Crush Liberalism

"Journalists Whine About Not Being Alerted to First Lady’s Skin Cancer"

From Newsbusters:

Reminiscent of the high dudgeon Washington press corps reaction after a few hours passed before they were notified of Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident, on Tuesday some reporters denounced the White House for failing to publicly announce how last month First Lady Laura Bush had a skin cancer growth removed from one of her legs. On FNC, Brit Hume played a montage from the daily briefing showing how journalists “demanded to know why they hadn’t been told earlier.” NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, for instance, asked “how was the decision reached not to disclose this publicly until questions were asked?” And she challenged White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: “Do you feel any obligation as a person of public status to talk about this?”

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric framed the story not around the cancer but around how the White House didn’t reveal it: “Laura Bush has been treated for skin cancer, and today she and others in the administration were defending her decision to try to keep that story out of the press.” CBS reporter Jim Axelrod at least noted the lack of threat to the First Lady’s health: “In October, Mrs. Bush noticed a sore that wouldn’t heal. A biopsy confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, among the most common and treatable skin cancers.”
…
On the December 19 Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC, Hume played a montage of clips from the White House press briefing:

Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News: “Tony, can you tell us about Mrs. Bush’s skin cancer, how is she doing and how was the decision reached not to disclose this publicly until questions were asked?”

Victoria Jones, Talk Radio News Service: “Which was it, was it that it was medical privacy that was the reason for not informing us, or was it that it was no big deal?”

O’Donnell: “Do you feel any obligation as a person of public status to talk about this?”

Jessica Yellin, ABC News: “Did the White House doctor treat her?”

Kathleen Koch, CNN: “Does the First Lady say she actually does not plan to come out in any way? She could potentially have a great influence on a lot of people’s lives, especially young women.”

Tony Snow: “You guys are really stretching it. I mean, it is now officially a really slow news day.”

White House press spokesjerk Jonathan would have responded thusly:

“Why didn’t I tell you guys? Oh, I dunno…maybe because it’s none of your Allah-damned business?!? Maybe?? Perhaps I have bigger things to worry about than whether or not Kelly O’Dumb#ss or Katie F*#kin’ Couric and her seven viewers need to know my wife’s medical business, hmmm? I didn’t feel it was a priority to run out and tell the ‘always accommodating’ press corps…I’m funny that way!”

December 20, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

"Ted Kennedy Fails to Block Wind Farm"

The pickled pig from the People’s Republic of Taxachussets, Sen. Ted Kennedrunk, is reflective of the left’s “good enough for thee, but not for me” mentality. One of the loudest bloviating blowhards for “alternative energy sources”, he has fought his distilled heart out to prevent a windfarm from being built off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, since the windfarm might get in the way of his yachting or minutely disrupt the view from his pristine house there.

Fortunately, Teddy K. lost a battle in his elitist fight. From Newsmax:

Massachusetts’ highest court has upheld a decision facilitating construction of an environmentally friendly “wind farm” that Sen. Ted Kennedy had opposed.

The decision on Monday allows construction of 18-mile-long transmission lines to bring electricity from the Cape Wind project – a collection of energy-producing wind turbines – to shore.

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a May 2005 decision by the state Energy Facilities Siting Board that was challenged by a group opposing the Cape Wind project, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

If it receives needed federal approval, Cape Wind would become the nation’s first offshore wind farm.

The developer seeks to construct two 115-kilovolt lines to transmit electricity generated by 130 wind turbines in federal waters in Nantucket Sound. The lines would pass beneath state waters before reaching shore at Yarmouth and continuing underground to a switching station in Barnstable.

Cape Wind touts its project as a safe, clean way to create renewable energy.

Kennedy had lobbied for a provision giving Gov. Mitt Romney veto power over the Cape Wind project.

In his book “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” author Peter Schweizer disclosed that Kennedy opposed the Cape Wind project because “the wind turbines would be built in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis.

“The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.”

As NewsMax reported in May, Kennedy supported a proposal to build another wind farm – in somebody else’s “backyard.”

A Boston contractor submitted plans to construct an offshore complex of 90 to 120 wind turbine towers near Naushon Island and the towns of Dartmouth and Fairhaven.

While the Cape Wind project Kennedy opposed would be “in view of some of the wealthiest communities in Massachusetts’ Cape Cod,” according to CNN and Reuters, the other proposal was for a “project in view of more working-class areas.”

At least give Teddy K. his due for taking a boat into the water instead of a car.

December 20, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Bush to sign tax increase?

Were I to write a book about the Bush 43 presidency, I would entitle it “Bill of Goods”, for that is what we have been sold. The latest slap to his constituency’s face, via the Washington Times:

The Bush administration has sent signals since last month’s elections that the president is prepared to accept some tax increases on upper-income families, worrying congressional Republicans and fiscal conservative watchdogs who say he will compromise with Democrats to win a legacy accomplishment.

These moves come even as Democrats have pledged to rein in earmarks, winning praise from the same conservative groups that are criticizing Mr. Bush.

The watchdog groups have been demanding that the president repeat his earlier pledges not to raise taxes in order to reform Social Security. But the White House has refused, with officials saying everything is on the table, including tax increases.

“So far, no one in the administration has simply stood up and said, ‘We will not raise payroll taxes in any way, shape or form,’ ” said Pete Sepp, a vice president for the National Taxpayers Union, which led a coalition of several dozen groups to write a letter asking for such an assurance. (Well, at least he didn’t pull a “Read My Lips” this time. – Ed.)

Meanwhile, the House’s top Republican on tax cuts, outgoing Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, warned last week that the White House has hinted that it will accept a tax increase on higher-income families in order to win accommodations from Democrats.

“I wish I were a bit more comfortable in listening to some of the noises that are currently being made,” Mr. Thomas, California Republican, told the American Enterprise Institute, saying he is seeing signs that the administration may be “moving away from hard-fought policies to salvage what you thought you weren’t going to get.”

“Based upon some statements made by people in prominent positions who deal with money within the administration, comments about the individual top tax rate make me a little nervous,” he said.

The White House-congressional split highlights a problem that Mr. Bush is likely to face for the next two years: the increasing division between Mr. Bush and his party as he works to find common ground with Democrats and Republicans work to hold the line on tax cuts and other gains they made on the Republican agenda.
…
“There is White House staff up on the Hill pushing this,” said Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity, one of the watchdogs. “There has been for months. They really feel this is a legacy issue, and they’re willing to accept compromise on policy issues.”

One of the things I used to admire about Bush was his unyielding conviction, that he didn’t care if anyone approved of his decisions as long as he was convinced that his decisions were right. However, I am becoming more convinced that since the Dems won the midterms this year, he is more interested in rehabbing his spotty legacy than in doing the right thing.

Seriously, a president who has always (and correctly) identified tax increases as counterproductive to a sound economy is now going sign a tax increase? My friends on the left might not agree with me on tax increases and tax cuts, but I’d like to think that they can spot political opportunism when it shamelessly presents itself.

Sweet cracker sandwich, I cannot wait until this guy gets out of the White House. For all of the good that this guy has done and that has happened on his watch (post-9/11 leadership, toppling the Taliban and Saddam, economic recovery and prosperity), he is wiping it out with his more boneheaded moves (only one veto, “drunken sailor” spending, campaign finance reform, prescription drugs, amnesty for illegals, and now tax increases). What the man doesn’t seem to understand is that by “compromising” with Democrats, they’re still not going to like him…and now, neither will Republicans.

One of the many things I detested about Clinton was that he was not a man of conviction, but a self-centered man of polls who has been trying to polish his stained-dress legacy since before he left. I never thought Bush would fall into the same catgory, but it looks more and more like he has.

Like I said…Bill of Goods.

December 20, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment