, he caucuses with the Democrats in the House. Yet Dems try to distance themselves from socialism? …but I digress.
Anyway, Tom DeLay has taken quite an MSM-induced beating over hiring family members to work in his campaign. Well, it turns out that so has Comrade Sanders. Predictably, the Democrats in the story don’t seem to think it’s the same kind of thing with Sanders. “Well, it’s different than DeLay, because the amount that Sanders paid is less than what DeLay paid.” I see…enriching family members with campaign funds funneled to the family is OK, so long as it doesn’t exceed a certain amount. And what is that certain amount? Well, uh…it’s less than whatever the Republicans are paying!
These hypocrites know no shame. Instead, they giggle like prepubescent teenie boppers slumbering on a Friday night while talking about Joey Bagadonuts. They giggle because they know that due to their friends in the MSM, they won’t be held to the same standards as conservatives and libertarians would.
Geez, with my recent post about Canada’s socialized medicine, you’d think this blog is only about exposing the fraud of the left’s socialized medicine utopias. However, since this blog is dedicated to exposing the intellectual vacuum of the left, that includes dissing one of their staples that they try to foist on us Americans…”free” health care.
Babalu Blog is run by a Cuban exile now living in America…Miami, I think. Anyway, he’s got a piece that has been featured on numerous international (including American) prominent web sites. It has some photos that show how “sanitary” Cuba’s “wonderful” hospitals are. If you are a liberal, you may want to turn your eyes away from the photos in the link, because it will raise your discomfort level in how you reconcile reality from your flawed perceptions. Cockroaches, people…cockroaches!
You should probably read some of the comments, too…especially from leftists who have never been to Cuba, yet fault the author (who is Cuban and grew up there before fleeing to the US for a good life) for not blaming the US embargo. Hey, you’d figure with Castro’s net worth of about $550 million, he could buy some mops and bleach for the hospitals, at a minimum. And when a Cuban doctor exposed the world to the realities of Cuban health care…well, let’s just say no one’s heard from her in a while. Babalu Blog does a great job in painstaking detail in showing the world (those who actually care to open their eyes, anyway) what’s real in Cuba.
For those who are so anti-American and myopic, ask yourself this: How many people do you see risking their lives to get into Cuba…hmmm? Elian Gonzales lost his mother, who literally gave her life so her son could live life as a free boy and man (before Clinton and Reno cruelly returned him to Cuba, thus rendering Elian’s mother’s ultimate sacrifice for naught).
Cubans risk life and limb to leave Cuba en masse. So if it was such a paradise, why do they want to leave? My guess is that liberals, who already think that everyone else is dumber than they are, think that Cubans are just too stupid to know how good they have it ober there! Sure, Cubans may have pestilence, famine, poverty, and nada rights…but hey! At least the unsanitary health care is FREE!
From the AP:
Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton faced tough questioning Monday from Senate Democrats on his nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Republicans were looking for swift approval from the Foreign Relations Committee.
President Bush’s selection of Bolton last month has stirred controversy because of his expressions of disdain for the United Nations and the blunt criticism he has leveled at North Korea and other countries and arms control treaties.
During administration efforts two years ago to seek an agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program, Bolton called that country’s leader a “tyrannical dictator.” North Korean officials refused to deal with him.
Bolton helped lead U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court and the United States’ eventual withdrawal from the treaty creating the court.
Some observations on this story:
1. As of this moment, it is 8:10 a.m. Eastern time. This story (as of now, who knows if it’ll change later) refers to everything in the past tense. “Bolton faced tough questioning Monday from Senate Democrats.” Did the facing of the tough questions occur before 7:30 a.m.? I don’t think so. And if I’m correct, how can the article refer to what has yet to happen in the past tense? I mean, it IS going to happen, but that would be future tense and not past tense. Tells me that the AP and the rest of the MSM already have their talking points and strategy from the DNC. Go ahead, libs…defend this one!
2. Gasp! What?!? North Korea…a tyrannical dictatorship?!? No way! Where did he get that idea from? Why, isn’t the place a Communist paradise? How dare he make such an observation! I tell you, it would be downright dangerous to allow him to take those kind of observation skills to such an important relevant organization like the U.N.!
3. Thank God (for those of you in blue states, that would be the Creator of the universe) that he led the opposition to the ICC! The ICC would have been nothing more than a kangaroo court for railroading Americans overseas with a sham trial. Foreigners are completely partial when it comes to their feelings about Americans, and the ICC would have subjected American citizens to mock trials. I have no faith in international laws or organizations, much less their courts.
Knowing these two things, and knowing how much liberals like my state’s senator (Bill Nelson, D-FL) are opposed to his nomination, it’s clear that Bolton is the right man for the job. Someone needs to kick some ass and take some names at the U.N., and Bolton looks like he’s up to the task!
Hat tip to ManicNole for sending this to me. Link to story here.
Liberals like to point to the wonderful government-run health care system in Canada, as a model of how to do things here. Well, here are a few jewels from the Canadian article:
The five regional hospitals covering Essex, Kent and Lambton counties jointly offer the shortest median wait times for hip and knee replacements and cataract procedures in Ontario, and significantly shorter times for several other procedures, according to a provincial report released Wednesday.
Translation: Sure, we suck when it comes to care that alleviates your pain…but at least we suck less than other regional hospitals in Canada.
The report says that the median wait time for total hip replacement surgery in our LHIN is 16 weeks, compared to 24 for Ontario — the lowest in the province. The report also says that 71 per cent of patients were able to get their operations within the recommended wait time of 25 weeks.
Translation: Suck it up, whiner, and tough out the next four months while waiting on that new hip. No pain, no gain!
Patients here waited six weeks for cataract surgery, compared to 16 for Ontario, and 65 per cent received it within the recommended waiting time of four months.
Translation: Surely you can go a measley month without seeing, right?
Similar trends were noted for three out of four types of cancer surgeries. All figures were not available Wednesday, but the report indicated that local patients waited 25 days for a large bowel resection, just under the Ontario median time of 26 days. For mastectomy operations, the local time was 19 days compared to 29, and the wait was 72 days for a radical prostatectomy, compared to 87 for Ontario.
No jokes…this is just pathetic. Cancer victims can’t even be bumped to the front of the line? Urgency is not in the vocabulary, “eh?”
The only cardiac procedure done in this LHIN is at Hotel-Dieu Grace, which performs angiograms — a diagnostic procedure to check blockage of arteries. That lab will be closed all month while it is equipped with new machinery and remodelled.
All other cardiac patients are sent to London or elsewhere. The report shows that local heart patients can wait for three days for an urgent angiography, and 21 for an elective diagnosis. The Ontario time is 24 days.
Do I even need to comment on the scariness of this scenario? If you think your artery is blocked, wait until next month…or go to London. If it’s “urgent”, then they’ll move at warp speed…3 days!
Wow…now our health care system doesn’t look as bad as I thought!
Leave it to the ACLU (#ssholes and Crazy Leftists United) to expose themselves once again for they hypocrites that they are.
According to an AP article appearing here, a student in Missouri was sent home for wearing a pro-gay t-shirt because the school administration found it to be distracting and not conducive to keeping focus on educational activities (for those of you in blue states, which does NOT include Missouri, that means “learning”). The ACLU is suing the school, saying that the girl’s free speech rights are being violated and the school has no right to limit this kind of speech.
What a difference 10 months makes! In Wisconsin (a blue state, which would explain what you’re about to read) in June of 2004, a Pewaukee High School senior, who submitted a yearbook picture (paid for by him, in a paid ad) showing himself with a rifle and a confederate flag, was told he would have to submit another picture. According to the ACLU, this was an appropriate course of action. Link here.
Sure, they mentioned the gun (which is dumb, but for the purposes of the free speech component to this column, I’ll let that one pass), and how the school was obligated to keep their students safe (sidebar: when was the last time you saw a picture of a gun shoot a real person?). But here’s the gem:
It (the school) should also indicate that the confederate flag is regarded by many as a symbol of intolerance and bigotry and that intolerance and bigotry are contrary to the civic values taught by the school.
Really? “Regarded by many”, huh? So that is a reason to refuse a photo? I thought free speech wasn’t concerned with popular speech or how it was “regarded” by anyone…isn’t that what the ACLU kooks have been telling us?
How about this, then? Homosexuality is a lifestyle regarded by many to be incompatible with civic values in society. It’s patently offensive to most Americans, and the overwhelming majority of parents with kids in school feel that it is not appropriate for kids in school to be exposed to pro-gay OR anti-gay messages (if kids want to talk outside of class about it, who cares?). But now we’re back to “Screw the majority…it’s free speech!”
By embracing the pro-gay t-shirt as free speech and deriding the Confederate flag shirt, the ACLU is saying that Southern pride is hateful, bigoted, and intolerant…and gay pride is welcome, tolerant, and conducive to good brainwashing and propoganda…er, education! So I, as a Tennesseean, can have no pride in my culture…unless I boinked other men.
What a bunch of left-wing hypocritical nut jobs!
Here’s a link to a story on how the media views the coverage of the Pope’s life and death. In summary, the media thinks the coverage is too favorable, and that the Pope (like Reagan) was incredibly controversial and should be examined as such.
They refer to how Reagan was a “polarizing” figure. Well, maybe it was my modest Southern upbringing or the fact that I attended Florida State University instead of Columbia or Yale, but I guess I’m just not that bright…I thought when Reagan won 49 of 50 states in 1984 (and coming within 4,000 votes of winning Mondale’s MN for the clean sweep), that kinda shot the “polarizing” myth all to Hell. What could I have been thinking?
As for the Pope, he problem (if you listen to the media elite…and I don’t) is that he was “too conservative.” What?!? That’s part of the cluelessness that liberals have towards religion!
See, the Pope didn’t condone abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital shack-ups, etc., as being consistent with Christian dogma as outlined in the Bible. For those of you in blue states, the Bible was a book written a long time ago that Christians believe contains (among other things) rules that God wants us to live by. For those same blue staters, God is the supreme Creator of the universe. But I digress…
Liberals think that “progress” is accepting of all of the aforementioned behaviors that the Pope refused to condone. While society may, in whole or in part, accept these signs of “progress”, the Pope understood that Christianity does not change with the times…it is what it is, and it is what it says. And while I have strayed numerous times from the Word of the Bible (and continue to do, on a daily basis), never once have I said “Well, that Pope guy is just gonna have to get with the times…everybody else is doing what I’m doing!”
My home state of Tennessee (a red state) has a Democrat governor, Phil Bredesen. And from what I understand, he’s pretty popular there. He’s not a liberal, because like most other Southern Democrats, he understands that modern liberalism is a failed philosophy that has no traction in the South (due to Southerners’ love for God, country, military, and Bill of Rights…and willingness to express that love). Heck, I have family members that voted for him two years ago…and few people in my family ever vote for a Democrat!
Anyway, he was recently quoted by a London paper as saying something less than flattering about Her Highness (not the Queen of England, but the Queen of New York…Shrillary Clinton). According to the article:
Southern Democrats are growing increasingly restless over the prospect of having Hillary Clinton head their party’s presidential ticket in 2008 – and at least one of them is speaking out.
“I sure hope there are other people who would step forward,” Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen told the London Times over the weekend. “People love [Clinton] or they hate her, and I don’t know in the end how all that plays out.”
While surveys conducted by Northeastern pollsters continue to show that Clinton is her party’s odds-on presidential favorite, Bredesen said the voters he knows are “kind of dissatisfied” with all the current Democratic 2008 prospects.
The column does go on to say that he backpedaled just a bit when he got back to the states (and no doubt caught hell from the national party elite). He said he wasn’t disparaging her…just pooh-poohing her chances in 2008.
Bredesen himself may have eyes on 2008. He’s up for re-election in ’06, and though it’s way too early and things could change, he looks in good shape to be re-elected. If he is, he would get serious consideration for president in ’08 (since, unlike the last politician from Tennessee who ran for President, he would actually win his home state and compete in other Southern states).
That is, of course, unless the national party thinks for the second presidential election in a row that it would be a good idea to recruit a haughty, effete New England liberal like Shrillary. After all, Kerry told us in early 2004 that Dems don’t need the South to win the Presidency (despite the fact that no Dem has ever been elected without at least one Southern state). DNC elites may agree. Time will tell. Never underestimate the stupidity of the Democratic Party.
From Neal Boortz:
Every year the Citizens Against Government Waste publishes their annual list of federal pork-barrel spending. It’s called the Congressional Pig Book. To get an idea where your hard-earned tax dollars are going, it’s worth taking a look at what made this year’s list.
In a list of some 14,000 pork projects, supported by politicians of both parties, the total tab for this year’s spending is $27.3 billion. With a national debt in the trillions and an annual deficit of hundreds of billions, this is all the more outrageous because it’s borrowed money. So not only are politicians buying votes with pork-barrel spending, but they’re financing it. So now future generations will pay interest on today’s pork.
At any rate, here are some of the projects that made the list:
$3,000,000 for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation. That’s interesting…I thought foundations were for private, charitable foundations. And since when is Cal Ripken’s dad hurting for cash? $1.7 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center. With all the crap in Washington, you’d think they’d have all the free fertilizer they need. $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation. Tiger Woods was the highest-paid athlete in the world last year, with earnings of $80 million. Why you and I need to kick in a hundred grand for his foundation is beyond me.
The list goes on and on. There are some that are outraged at the list of wasteful spending, but just pause and ask yourself. Do you expect your Congressman or woman to “bring home the bacon?” Perhaps you’re part of the crowd that thinks government spending is free money, and everyone should get their “fair share.”
Oh, and when it comes to government spending, there no longer is any difference between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, George Bush and the Congressional Republicans are the biggest spenders in this nation’s history.
This segues with a piece I wrote a couple of weeks ago, about the spending spree that the GOP has gone on. I thought Republicans were for smaller government? This is proof that irrespective of party, whomever runs Congress grows the federal government bigger and bigger each year.
Consider Libertarian. Because in the end, we get the government we deserve.
Please read the column by Thomas Sowell on liberal attitudes. Not “principles”, but “attitudes.” Here are a couple of excerpts, but please read the whole column. It’s not long.
Liberals may denounce “greed,” for example, but in practice it all depends on whose greed. Nothing the government does is ever likely to be called “greed” by liberals.
Even when the government confiscated more than half the income of some people in taxes, that was not greed, as far as the left was concerned. Nor is it greed in their eyes when local politicians across the country bulldoze whole working class neighborhoods, destroying homes that people spent a lifetime sacrificing to buy, and paying them less than the market value of those homes through legal chicanery.
Even when the land seized under “eminent domain” laws are turned over to casinos, hotels, or shopping malls — places that will pay more taxes than working class homeowners — liberals can never seem to work up the outrage that they display when denouncing “greed” on the part of businesses whose prices are higher than liberals think they should be.
It is not the principle of sacrificing other people’s economic interests to your own that causes liberals to denounce greed. It is a question of who does it and what the liberals’ attitudes are to those segments of the population.
Politicians who ruin local homeowners, in order to get hold of more tax money to finance programs that will increase the politicians’ chances of being re-elected, are just meeting the “needs” of the community, as far as many liberals are concerned.
So libs will throw poor homeowners under the bus in order to let a Wal-Mart raze a neighborhood…because Wal-Mart will pay tons more in taxes. And we know how liberals love taxes! Continuing…
Whatever the issue, it is usually not the principle but the attitude which determines where liberals stand. Just rattle off a list of social groups — the police, blacks, environmentalists, multinational corporations — and you will have a pretty good idea of which way liberals are likely to lean, even if you have no idea what particular issue may arise.
Recent liberal denunciations of federal intervention to over-ride Florida law in the Terri Schiavo case were made by the same people who supported recent federal intervention to over-ride the laws of more than a dozen states when the Supreme Court banned the execution of murderers who were not yet 18 years old.
You can count on the same liberals to cheer if the federal courts over-ride both state laws and referenda opposing gay marriage. It is not the principle. It is the attitude.
This is not an invitation to rehash Terri Schiavo. Sowell’s point is that libs are for federal intervention/overreaching in their pet causes, but not against their causes, be it Schiavo, Elian, gay marriage, death penalty, etc. He also addresses “diversity” and liberal attitudes towards it, too.
Again, please read the column.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett