-- Harry Reid's smear of Judge Henry Saad's reputation was despicable:
"Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there."
Not only will the public never find out what's supposed to be in that report, Saad himself isn't allowed to look at it. So how can Saad defend himself against Reid's attack? He can't. Furthermore, as Captain Ed points out, this is clearly a serious ethics violation by Reid:
"None of the Senators have access to the file except those on the Senate Judiciary Committee or Saad's homestate senators (both Democrats) -- which excludes Harry Reid! Reid should never have been given access to that information, and if he has accessed the file, he would be guilty of a breach of Senate rules. Furthermore, by publicly characterizing the data in Saad's file, he has breached its confidentiality.
So did a Democratic Senator inform Harry Reid of the contents of a confidential FBI file or did Reid lie through his teeth when he said there was a problem there that was so serious it would lead to a filibuster? That sounds like a matter that should be investigated.
-- If you want proof that gay marriage isn't at the end of the slippery slope, just take a look at this column by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune that advocates marriage between first cousins. You believe marriages between first cousins, polygamy, and who knows what else are "unthinkable?" That's exactly what people would have told you about gay marriage 20 years ago.
-- Want to know the most underrated political blog on the net? It's Ravenwood's Universe.
-- Just for the record, I like John Bolton, I think he's EXACTLY the type of guy we need to send to the UN, and I do expect him to be confirmed by the Senate. The UN is a corrupt, bloated, moral cesspool/debating society and we need someone who's going to push for change, not a "Go along to get along" type of UN rep. It's time to take off the kid gloves with the UN and Bolton is just the guy to do it.
-- Kudos to the Bush adminstration for trying to close "180 military installations from Maine to Hawaii including 33 major bases." This isn't going to hurt our readiness; to the contrary, it will probably help -- plus it'll save "$48.8 billion over 20 years."
The only reason this wasn't done long ago is because base closings are always vehemently opposed by any Senator or Congressman in an area that loses a base. But, are we supposed to knowingly waste 48.8 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money just because we don't want to step on anybody's toes? Base closings are always nasty business, but this needed to be done.
-- More American politicians should be stepping up and pointing out the obvious: that it's absolutely outrageous for Mexico to pitch a fit over the US trying to protect our borders. Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez is actually sending a diplomatic letter to the White House saying that extending a wall along the California border is "unacceptable and not a solution." Who the hell do they think they are to tell us that it's unacceptable to try to stop illegals, drug dealers, and terrorists from sneaking across our border?
Excerpt Of The Day: The Democrats Are Defying Senate Tradition By Filibustering
"One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.
The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.
What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration." -- Charles Krauthammer
Do you love Michael Moore? Noam Chomsky? Ted Kennedy? Harry Reid? Hillary Clinton? Good, because none of my advertisers love 'em either. That's why you should check out at least 3 of my advertisers below. OK, you'll do it? All of you doing it already? All of you are already?
Great...great...how great it is that you think I fell off of a turnip truck yesterday because that's the sort of person who'd buy that! Ok, maybe that's not the best turn of phrase -- fell off a turnip truck -- I mean you sort of imagine a horse drawn wagon full of turnips bouncing through the countryside and some yokel falling off it. But let me tell you, I've lived in the country before and I've never seen a horse drawn wagon full of anything bouncing down the road. They did occasionally have hay rides although I was never interested in that. We toilet papered people's houses when I was a teenager, too...but, I guess that's not really a country thing, is it? I mean you can toilet paper people's houses in the city, too...I guess. Oh, but we were talking about turnips, right? Ya know, believe it or not, I don't ever remember eating turnips but I can tell you that I don't like them.....
Ok...I'm going to stop now...that was just a boring warning shot across the bow of you readers who aren't clicking on my advertisers. Don't mess with me, folks, because I can write thousands of words about turnips. Is that what you want? Do you want to take a look at Right Wing News and read turnip poetry?
Turnips, turnips, they're not fruit
Turnips, turnips, they're not even cute
Ate a turnip, no I didn't
And now I'm going totally off track because this is one of those dumb poems that don't rhyme
Don't make me do it, folks. Click the advertisers, just click 3 of them. Please?
Quote Of The Day: Memo To Karl Rove On Illegal Immigration
"Memo to Karl Rove: illegal aliens aren't supposed to vote, and they're not going to vote for you anyway. On the other hand, there are millions of Americans (in both parties, and in no party at all) who are fed up with this country's refusal to enforce its immigration laws, and they do vote." -- Ace
No, Exit Polls Don't Show The 2004 Election Was Rigged
One of the tinfoil hat theories on the left that has gotten a lot of play is that the 2004 election was rigged. That theory started getting wide play shortly after Kerry lost the election, but factual support for it has always been incredibly thin.
There are, of course, screw-ups that happen in every election and discredited studies that have been offered up as proof, but the thing most leftie conspiracy theorists have latched onto are the exit polling numbers which showed ENORMOUS leads for Kerry in every swing state when they first leaked out (although Kerry's lead shrank quite a bit in exit polls released later in the day).
The latest leftie beating this drum is boxing broadcaster Jim Lampley, over at the Huffington Post. Here's his "reasoning:"
"Make no mistake: my argument is that the final official vote tally is anything but accurate, that it is the product of massive vote fraud carried out through the programing of Diebold voting machines and various other machinations aimed at suppressing, destroying or losing Kerry votes. My argument is that what were accurate were the exit polls. As one Ivy League research methodologist has noted, "Apparently the pollsters at Mitofsky and Edison have found it more expedient to provide an explanation unsupported by theory, data or precedent than to impugn the machinery of American democracy."
Various statisticians have reported that the odds on the occurrence of variances from exit polls to actual results such as were produced in this election range up to 959 000 to 1. Sounds like DNA. As US Count Votes notes in a statistical abstract, "No matter how one calculates it, the discrepancy cannot be attributed to chance."
So let me put it in Foxspeak. If all the circumstantial evidence related to potential vote fraud in this election were gathered up into one big file for the Scott Peterson jury, they'd convict. The jury that might look at all this and acquit? O.J. Simpson. Politics make strange bedfellows."
To begin with, as Byron York noted in his response, the exit pollsters themselves say they got it wrong. Via Byron York, here's Warren Mitofsky, the "father of exit polling," and the man whose company supervised the polling:
"Our analysis of the exit polls suggests that we had slightly better cooperation from the Kerry voters than from the Bush voters. In other words, the non-response was not even. There was some unevenness to it. And it favored Kerry."
Moreover, just to make sure nobody forgets, Bush's win wasn't some shocking upset. About a week before the election, RWN polled right-of-center bloggers not on whom they wanted to win the election, but on whom they actually thought would win. The results? 93% picked Bush. The early voting totals from across the country? They favored Bush (CBS pegged it at 51-43 & Harris had Bush up 50-46). The final polls in the two key swing states of Florida & Ohio? Bush went 4-1-1 in Florida polls and 6-0 in Ohio polls. So although the election was certainly close, Bush, not Kerry, looked like the stronger candidate heading into the final week.
Just to sum it all up, the exit polls don't show that the vote was rigged in the 2004 election. Anyone who tells you otherwise either has his facts wrong at best or at worst is trying to mislead you...
The American Patriot Friends Network does excellent work detailing America's concentration camps. The front page has a picture of Ashcroft on it so you know this has to be all certified and true. It's followed by an email from someone who is careful to not leave her email address because of Echelon but then imparts the vital knowledge that there is an underground city under the Denver airport where a crematorium is working 24/7 to eradicate loudmothed war protestors. According to the email, there are 350 special forces military men last seen going to the Denver airport; they've remained missing for three years.
Oh and the horror isn't only happening in Denver. No. That would be too easy. Fort Devens, MA, for instance is described:
This prison has factory facilities and a water reservoir that has been built around the camp. It was constructed in 1999 and the railroad had to lay tracks into the prison from Canada and Boston. Note the extensive use of razor wire with the fences.
Razor wire at a prison? Holy Mother of God. This is worse than we thought. No place is safe.
Camp Grayling, MI. Ft Dix, NJ. And is nothing sacred: Ft. Leonard Wood in the Great State of Missouri. All concentration camps. All bulging to capacity with ordinary civilians awaiting their deaths.
*** Update #1 ***: Follow-up: Read more about the loonies on the net in RWN's "Anyone Can Post On The Internet" section which is located here.
You may also want to take a look at "Does John Ashcroft's 'Camp Plan' Actually Exist?" which demolishes one of the stories that the "they're going to throw us all in prison camps" crowd loves to cite.
DNC Poll: Clinton Fundraiser Trial A 'Yawner' -- Satire By Scott Ott
According to a new poll by the Democrat National Committee (DNC), the trial of Sen. Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance director, David Rosen, is "insignificant and uninteresting to 97 percent of all Americans."
The DNC-New York Times survey consisted of one question with two possible answers. The poll showed that among the two percent of Americans who had seen news coverage of the case, 97 percent chose: "It's a yawner -- nothing to see here folks."
The other three percent selected the alternative choice: "I'm a rabid right-winger so blinded by my hatred of the Clintons that I can't reasonably answer the question."
"It's just not newsworthy," the unnamed pollster said. "It's nothing but a former First Lady who won a Senate seat with the help of a fundraising team which misstated expenses by more than 100 percent in order to dodge campaign finance laws, and worked with a former convict to produce a lavish star-studded Hollywood gala in tribute to President Bill Clinton as a way of getting the former president to support an internet venture started by the creator of Spider-Man. See, I almost dozed off while describing it to you. No wonder it fails to capture the attention of Mr. and Mrs. America."
Indeed, a hypothetical movie Script based on that scenario wouldn't "make it off the pile," according to producer/director Rob Reiner, who appeared on the program of the gala event.
"To capture the public's interest," said Mr. Reiner, "you need intrigue, risk, betrayal, suspense, high stakes, high-powered characters and celebrities. But we all know that Hillary Clinton -- our nation's next president -- was not involved in any way, shape, form or fashion. So, it's just an ordinary tale of a clumsy associate who made an honest mistake. It's kind of like [Clinton administration National Security Adviser] Sandy Berger accidentally taking classified documents from the National Archives. Oops. Yawn. Now, let's move on."
The fact that Sen. Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law helped the prosecution as an FBI informant "simply adds to the tedium of this whole boring affair," Mr. Reiner said.
A spokesman for Sen. Clinton, D-NY, said, "It's time to heal the nation's wounds and move on to the people's business of enacting our visionary Democrat plans for Social Security and foreign policy. And the Senator is still not even starting to think about whom she'll appoint to key cabinet posts."
This satire was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface.
Quote Of The Day: What Successful Conservatives Do
"(S)uccessful conservatives don’t move towards the ‘political centre’. They move the political centre towards them. That’s what Thatcher and Reagan both did. Whereas if you move towards the political centre, all you do is move the centre." -- Mark Steyn
If you want to win as a political party long-term, you don't center your strategy around muddying the water on where you stand, triangulating and stealing the other party's issues. Instead, you try to convince the public that your thinking on the issues is right. Moving towards the political center may win you a few political battles, but unless the majority of people in your party move with you, it won't help for long. That's why changing the public's mind on the issues is how you ultimately win political wars.
After writing a column suggesting that the Allies made a mistake by fighting World War 2, Pat Buchanan has been called a "Nazi Apologist" and in effect, an "anti-Semite" among other things.
However, to call him a "Nazi Apologist" or "anti-Semite" because he believes the US should have stayed out of WW2 is ridiculous since Buchanan is just being consistent. He's a Paleocon, he's an isolationist, and as an isolationist, he's just being consistent when he says we should have stayed out of WW2.
Buchanan is taking a controversial position that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the pale for him to even try to make a case for his position...
*** Update #1 ***: The Buchanan beatdown continues...
Perhaps Cal Thomas woke up on the wrong side of the bed or maybe he's just cranky because he wasn't one of the favorite columnists of right-of-center bloggers, but for whatever reason, he decided to tear into the blogosphere in his latest column. The tail-end of Cal's screed -- and my comments -- follow:
The problem with blogs like The Huffington Post is that they divert our attention from real and serious journalism. OK, there hasn't been much serious journalism for at least 20 years as real journalists have died or gone on to other rewards and the networks have been taken over by people who care only about the bottom line and little about covering news that matters.
Cal undercuts his own point here. Are blogs "divert(ing) our attention from real and serious journalism" or has "serious journalism" been practically dead for "20 years?" Here's a hint, Cal: there weren't any blogs around 20 years ago, so don't blame us if there isn't enough "serious journalism" for your liking these days.
"When I started in journalism, my superior at NBC told me I would need a college degree and a minimum of five years' writing experience at a newspaper or wire service to be considered for on-air work. At NBC in those years, every reporter and many producers met or exceeded those requirements. Virtually every journalist wrote his own copy.
Now, none of those things seem to matter. As the quality of stories has diminished and we now fixate on runaway brides, car chases, celebrity trials and other sideshows, serious subjects such as the war and coming conflicts with China and possibly Russia take a back seat."
The reason "runaway brides, car chases, celebrity trials and other sideshows" have become prevalent is not because of blogs, it's because the cable news networks are on for 24 hours a day and they need to fill airtime. If you want to get the daily scoop on who was kidnapped today or the latest details of the Michael Jackson trial, you tune into somewhere like Fox -- where Cal Thomas appears every week -- you don't go to blogs. If Cal regularly read blogs, he'd realize how little time most of us spend covering "sideshows" like the Michael Jackson trial or the runaway bride story.
"If the public is unprepared for new threats and challenges, it will largely be the big media's fault for failing to prepare them. The public will share the blame for fixating on blogs."
Again, it becomes apparent that Cal Thomas doesn't regularly read blogs or even know much about them. For one thing, the public isn't fixated on blogs. Only 16% of Americans read blogs at all and the number of regular readers of blogs -- of all types -- is probably only about 1/3 of that number.
Furthermore, as a general rule, the blogosphere often covers potential foreign policy "threats and challenges" in more depth than most newspapers. Just to give one example, Democracy protests in Lebanon that were barely covered by the MSM, got widespread play in the blogosphere. On top of that, there are blogs like Belmont Club & The 4th Rail that discuss foreign policy extensively every day. Heck, as a rule, even the daily news at RWN covers multiple foreign policy related "threats and challenges" daily.
So this is a baseless complaint all the way around.
"Blogs have their place. They played an important role in the last presidential election by contributing to the debate over John Kerry's experience in Vietnam and George Bush's National Guard records. But if they replace solid journalistic principles and practices, the public will be ill-served and the profession may suffer a mortal wound from which it might not recover."
I don't know of a single blogger of note who thinks blogs are going to replace the MSM. So don't worry, "solid journalistic principles and practices" aren't threatened by blogs.
"With blogs, we do not know if what we read is true. For most blogs, no editor checks for factual errors and no one is restrained from editorializing. The Big Media sometime are guilty of these same shortcomings, but at least with them there is a presumption in favor of accuracy and fairness, plus there's a way to shame them and occasionally force a correction if they mess up. Blogs have no checks and balances.
I suspect - and hope - that once the bloom is off the blogs, serious people (and they seem to be an endangered species) might still crave real journalism and be able to remember what it looked and sounded like."
One of the common things that professional journalists like to charge is that you just can't trust bloggers because they don't have editors. Yet, the editors and multiple layers of fact checkers didn't stop Jayson Blair at the New York Times, Jack Kelley at USA Today, or Dan Rather at CBS did they? There's even a scandal unfolding right now involving Michelle Delio, a writer for another one of those publications with editors, Wired. So if you compare credibility between blogs and MSM sources like USA Today or New York Times, I think blogs do very well -- especially since we tend to link directly to our sources so the readers can examine them if they so desire.
Furthermore, as far as checks and balances go, blogs are in the same position as the newspapers. Why Thomas doesn't think blogs can be shamed into issuing a correction is a mystery, given that as general rule, bloggers tend to publicly correct errors an order of magnitude faster than the big papers. Again, Thomas would know that if he regularly perused the blogosphere.
Last but not least, it's puzzling to me that Cal Thomas has suddenly had this shift in opinion about blogs because in his March 17th column, he was much friendlier:
"It is this distrust and the perception that the so-called "mainstream media" is biased that has fueled the rise of alternative sources of information. It has also fueled the angst of the big media boys, who are being held accountable for their biases for the first time. They don't like such accountability and so they are reacting by attacking cable TV and Internet bloggers.
Were it not for these alternate sources of information, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might never have found an avenue to make their voices heard about John Kerry, and Dan Rather might still be sitting in the CBS anchor chair instead of being held accountable for misreporting on President Bush's National Guard records.
...The problem for the mainstream media (which isn't mainstream anymore) is that its denial of its own biases has caused the rise of bloggers and cable news, especially Fox. If they had been truly reporting and not indoctrinating, there would be no Fox and no bloggers to study."
Back then, Cal seemed to look at blogs and cable news as two peas in a pod. Now, two months later, we're the "big bad" out there threatening to subvert the media.
We're Not Going To Eradicate World Poverty With Aid
At the The Huffington Post, former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry serves up a variation on an old liberal canard:
"Here’s an interesting fact: four million children die each year around the world within one week of being born. Three million (yes, 3,000,000) babies could be saved within the first 24 hours of being born if they had proper sanitation, clean water, nutrition. Simple things. Things that cost less than $10-$20 per kid. There are some good ways to save 3 million babies and it doesn't break the bank. Any right-to-lifers out there who want to preserve these rights to life? Any liberals who want to organize about something other than arcane Senate rules? Anyone who wants to get the right and left working together on something that might make the rest of the world as proud of America as we are?"
The general idea here is supposed to be that if we here in America weren't so greedy, so uncaring, so selfish, we could save millions of children at a cost of only 30-60 million dollars.
What baloney.
Liberals love to talk about the grandiose things we could do around the world if only the West weren't so stingy. But, the truth is that Western governments, NGOs, and charities dole out almost unbelievable sums of money every year.
For example, the United States government alone handed out more than 45 billion dollars in economic and military aid in 2004. Here are the details:
"Leading the list of top economic aid recipients in 2004 was Iraq, which received $18.5 billion—more than the total USAID budget prior to 2002. Next comes Israel ($2.6 billion), followed by Egypt and Afghanistan, both of which received approximately $1.8 billion. Other top recipients were Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, Peru, Bolivia, Turkey, Sudan, and Indonesia.
Additional top recipients of U.S. aid in 2004 were Sudan and Liberia as part of U.S. conflict-resolution and humanitarian aid initiatives, along with Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya, reflecting the president’s $15 billion Global AIDS Initiative in Africa."
Again, keep in mind that 45 billion, which admittedly is a significantly higher amount than we've given out in past years, is the total from the US for just one year. Over the last 50 years or so, we -- and the rest of the Western world -- have literally handed out "more than a trillion dollars in aid, in today’s money," and yet there is often little to show for it.
Just to give you one example, since 1975 we have given Egypt 50 billion dollars in -- let's call it what it is -- bribe money to not start trouble with Israel.
So has that enormous influx of capital turned Egypt into an economic powerhouse? Well, currently:
"(Egyptian) (u)nemployment is estimated at 17 percent" & "50 percent of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day..."
All that money made a really big difference, didn't it?
The truth is that with the US, NGOs, and even the UN around, if there are babies dying for lack of "proper sanitation, clean water, nutrition," it's almost always because their government wants them to die or is so corrupt that it just doesn't care. If it were simply about money, the most beastial of conditions that people live in today would have largely been taken care of already.
But it's really about capitalism, a free press, the rule-of-law, property ownership and all the other things that tend to go along with democracy. You can pour all the money you want into the North Koreas, Sudans, and Zimbabwes of the world, but as long as their brutal and corrupt governments are in place, we're not going to get any bang for our buck.
As someone who had a job doing day care during my early college years, I can tell you definitively that this is probably a bad idea -- but -- well, take a gander at the story first...
A judge has cleared the way for a blind couple to open a day care center in Colorado, saying the state's refusal to issue them a license violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Christine Hutchinson said she and her husband, Thomas, will move ahead with plans to open a facility, although they are worried they will be hounded by inspectors looking for problems.
If they stopped now, she said, "We felt it would be an injustice to the kids we fought so hard to care for."
Administrative Law Judge Matthew Norwood last week overturned a state decision denying the Hutchinsons a day care license.
The couple would apparently be the first blind couple to operate a day care in Colorado, one of only a few states where courts have allowed blind people to run day cares, the couple's attorney, Scott LaBarre, said Wednesday.
...Both hold bachelor's degrees in child and family studies and have taken first aid courses. Before applying for a license, they also bought safety devices to help them run a day care. Thomas Hutchinson has been blind from birth; Christine Hutchinson can perceive light.
Human Services denied them a license last year Christine Hutchinson's doctor suggested her blindness could "adversely affect" children.
In his ruling, Norwood said the state could not deny the license based only on the couple's blindness, especially when the Hutchinsons have shown competence in caring for children.
He said the license would include restrictions the Hutchinsons would impose on themselves, including no children under 3, no more than four children at a time and no overnight stays.
Now, let's get a few things straight right off the bat. Blindness is an ENORMOUS handicap when you're taking care of kids. In fact, it's so much of a handicap that I would never consider hiring a blind person to do day care. If you can't watch a kid to see what he's doing, there is just no way you can properly supervise him. Kids hit each other, they get hurt, they do stupid things like deliberately knocking down wasp nests, they wander off, they throw things, etc., etc., etc.. If you can't see them, you can't necessarily tell when they're doing something wrong or maybe even dangerous.
Yet and still, the Hutchinsons should be able to open a day care if they so desire.
Why so?
Well, while being blind puts a person at a tremendous disadvantage in taking care of children, there are obviously some people who can pull it off. After all, there are blind parents raising kids in this country.
Furthermore, while the rates the Hutchinsons charge aren't listed, if the cost is low enough and they have taken enough precautions to satisfy parents that their kids are safe, there might be some people willing to take advantage of their services. If that's the case, why should the government arbitrarily intrude, "especially when the Hutchinsons have shown competence in caring for children?"
Sure, there might be more risk involved in having a blind person running a day care. But ultimately, parents, not the government, should be the ones deciding whether the Hutchinsons can adequately take care of their kids.
Quote Of The Day: You Can't Steal Your Way Into This Country And Demand Stuff In Another Language
The residents of Arizona, who have seen their state deluged with "undocumented workers", have gotten fed up and recently started cracking down hard on illegal aliens.
Well, this prompted a group called "Centro de Ayuda" to call for a boycott to protest the fact that Arizonans aren't being hospitable enough to the illegal immigrants who are pouring into their state.
"They're boycotting because we believe the law ought to stand for something; they're boycotting because we don't think you can come here illegally and get free stuff; they're boycotting because we think they ought to be citizens of the United States before they can vote. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the law. You can't steal your way into this country and demand stuff in another language."
Last thing I need is more bloggers to compete with. I don't need more upstarts like Arriana Huffington trying to shoot past me in the rankings. Still, I have some tips for you.
BLOGGING TIPS
* When coming up with a name for you blog, don't use IMAO. That's taken.
* It will be more stylish if you have a cool pseudonym for blogging, such as your first name followed by your middle initial.
* Don't blog about how you hate monkeys... that's my shtick! I'll find you and cut you if you try and steal that!
* Don't e-mail me about your new blog, because I don't even read the blogs I like so why the hell will I check out yours I never heard of. Ugh! Idiots!
* You need readers, so don't let it be known that, deep down inside, you hate them all. That might turn them off.
* Never forget the most important thing about blogging: money.
That's all the tips you other bloggers get now. Anything more you have to pay me. Capisce?
This satire was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Some lefties are up in arms about what George Bush said about the agreement made by FDR at Yalta. Here's the offending paragraph from the May 7th speech in Latvia.
"As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but not the end of oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history."
At first glance, this seems to be an uncontroversial description of exactly what happened. Rather than perhaps fight the Soviet Union, FDR -- who, it's worth noting, was actually being advised by a Soviet spy, Alger Hiss -- chose to allow countries like Poland or Latvia to be passed from one evil empire to another. Furthermore, the Soviet domination of those states was certainly one of the "greatest wrongs of history" and it did leave the continent "divided and unstable."
So you'd think there would be little to argue about.
It's simply an acknowledgement of what happened at Yalta. FDR chose to allow the Soviets to swallow Eastern Europe. Could we have done something about it? You bet we could have. In fact, Patton wanted to do just that.
So should FDR have been willing to make war on the Soviets to drive them out of Eastern Europe? Looking at it realistically -- no. Although we were capable of defeating the Soviets, it could have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, enraged a war weary American public -- and keep in mind, we hadn't even dealt with the Japanese at that point.
Given all the number of American lives that had already been lost, that the American people had been consistently told that "Uncle Joe" was our good buddy, and that the Soviets had pledged that they would allow free elections in Eastern Europe, it's hard to imagine any President, Republican or Democrat, extending the war by trying to drive the Red Army all the way back to Mother Russia.
But even though FDR made the right choice, it doesn't mean that there were no negative consequences of that decision. We did have a more than 40 year long Cold War with the Soviets and make no mistake about it, a lot of Americans died in places like Vietnam and Korea because of that war. Furthermore, America stood by and did nothing while the people of Eastern Europe were enslaved by the Soviets. That's no small thing, especially for those countries that lost the freedom to govern themselves.
Given that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, we should remember the good -- and the bad -- that came out of Yalta.
You'll never guess who Reuters is trying to drum up sympathy for with this "poor, poor, pitiful me" article -- are you ready for this -- death row inmates. Sure, they may have had a blast raping and murdering their way across the countryside, but now that they have to sit in a cell and wait to executed, they're getting all depressed and giving up on their appeals.
Here's the opening of the piece:
"Death row prisoners in the United States are saying they can't take it anymore and asking to die.
Behind that trend is the reality of their living conditions -- typically more than a decade of mind-numbing isolation under the specter of death with years of legal wrangling ending in dashed hopes and execution.
Oh no! Not "mind-numbing isolation" and "dashed hopes" for murderous thugs! Say it isn't so! Here's more from Reuters:
"Like inmates on death row across America, (Michael) Ross is locked up most of the day in a small cell with no access to prison sports or education programs, and no interaction with other inmates.
In an essay posted on the Internet by the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Ross describes his sliver of a window as offering "a wonderful view of the razor-wire fencing and outdoor recreation yard of the prison next door."
Ross, who admitted killing eight women and raping most of them, was sentenced to death in 1987. He first asked to waive his appeals over a decade ago."
Good grief! How can we look ourselves in the mirror every night when a serial murdering rapist isn't being given "access to prison sports or education programs?" It's just tragic, that's what it is -- tragic -- of course, it's not as tragic as being raped and murdered by someone like Michael Ross, is it?
As a society, we should do something about this perversion of the criminal system. So, why don't we make sure these killers on death row get a "speedy and public trial," a "speedy and public" appeal, and then if they're found guilty, a "speedy" execution to send a message to other criminals and for the sake of victim's family? That would be far more just than our current system, especially for the families of the victims who are given far too little consideration in matters of this sort...
"Right Wing News offers 25 pieces of advice for bloggers. This is real world, playing the blog game advice, not another one of those mechanical, "how to set up a blog" items."
The early verdict is in on Arianna Huffington's new celebrity group blog, "The Huffington Post," and most of the reviews seem to be leaning towards "thumbs down". For example, this snarky piece by Nikki Finke from the LA Weekly has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere. Here's an excerpt that will give you a feel for the flavor of Finke's piece:
"Judging from Monday’s horrific debut of the humongously pre-hyped celebrity blog the Huffington Post, the Madonna of the mediapolitic world has undergone one reinvention too many. She has now made an online ass of herself. What her bizarre guru-cult association, 180-degree right-to-left conversion, and failed run in the California gubernatorial-recall race couldn’t accomplish, her blog has now done: She is finally played out publicly. This website venture is the sort of failure that is simply unsurvivable. Her blog is such a bomb that it’s the movie equivalent of Gigli, Ishtar and Heaven’s Gate rolled into one."
Puh-leeze!
There are certainly some deficiencies in the Huffington Post.
Just as an example, I don't know why Arianna bothered to include a few token conservative writers like John Fund & Joe Scarborough on a blog that is dominated from top to bottom by grating liberals & celebrities. How many conservatives are going to wade through 6 or 7 moonbats, ultra-libs, and braindead celebrities to read one post by a conservative that they may or may not like? Over the long-term, my guess is not many.
That being said, Arianna Huffington has done something brilliant and innovative with her blog. By putting together a large group of celebrities, politicians, & big name political pundits along with a left-of-center Drudge Report style news posting, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some content worth reading -- for liberals at least -- every day. Furthermore, even if the celebrity posts aren't very provocative or interesting (which certainly seems to be the case so far), they'll still draw in eyeballs because they're celebrities -- and building an audience is the name of the game in the blogosphere.
Now sure, pioneers take the arrows and certainly, Arianna's blog will probably take a few lumps as well, especially in these early days when they're still finding their voice. But, what Arianna is doing might end up helping to revolutionize the blogging biz. If she succeeds -- and it's entirely possible that she will -- expect imitators. In the meanwhile, if Arianna introduces more people to blogging and helps legitimize what bloggers are doing, great! The bigger the pool of people who become interested in blogging, the more opportunities there are for the rest of us who blog...
Quote Of The Day: Thomas Sowell On Making A Living Wage
"The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, The New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."
How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?
Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?
If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?" -- Thomas Sowell
Tom Elia of The New Editor reminds us that on this date in 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister if Great Britain. Coincidentally on this date, Hitler launched his invasion of France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Holland...within five days the French were completely beaten and shortly thereafter, Britain stood alone against Hitler's empire. While we honor the magnificent leadership that Churchill showed in World War Two, the plain fact of the matter is that he was handed a lost game and the final result (for Britain) was merely his being able to prevent the utter destruction of Britain.
For 7 years prior to this date in 1940, Winston Churchill had clearly and concisely and with unanswerable argument showed that Hitler was a threat who needed to be opposed, up to and including a pre-emptive attack. With the information available at the time, there was no way to contest Churchill's views; everyone who opposed his suggested policies vis a vis Nazi Germany was not just in error or mistaken in view, but flat and criminally wrong. Tens of millions of people paid the ultimate price for Britain and the world not paying heed to the man (sometimes completely alone) who identified the problem and proposed the only correct solution.
The lesson of World War Two is that when evil rears it's head, it must be opposed; not got along with, not worked with, not given forebearance and understanding...opposed, even as far as full-scale war if that proves necessary. No conceivable cost of war when evil is first identified can be greater than the cost of the war you'll get when evil is strong enough to strike directly at you. President Bush is a man who understands the lesson of World War Two; his political opponents are an example of the unteachability of mankind. With the example of the 20th century fresh before our minds and with the stark reminder of 9/11 to concentrate our thinking, President Bush's opponents go about as if Hitler never happened.
This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.
1) It's tempting -- even for me -- to get frustrated when some of the bigger bloggers don't link. But, don't let it get to you. Anybody with a big blog is busy and it's likely not personal if they don't link you.
2) Keep in mind that even if you get a link from a big website, the overwhelming majority of those readers won't be back. So although there are exceptions, don't expect to make it big off of 1 or 2 posts.
3) If you're going to be putting up multiple posts and then not posting for a while, put the best post on top. The number of readers drops significantly the further they have to go down the page.
4) On the week-ends, expect your traffic to drop by roughly 40% whether you post or not.
5) If you're going to send a promotional email out to other bloggers, make sure it's something worth promoting and try to keep it down to once or twice per week if possible. Send too many emails or promote posts of low quality and other bloggers will tune you out.
6) Find ways to link to other blogs -- a lot. It's flattering to the blogger being linked and it may draw their attention to what you're writing. Of course, that means they may link you back.
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
8) Keep your chin up when the post you're sure is going to pull in tons of traffic completely bombs. No matter how much work you put in, no matter how fantastic your idea is, it's always possible it won't catch the interest of other bloggers. Don't let that frustrate you.
9) Most bloggers who are making halfway decent money off of advertising today slogged on for years without ever making any serious money. Keep in mind, that will probably be the case with your blog as well.
10) If you're going to talk about something that everybody else in the blogosphere seems to be talking about, at least try to say something original about it. If you sound just like everybody else, why should anyone come back?
11) This one might seem obvious, but you'd be surprised at how many people (myself included, way back in 1998), don't think about it. If you put a statistics tracker on your blog, make sure it's on every page. If there's no tracker on each page, your traffic may be undercounted significantly.
12) Take it from someone who now sometimes pulls 400+ comments on a single post, if you run a comments section on your blog, make sure your readers have to register, have some sort of script in place to deal with trackback and comment spam, and be prepared to spend time moderating your comments.
13) Don't post your actual email address on the net or you may end up being deluged with spam. Instead, put your email address up in a way that people can interpret, but spammer bots can't. For example, abc-at-aol.com.
14) Create your posts somewhere besides your content management system (like Blogger, Movable Type, etc). It may save you having to rewrite the entire post from scratch if you hit an errant button (like refresh or if you click on a link and your previous post isn't saved in cache).
15) Make it clear somewhere on your blog that any emails that are sent to you may be published. You will probably need to point it out to someone one of these days after you publish his email.
16) Set a minimum level of acceptable content on your page each day and make sure you meet it (barring unusual circumstances) each day. Once you start slacking off, it gets easier and easier to continue.
17) Even if you only have 7 people reading, work like you have 7000 readers. Because if you don't work hard when you have almost no readers, you're never going to get to 7000.
18) Take a look at the really popular blogs and ask yourself why those blogs have been able to build up a readership. If you understand why they've been able to build up an audience, then hopefully it'll help you do the same.
19) Don't spend too much time in your comments section. The time spent there writing things that only a small percentage of your audience will see would be better spent making posts for your blog.
20) If you're going to be successful, you have got to consistently put out a lot of links or a lot of material day in and day out, week after week, month after month, year after year (unless you're as good as Mickey Kaus). If you're not pumping out either 10-15 links per day or 1000 words plus then you're probably not doing enough to ever get really big.
21) Before you respond to criticism aimed at you by another blogger, think twice. Unless you think you can get some traffic out if it, you feel the criticism merits a reply, or unless you believe it would entertain your readers to talk about it, why waste your time? You're just rewarding them with traffic for criticizing you.
22) Remember that a lot of bloggers tend to be very sensitive to criticism and even if you're trying to be very gentle about it (which is certainly something I don't always do), don't be surprised by bruised egos if you criticize another blogger in any way, shape, or form. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying that you should understand that there may be hard feelings.
23) Avoid blogging angry. It may save you a lot of grief.
24) Everybody on the net with an opinion gets hate mail. Don't sweat it.
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
Via Greg Beato over at Wonkette, I learned about a...uh....rather unusual exchange on the radio between Alan Colmes and "anti-abortion activist" Neal Horsley. You'll probably have to see this to believe it:
Colmes:"You had sex with animals?"
Horsley:"Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."
Colmes:"I'm not so sure that is so."
Horsley:"You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"
Colmes:"Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"
Horsley:It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality...Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."
Now, Horsley's -- Horsley, huh, huh, huh, huh -- Horsley's name didn't ring a bell so I googled him. Turns out he's a wild-eyed lunatic who advocates violence against abortionists.
Interestingly enough, almost every link I found to Horsley was from some left-wing website trying to paint him as some sort of representative of the Christian right despite the fact that as far as I can tell, he's a nobody with no influence, no fans on the right, and almost nobody who agrees with his views.
So, can I make a suggestion to Mr. Horsley if he's out there somewhere, if he somehow, some way finds out about this post? Do you want to know what you could really do to help make abortions more rare in this country? Do you know what would really help out? Now this may seem like a radical idea here, Neal, but keep an open mind and really consider it...ready -- Ok, Neal, you should become a pro-choice advocate.
Now, I know that sounds a little crazy, a little out there, and I don't want anyone to misunderstand: I don't want you to trick anybody or try to dupe anyone. Neal, I want you to go out and sincerely do everything in your power to help make abortions more frequent. Support partial birth abortions, support abortions for underage kids without their parent's permission, push for abortion on demand anywhere and everywhere people want it. Meanwhile, Neal, while you're doing that -- be yourself. Be you, just be yourself, man. Tell your mule stories, talk about hit lists for people who are pro-life, just do what you normally do, but for the other side.
Trust me, Neal, trust me, because I know what I'm talking about -- there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that you could do that would be more helpful to those of us who are pro-life. Do it for the children, Neal, do it for the children!
The Federal Government Picks Up Part Of The Tab For Illegals In California
Illegal alien apologists, who are opposed to enforcing our immigration laws, love to talk about what a benefit illegals are to our economy. But the reality is that the economy would take a very, very, minimal hit if we completely got rid of all the illegal aliens in this country. Furthermore, the costs of allowing illegal aliens here are absolutely staggering and they have a very real, very negative impact, on Americans.
Just take a look at one tiny piece of the puzzle in California that means that Americans will be paying more taxes to take care of illegals:
Beginning today, California hospitals and health care providers can charge the federal government for emergency care they provide to illegal immigrants.
The Bush administration announced final rules Monday for seeking reimbursements funded by a 2003 Medicare law that set aside $1 billion over four years.
California providers are to get $71 million of the $250 million that will be disbursed by Sept. 30 -- more than providers in any other state.
That's only a fraction of the estimated $500 million California hospitals spend each year caring for illegal immigrants. But it is a noteworthy contribution, said Jan Emerson, spokeswoman for the California Healthcare Association, which represents hospitals.
...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who pushed for the funding, said Monday that the money will "help to keep the doors of California's safety net hospitals open."
"This funding comes at a crucial time, when nine California hospitals have closed in the past year, due in part to a spike in costs associated with care for undocumented aliens," said Feinstein, who is also seeking federal reimbursement to states for the costs they incur in incarcerating illegal immigrants.
Last May, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), proposed amending the 2003 law to require hospitals to report illegal immigrants to the federal government instead of caring for them. Lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected that bill, fearing it could dissuade undocumented immigrants from seeking life-saving care or treatment for communicable diseases."
So look at what's happening here: California hospitals are being cheated out of 500 million dollars a year by illegals who shouldn't be in this country in the first place. 9 hospitals have gone out of business, in part because of illegals. Furthermore, we're not even talking about the costs of tax dollars illegals didn't pay, schooling their kids, housing them in the prison system, & the time and resources the police have to spend dealing with almost unbelievable number of crimes committed by "undocumented workers".
You know, it would be one thing if these were legal immigrants who had followed the rules and become American citizens. An American is an American is an American whether your ancestors came here on the Mayflower or whether you became a citizen 5 minutes ago.
But why should American citizens be forced to pay all this money to take care of people who weren't born here, who didn't come here legally, and who aren't wanted here by a large majority of this country? Human decency may oblige us not to turn away anyone who comes to a hospital in need of emergency care, but instead of working out deals to take care of the costs, we should be doing what it takes to prevent illegals from getting here in the first place. Then, they can get medical care in their countries-of-origin, instead of coming here and sponging off of American taxpayers.
Are The "Kidnap Victim Of The Week" Stories Racist?
To be honest with you, I pay very little attention to what I like to think of as the "kidnap victim of the week" stories on the cable news networks. "The Runaway Bride?" Couldn't care less. Scott & Laci Peterson? Not interested.
That being said, it has not escaped my notice that the Cable News Networks tend to latch on to attractive white people for these "kidnap victim of the week" stories that are run over and over to kill time on networks.
Former press secretary to former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, Douglas MacKinnon has noted the same phenomenon, although he's a good deal more exercised about it than I am:
"Note to the news media--with an emphasis on the cable networks: Enough is enough.
Your continual focus on, and reporting of, missing, young, attractive white women not only demeans your profession but is a televised slap in the face to minority mothers and parents the nation over who search for their own missing children with little or no assistance or notice from anyone.
The latest missing woman to dominate the airtime of the cable networks was Jennifer Wilbanks, from Duluth, Ga. Like Dru Sjodin, Chandra Levy and Elizabeth Smart all before her, Wilbanks is young, white and attractive. Wilbanks, as it turned out, ran away of her own volition from her impending marriage. As a Maryland police official told me after Wilbanks turned up in New Mexico, "the media's non-stop focus on the possible abduction of Wilbanks forced the local officials and police departments to spend thousands of dollars they would not otherwise have spent."
Define racism. One could certainly make the argument that the cable networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism. The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not concern itself with the color of one's skin. Rather, it is based on the color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely.
...I have a number of friends at the cable networks (or at least I did), and I have spoken to some about this very subject. While all professed disgust with the underreporting of missing minority women and young adults, most were very uneasy with the thought of shining a spotlight on their own management to ascertain an answer. "Besides," one of them told me, "you've already figured it out. We showcase missing, young, white, attractive women because our research shows we get more viewers. It's about beating the competition and ad dollars."
Like it or not, there's nothing racist about what the news networks are doing. They run these stories to fill time on the air and because they get good ratings. If they have a mostly white audience that's interested in Jennifer Wilbanks or Elizabeth Smart, why not cater to their viewers? It's no different than Black Entertainment Television focusing on stories about young, attractive black women that their audience wants to know more about. They stay in business by giving their audience what they want and that's OK.
Moreover, it's also important to keep in mind that despite what MacKinnon implies, this practice isn't some sort of slap aimed at minorities. The fact is that there are a lot of white people the networks aren't interested in either. For example, if you're a 60 year old white woman who works as a Wal-Mart greeter, Fox probably doesn't care if you go missing. If you're a 25 year old white girl who's a 4 on a 10 scale, CNN probably isn't going to make you into their "big story of the day" either. And let's face it, if you're a 14 year-old-white kid who looks and sounds like an escapee from the Jerry Springer show, MSNBC isn't going to bring on "experts" to figure out if you were kidnapped or just headed out to smoke crack with your 17 year-old boyfriend who got out of juvie two days ago. Race isn't really the decisive factor when you get right down to it.
So condemn the cable news networks for relentlessly pushing these lame missing person stories hour after hour if you like, but don't condemn them for covering stories they believe their audience will be interested in...
What liberal media? Judicial Watch has Filed Suit against the Clintons, which means that the media are going to go back to referring to them as a “conservative” watchdog group.
A conservative watchdog group with a history of dogging the Clintons urged a Senate panel on Monday to investigate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over a Hollywood fundraiser for which a former staffer faces charges.
The fundraiser is the focus of a federal trial set to begin Tuesday in Los Angeles.
Prosecutors charge that former finance director David Rosen understated the cost of the star-studded August 2000 gala, which raised money for Clinton’s senatorial campaign. Rosen denies the charges.
Under the campaign finance laws then in effect, underreporting the cost of the event would have given the Clinton campaign more money to spend on the race. The senator has not been charged in the case.
Judicial Watch, which has pushed officials to look into the fundraiser, filed paperwork with the Senate Ethics Committee on Monday saying she had to have known of the alleged misreporting.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton argued that Clinton closely monitored the Hollywood fundraiser and knew its actual cost was much greater than the $400,000 tab reported in campaign financial filings.
“They’re false and she knows them to be false,” Fitton said. He equated her situation with the ethics controversy surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has been criticized for privately funded travel.
When Judicial Watch files papers against the Bush Administration, which they have done numerous times, they’re a “legal watchdog group.” When they file papers against a Democrat, especially a Clinton, they’re nothing more than the public face of the vast right-wing conspiracy. All it takes is the addition of the word “conservative” to imediately cast doubt upon their efforts. CNN, who I have quoted here, put it in the first line. “Not only are they conservative, but they’re going after the Clintons again!” Once they established that Judicial Watch couldn’t be trusted, they then got on with reporting the facts of the allegations. For an illustration of what I am talking about, go to this Google News page and see just how many different ways Judicial Watch is referred to by the various news sources.
The Top 6 Candidates For The GOP Nomination In 2008
Here's some analysis of the current top 6 candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. Could things change? Sure, it's still 2005 after all! But it's not too early to engage in a little speculation...
1) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy could fairly be called the front runner at this point based on his tough on crime reputation, his performance after 9/11, the great work he did on the campaign trail during the 2004 election cycle, and his charisma.
However, Rudy's weaknesses, which are largely unknown to the base, will likely destroy his candidacy. Giuliani is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage and is divorced from a woman who accused him of "open and notorious adultery".
Once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to imagine Rudy winning the Republican primaries where the voters tend to be considerably more conservative than the general population.
2) John McCain: McCain gave Bush a scare early on in the 2000 Republican primaries, he probably gets more favorable press than any other Republican, he has a reputation as a moderate, he has earned respect for his time spent in a Vietnamese prison camp, and he has a small, but enthusiastic group of supporters in the Republican Party.
The flip side of this is that McCain is probably more despised by conservatives than any other Republican in Washington. That fact that McCain is often perceived by conservatives to be a "Republican in name only" who publicly undercuts the Party on important issues just to gain favorable press won't help. Neither will McCain's very soft stance on illegal immigration, his age (he'll be 72 in 2008), or the McCain-Feingold legislation which was widely disliked by the base.
From the moment McCain announces his candidacy on, expect the attacks on him from the conservative media to be savage and relentless. That will probably make it impossible for him to win the nomination.
3) Bill Frist: Frist is a doctor, a solid conservative, and the Senate Majority Leader. Given that, it's hard to count him out.
However, Frist is also perceived as being uncharismatic and less than effective as Senate Majority leader. Of course, that perception could change if and when he pushes through the nuclear option in the Senate.
Frist probably won't be a favorite going into the primaries, but if McCain & Giuliani falter, Frist could be the man who picks up the pieces.
4) George Allen: Allen has been around the block. Not only is he currently a Virginia Senator, he's also a former Governor & former Congressman. Allen, who's regarded as a staunch conservative, got an early boost by winning a National Journal survey of 215 political insiders on whom they predict will be the nominee in 2008.
That's not to say the road is clear for Allen. He is up for reelection in 2006 and the word is that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner might challenge him for his seat. Were he to lose, that would mean the end of his presidential aspirations. Furthermore, since Allen isn't comparatively as big a name as McCain, Frist, & Giuliani, he'll have a bit of an uphill road capturing top talent and endorsements.
Still, Allen could fairly be said to be in the same position as Frist: If McCain & Giuliani drop the ball, Allen could be in a position to take the nomination -- especially if the base doesn't warm to Frist.
5) Bill Owens: The Colorado Governor is a popular, charismatic, & rock ribbed conservative. His separation from his wife of 30 years for unknown reasons was considered to be a serious negative, but after a year and a half plus, they just reconciled late last week.
Assuming Owens and his wife work things out long-term, he will be a candidate capable of capturing the nomination. However, Owens, like Allen, may have trouble building an organization and pulling in donations because of his low name identification in the Party. But again, if Giuliani & McCain implode, Owens is another candidate who could be right in the thick of the fray.
6) Tom Tancredo: Although the congressman from Colorado is flying under the radar for a lot of Republicans, he has a small, but enthusiastic base of support in the Republican Party because of his relentless opposition to illegal immigration. In my opinion, that makes him a stronger candidate than most people realize.
On the other hand, Tancredo is also strongly disliked by Republicans who are soft on illegal immigration and would have a hard time riding one issue to the nomination. In other words, to have a chance, Tancredo would probably need to convince the base he has rounded out his resume a bit.
Tancredo is definitely a longshot candidate, but he's probably a more viable candidate than some of the bigger name, but less conservative, Republican governors from liberal states who've drawn more ink up to this point.
Not Running (That Could Always Change)
Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice: All three would be strong candidates for the nomination, but they're all -- convincingly -- claiming that they don't intend to run at the moment.
Some Other Potential Candidates At This Point:
Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, Bob Ehrlich, Ernie Fletcher, Steve Forbes, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki, Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford, & Rick Santorum.
Excerpt Of The Day: No One In Washington Wants To Balance The Budget
"...There's no one in Washington—no one with any power—trying to balance the budget.
...Balancing the budget is simply too much trouble. It requires asking unpopular questions about who deserves help, which government programs actually work—and how to pay for the rest.
...But no one wants to incur the bad publicity of taking away anything from anyone. Government programs, once created, become virtually immortal.
...In this debate, there is no high moral ground. To critics, the Republican budget strategy is "starve the beast"—cut taxes and use the resulting deficits as an excuse to squeeze spending. Agree or disagree, that's principled; it's a means to an end (smaller government). In practice, the real Republican strategy is more cynical—cut taxes and feed the beast." -- Robert Samuelson
Here Come the Christians -- Satire By Liberal Larry
Fire-breathing red-baiters like J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Raygun warned us for years that communist boogeymen were infiltrating our government at every level. Now Americans are slowly beginning to realize that it was all a ruse - a diversionary tactic to blind us from the truth: the real threat to our democracy is not godless commies nor muslim terrorists, but churchgoing Christians. Fifty years after the infamous McCarthy witchhunts, there are almost as many Christians in the GOP as there are communists in the Democrat Party, and their numbers are growing. Beholden not to The People nor their respective union representatives but rather to fundamentalist extremist dominionist religious supremacist groups like the Boy Scouts of America, Christian politicians have formed a covert shadow government bent on only one goal: a return to the pre-1960's dark ages of moral absolutes.
As progressive Christians, we can no longer sit back and allow Christian infiltration, Christian indoctrination, Christian subversion and the international Christian conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That was the theme of the CUNY conference on the Secret Agenda of the Evil Christians last weekend. I enjoyed the diverse panel of speakers, many of whom were former members of the Christian clergy who became disenchanted with the cesspools of morality and dens of heterocentric religious dogma that their churches had become. Unlike Jesus, these true prophets will deliver us from two thousand years of white Christian male hegemony, rather than condemn us to two thousand more.
Instead of live blogging, I kept a small record of my experiences to share with my readers.
Saturday
8:00 AM Caught cab to convention hall just in time for opening benediction to Earth Goddess, by Rev. Moonchild Spiritwolf, Wannabi Shaman.
8:25 Boy Scout color guard presents U.S. Flag.
8:27 Boy Scout color guard gets drenched with spittle.
9:00 Sneered at and belittled prominent Christians in American history.
10:00 Sneered at and belittled prominent Christians in the U.S. Government.
11:15 Sneered at and belittled prominent Christians in the Christian Religion.
11:25 Attended John Sugg lecture on the intolerance of the Christian Right.
11:26 Speaker Jeff Sharlet cited the box-office success of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ as proof that we're living in a Christian Theocracy unseen since the dawn of time.
11:30 Joan Bokaer talked about the irrepairable damage Christian spiritualism has wrought on science.
12:00 Break for chakra balancing and complimentary ginseng colonics in the Holistic Wellness Center.
1:00 Rev. Moonchild Spiritwolf spoke on the Christian genocide of white dudes who dress and speak like cartoon Indians.
2:00 George "Sulu" Takei signed autographs and answered questions from fans.
3:00 Robert Burtney spoke at length on how Transcendent SpiritualityWill Get You Laid.
3:30 Spotted Jude, aka Iddybud at the "Healing America Through the Eternal Light of Progressive Brotherhood" booth. She pretended not to know me.
4:00 Gave my speech on Christian Homeless Shelters, The Secret Right-Wing Agenda to Lure the Mentally-Ill Away from the Democrat Party to standing ovation.
4:30 Stalked Iddybud to the "One Nation, Under GOP" booth. Offered to share a flotation tank after the hootenanny.
5:00 Closing incantation, led by A Small Rhododendron Outside Convention Hall.
5:20 burned Bush in effigy. The peeResident, not the Rhododendron.
5:30 retired to motel room, stabbed self in thigh with fork as penance for over 600 years of white Christian male hegemony.
6:00 Cried self to sleep.
Sunday
8:00 AM Non-Denominational Prayer to International Community of Love, by Rev. Cheyenne Starflower, Lesbian Priestess.
8:25 Boy Scout Color Guard runs through convention hall like a bat out of hell.
8:30 Attended Christian Jihad speech by the brilliant Skipp Stevenson, who compared 700 Club to Taliban, demanded blue-haired old ladies be put on terrorist watch list.
9:00 Had photo taken with Nana "Kira Nerys" Visitor. Is she as hot in real life as she is on TV? nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'!!
11:30 My B-I-N-G-O spells "Theocracy" speech was interrupted by church bells from across the street.
11:35 Followed angry mob across the street and pelted intolerant dominionists with rancid tomatoes as they came out of church.
12:00 Lunch break. Passed on complimentary Wasabi Colonic and went to Starbucks for some rocket fuel.
12:15 Chip Berlet lecture on the rise of Dominionism drowned out by bloodcurdling screams from Holistic Wellness Center
12:30 Fitz Turgent called for government denunciation of dominionists and the eradication of dominionism from all aspects of society.
1:00 Attended Biff Skiplet lecture on how the alliance between Dominionists and Cardassians threatens to turn the Alpha Quadrant into a fascist theocracy.
1:30 Looked up "Dominionism" in dictionary. Closest I could find was "Domenico Zampieri".
2:30 Caught up with Iddybud at the "Chemtrails and Christian Mind Control" booth, awkwardly complimented her tinfoil hat. Not positive, but I might have accidentally said "tinfoil breasts". Damn that Bush!
2:45 Dr. Jerry Skeef spoke on sexual predators in the Catholic Church, and presented a moving tribute to the Kennedy Family.
3:00 Group recital of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
4:00 Closing ceremonies. William Shatner performed John Lennon's Imagine while crowd danced lambada around Virgin Mary statue smeared with goat feces.
4:30 Joined march to bigoted conference at Madison Square Garden, spat on Boy Scout color guard.
5:30 Retired to motel room, tore pages containing dominionist propaganda out of Bible.
6:00 Cried myself to sleep.
Overall, it was a great vacation, and I'm looking forward to joining the progressive cause to restore America to the godless utopia our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Live long and prosper.
Satire used with the permission of Liberal Larry from BlameBush! You can read more of his work by clicking here.
