Black Conservative

Tammy Bruce

Christian Coalition Of America Blog

Daily Pundit

Gopinion

It's Gonna Go

Jack Lewis

Let's Blame Bush

Mister Snitch!

Newsbeat 1

Political Humor

RedState

PS: I still have two banner ads available. If you're interested, get the details here.

"If you want to know why business takes such an interest in Washington, the answer can be found in your low-flow toilet, in the warning labels adorning your cars, in your 8 zillion page tax returns. It can be found while you wait on hold trying to get a human to answer your questions about your health insurance. And the answer is most certainly somewhere in your box of cereal, made with grains subsidized by Uncle Sam and coated in sugar that has no business being grown in the United States of America. Corporations meddle in Washington because Washington meddles with them.

It is simply naive to believe that a businessman will have no interest in politics when politicians have taken a great interest in him. And it is grotesquely unfair to assume that businesspeople are corrupt simply because they want to support politicians less inclined to hurt them.

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates used to brag that he barely spent a dime on lobbying — “I live in the other Washington,” he liked to say. But the very moment that government — federal and state — tried to tear apart his company, Gates abandoned his view that the New Economy could ignore the Old Politics. Now D.C. is awash in Microsoft lobbyists. Wal-Mart is only now learning the same lesson. If you don’t get in the game, you might be regulated out of it." -- Jonah Goldberg

In order to get a better feel for how the blogosphere views the upcoming appointment of another Supreme Court justice, I asked a small, select group of bloggers to answer 3 questions:

1) Who do you think Bush will chose as his nominee for the Supreme Court?
2) If you were given the opportunity to make the pick, who would you choose?
3) Who are the choices you really hope Bush doesn't pick?

Here are their answers...

1) Who do you think Bush will chose as his nominee for the Supreme Court? (1-2 picks)

The Anchoress: Harriet Miers

Balloon Juice: Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig

Betsy's Page: Alice Batchelder, Emilio Garza

Captain's Quarters: Alberto Gonzalez, Edith Hollan Jones

Daily Pundit: Alberto Gonzales, Larry Thompson

IMAO: Priscilla Owen

JunkYardBlog: Janice Rogers Brown

Patterico's Pontifications: Miguel Estrada, Michael W. McConnell

PoliPundit: Janice Rogers Brown, Michael W. McConnell

QandO: Edith Brown Clement, Michael W. McConnell

Red-State: Maura Corrigan, Julia Smith Gibbons

Right Wing News: Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen

Sister Toldjah: Janice Rogers Brown

Villainous Company: Michael Luttig, Karen Williams

2) If you were given the opportunity to make the pick, who would you choose? (1-2 picks)

The Anchoress: Janice Rogers Brown

Balloon Juice: Michael W. McConnell

Betsy's Page: Michael Luttig

Captain's Quarters: Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig

Daily Pundit: Janice Rogers Brown, Alex Kozinski

IMAO: Mr. T, A special Unix command that compares laws to the Constitution

JunkYardBlog: Miguel Estrada

Patterico's Pontifications: Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito

PoliPundit: Ann Coulter

QandO: Janice Rogers Brown, Alex Kozinski

Red-State: Emilio Garza

Right Wing News: Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig

Sister Toldjah: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen

Villainous Company: Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen

3) Who are the choices you really hope Bush doesn't pick? (1-2 picks)

The Anchoress: Alberto Gonzales

Balloon Juice: Janice Rogers Brown, Alberto Gonzales

Betsy's Page Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers

Captain's Quarters: Edith Clement, Alberto Gonzales

Daily Pundit: Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers

IMAO: Alberto Gonzales

JunkYardBlog: Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers

Patterico's Pontifications: Alberto Gonzales

PoliPundit: Alberto Gonzales

QandO: Alberto Gonzales

Red-State: Alberto Gonzales, Priscilla Owen

Right Wing News: Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers

Sister Toldjah: Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers

Villainous Company: Alberto Gonzales

I am sorry to inform you that I've decided to pull the plug on Conservative Grapevine.

I enjoyed running the page, but the traffic has stayed flat in the 1200-1500 daily uniques range and shows no signs of increasing. Furthermore, it has taken longer than I expected to update the page daily while generating less than anticipated income. This month for example, I figure that I made a little less than a dollar per hour that I put into CG.

That's not to say that CG was doing badly. It took RWN more than a year to crack a 1000 readers. CG was running ahead of that mark from the get go and has stayed above it during the 4 month life of the page.

Still, there are only so many hours in a day and I had to decide whether my time was better spent working on CG or on Right Wing News & my long neglected book. When I looked at it in that light, I decided that CG had to be terminated.

Since CG will no longer be updated, you can expect to see more links to bloggers in the daily news section at RWN, although of course, there won't be as many as there were at CG. To those of you who enjoyed CG, sorry, hate to break the bad news to you. But sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do...

Some comments that Bill Bennett recently made have been doubly taken out of context by much of the left and used in an attempt to unfairly smear him as a racist. Here's the quote that the left been focusing on:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

Note that what Bennett said is absolutely correct. The reason Bennett said that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" is because black Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

So why did Bennett pick black Americans out of the hat? Couldn't he have picked other groups of Americans who commit a larger than normal share of crime compared to their percentage of the population?

The reason Bennett specifically mentioned black Americans was because he was answering a question from a caller who was making an argument that was popularized by Steven Levitt's Freakanomics. As a matter of fact, Bennett specifically mentioned the book just before he uttered the quote the left has focused on:

"...you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakanomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up."

Again, what Bennett said is correct. Here's a quote from Steven Levitt:

“Declining crime rates could result from… selective abortion on the part of women most at risk to have children who would engage in criminal activity…”

Basically Leavitt's theory is that statistically, the women who are most likely to have an abortion are also the women who are most likely to have children who will become criminals. Ergo, after Roe v. Wade became legal, the number of abortions skyrocketed, and that eventually led to an overall drop in crime.

That's an intriguing theory with implications that cut across ideological lines and although many conservative disagree, personally, I think there's something to it.

But in any case, that's the argument that Bennett was essentially rehashing...and rejecting. Here's the 2nd part of the quote that most lefty websites aren't bothering to show to their readers:

"Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

So once you read what Bennett said in context, you find that he said nothing racist whatsoever. If Democratic politicians who've called for Bennett to apologize -- like Harry Reid and Raum Emanuel -- were honest men, they would themselves apologize for their misleading, politically motivated attempts to slime Bill Bennett as a racist.

The generals in Iraq have been reporting to the Senate about the progress of Iraqi troops. Some of the news is discouraging:

"The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1" readiness than there were a few months ago.

...Officials did not say specifically why two battalions are no longer rated at Level 1 and thus unable to operate on their own. They said generally readiness ratings can change for numerous reasons, such as if a commander resigns, or if more training is needed. Casey also said that the "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."

On the other hand, not all of the news is bad:

"Over the past 18 months, we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them," Casey said. Military figures show that there are about three dozen army and special police battalions rated at Level 2 or above, meaning they are taking the lead in combat as long as they have support from coalition forces."

The generals refused to give any sort of answer about when we'd be pulling our troops out which isn't a big surprise given that the President has refused to give a date for a pull-out.

While the latest news isn't fantastic, it isn't terrible either.

Having 36 (750 man) battalions that can take the lead in combat with let's say an American special forces agent leading them or American air support is no small thing considering they're getting more on-the-job experience every day and since there are 6 times as many Iraqis in the pipeline, getting trained.

At the earliest, we're probably 3 months away from any American troops pulling out of Iraq and it's possible we won't see any significant withdrawls until next summer. So keep an eye on the progress we're making, but remember that we'll know more at the start of the year.

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section: cmcnally asks:

"What do we do if they never get up to speed? From what I understand the South Vietnamese units were quite happy to let Americans do the fighting for them. If that attitude becomes prevalent in Iraq, what to do?"

Keep in mind that next year is an election year and as time continues to march on, the political pressure is going to continue to ratchet up on the President. If the Iraqi troops haven't progressed significantly by next summer, Bush will be savaged not only by Democrats, but by a lot of Republicans who'll be looking to distance themselves from his handling of the war. Bush is well aware of this and at some point, ready or not, large numbers of Iraqi troops are going to get tossed into the water and it'll be sink or swim time.

But, don't get the wrong idea. My expectation is that the Iraqis will make it just fine.

With all the training, field time, and combat experience the Iraqis are getting, they're going to make a lot of progress. Moreover, given that most of the action occurs in only 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces, US troops could probably be replaced by Iraqis in much of the country, even today, with a minimal amount of risk. That's probably what Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was thinking when he said that: "40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year."

Still, the more training we give the Iraqis, the better. Since a democratic Iraq is vital to American interests in the region, we need to do as much as we practically can to prepare them for the days ahead, when there are no Americans on the streets.

Nancy A. Youssef of Knight Ridder explains why it is quite likely that, despite substantial Sunni misgiving, the Iraqi constitution will pass in the October 15 referendum.

Opposition to Iraqi constitution weakening (KR, Sep. 28)

The two strongest opponents of Iraq's proposed new constitution said this week that they wouldn't campaign against it aggressively, making it likely that voters will approve the constitution in an Oct. 15 referendum.

Passage would be a victory for the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but it's unclear whether the document will produce a stable Iraqi government with broad public support or further alienate the country's Sunni Muslim Arab minority.

Rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's representatives said that while he's not thrilled about the constitution, he likely wouldn't encourage his followers to oppose it. Hazem al-Araji, a senior al-Sadr aide, said that al-Sadr has formed a committee to review the document and that once he hears from them he'll make a final decision. "But for now, his opinion is neutral," al-Araji said.

The largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said that although it has encouraged its supporters to vote down the document, its efforts are focused on the December election for a new National Assembly. "There are powers that will make sure this bad constitution passes," said Ala'a al-Maki, a party spokesman. "We are focusing more on ensuring the Sunnis participate in the next election."

Story via Kevin Drum, who writes,

Neither al-Sadr nor the Sunnis are actively enthusiastic about the constitution, but this still strikes me as good news. However, whether it has any effect on the insurgency remains to be seen. So far, there's no sign of that.

Quite right on both counts, methinks. The election of a permanent government is a significant step forward but, unless it is followed by effective governance and competent provision of security, not enough. Still, I'll take any forward progress.

This content was used with the permission of Outside the Beltway.

Domestic

Roberts Confirmed As 17th Chief Justice. Senate Republicans Are Unanimous, Democrats Evenly Split (Free WAPO Reg)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison: DeLay Prosecutor 'Corrupt'

Color The WaPo Editorial Board Skeptical About The DeLay Indictment

The Money That Led To The Indictment This Week Of Two Las Vegas Pastors And The Wife Of One Of Them Came From Federal Grants Arranged By Sen. Harry Reid In September 2001

Judith Miller Agrees To Testify In CIA Leak Probe

Judge Orders Release Of Abu Ghraib Photos

USA TODAY / CNN / Gallup Poll: Bush Job Approval 45%

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill

Senator Demands Bennett Apology for Remark That Was Taken Completely Out Of Context

FedEx Discrimination Suit Moves Ahead

Foreign

String Of Car Bombs Kills 65 In Iraq

Hamas Takes Control Of Gaza

US Pressing Abbas To Act Now On Gaza

Dutch 'Marriage': 1 Man, 2 Women. Trio Becomes 1st Officially To Tie The Knots

Column

Byron York: Coming Soon -- The Ronnie Earle Movie. The DeLay prosecutor has let a film crew follow him through the whole case

Katherine Kersten: Reservist Says Protesters Are Breaking Faith

John Podhoretz: Dems Delight Over DeLay

Robert Novak: A Germ of Fiscal Sanity

Charles Krauthammer: The Antiwar Movement Is Singularly Disserved By Its Leadership

James Pinkerton: Secure Borders -- The Hot Issue

Left-Overs

Commanderatrix In Chief: "Desperate Housewives" Pick A Prez

Almost 350 Children And Teachers Have Been Taken To Hospital After Going Down With Suspected Food Poisoning At A Primary School In China

Man Found Driving Ambulance With Dead Deer

Website Of The Day: Sweetness & Light

Apparently Ronnie Earle, the partisan prosecutor going after Tom DeLay, has had a film crew following him around for years, getting footage for a Michael Moore style documentary:

"For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

...Earle "allowed us behind the scenes when the indictments came down last year, the first wave of indictments," Schermbeck says. "We got to follow him back to his home a couple of times, which I understand he doesn't allow anybody to do." Schermbeck says the film includes interviews with some critics of Earle, as well as lawyers who are representing some of the targets of the investigation.

So far, The Big Buy has received almost no attention in the press. With DeLay's indictment, and increased attention to Earle as well, that situation seems likely to change. (The filmmakers say they will be back at work next week, filming a new ending to the picture.) "We're pretty low on everybody's radar," Schermbeck says. "We kind of took a gamble three years ago. We didn't know what was going to happen. We feel like, as documentary filmmakers, we gambled and it paid off."

Ronnie Earle may be from Texas, but this sounds more than a little "Hollywood" to me. Could Ronnie Earle be vain enough to indict Tom DeLay just because he thought it might be enough to get a flattering little documentary about the prosecution shown on PBS or HBO? That would seem to be an open question at this point...

Getting rid of Tom DeLay is not about appeasing the Democrats, nor is it even ultimately about the bad publicity this indictment will bring before DeLay is eventually, in all liklihood, exonerated. It's about removing a Republican, from a leadership position, who is such a spendthrift that he makes Jimmy Carter look like Scrooge McDuck.

Now if this were the Tom DeLay of a decade ago, he'd be worth continuing to fight for. But, from a conservative perspective, Tom DeLay is like an old, washed-up running back whose best days are behind him.

Unfortunately, because the coach -- in this case, the Republicans in the House -- remember the glory days, the team hasn't been willing to replace him. Well, the running back finally got into some real trouble, maybe it's his fault and maybe it's not, but in either case, it may give us a chance to finally get him off the playing field.

You know what Tom DeLay is today? He's just another Republican who got to Washington and eventually became more interested in hanging onto power than trying to make this country a better place to live by fighting for conservative principles.

That's the real reason why he needs to be removed from a leadership position.

So, although conservatives should go to the wall to defend "The Hammer" if they think he's innocent -- and even at this early date, it sounds as if he is -- there's no reason to stubbornly demand that DeLay keep his leadership position despite the fact that he's fast becoming a political liability.

Do you care about fiscal conservatism? Well, here's one of the biggest spenders in Washington, a man who may be every bit as responsible as Bush for the ballooning Federal deficit, and this indictment is a great chance to get rid of him while showing the public that the GOP won't tolerate even the appearance of corruption.

Opportunity is knocking at the door for conservatives who want to see something done about spending and they shouldn't wait for it to knock twice. It may seem cruel for conservatives to pitch DeLay under a bus for something like this, but if the pols in Washington come to the conclusion that DeLay received minimal support from the base because he abandoned conservative principles, that could give them exactly the sort of attitude adjustment that they so desperately need.

*** It's Time For Tom DeLay To Go -- Part 1 ***

The fine folks at The Young Nationalist have done an interview with me, via email.

Make sure to head on over and check it out!

Normally, Fred Barnes does a pretty good job of political analysis. But, for whatever reason, perhaps because he fears Hillary as a candidate or because he has been affected by the gloomy political atmosphere, Barnes has written an unjustifiably pessimistic column about the GOP's chances in 2008.

Truthfully, things just aren't anywhere nearly as bad as Barnes makes them out to be. He starts out by saying:

"THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION of 2008 is a long way off, but Republicans better start worrying about it now. The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning."

Fred gives 5 reasons why he believes this is so. Starting with...

"(T)he Republican party (has) a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image."

Although Barnes is right on target about McCain & Giuliani, since when is being inexperienced at the national level a handicap in a run at the presidency? To the contrary, the opposite is true: governors generally make better candidates than politicians with the stink of Washington on them. If you don't believe that, just look at W., Clinton, and Reagan, none of whom were "Washington insiders" when they ran.

Furthermore, in today's world, which features a 24 hour news cycle, talk radio, blogs, and endless analysis of every political detail, any candidate the Republicans select as their nominee, even if he (or she) is at present a relatively unknown governor, will have no problem introducing himself (or herself) to the American public.

Given that -- and the fact that a lot of governors who may be potentially excellent candidates haven't gotten into the race -- it's a little early to conclude that the field is weak. Remember, you only need one really good candidate.

On to Barnes' 2nd reason:

"But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it."

While Bush was strongly supported by the GOP in the 2004 campaign, there's no reason to think that another candidate won't be able to inspire that kind of loyalty in 2008. Truthfully, in 2004, most conservatives seemed more motivated by having a strong conservative hand guiding our foreign policy than any great love for President Bush.

It's also worth noting that the GOP isn't locked in to any particular approach. If volunteers aren't getting the job done, there's no reason why Republicans can't supplement their efforts with paid campaign workers.

The Democrats had a big overall advantage with 527 groups last time around because, quite frankly, they were simply more willing to ignore the letter of the law. But in 2008, when campaign finance laws are going to be more clear-cut and the GOP has had more time to prepare, the money, including funds needed for voter registration if need be, will likely be much more even than in 2004.

Number 3 from Barnes:

"In 2004, John Kerry was a heavily flawed Democratic candidate. He was a northeastern liberal who hardly inspired trust or persuaded voters he would be a strong leader. Yet if 60,000 voters in Ohio had switched from Bush to him last year, he'd be president today. He was that close. Thus a more attractive Democratic candidate in 2008, including Hillary Clinton, has a strong residual Democrat base to build on."

Sure, Bush did have some stellar numbers from 2001 up until the last few months of 2003, but from that point on up until the election, he never had great poll numbers. In fact, he spent that entire time hovering right around 50% approval and he has steadily declined since then. So even if conditions were to remain the same, and they never truly do, there's no reason why the GOP can't run a more popular candidate in 2008 than Bush was in 2004.

Number 4 from Barnes:

"And what if Democrats check their emotions at the door and clean up their political act? I think this is more likely than not. All Democrats can't be as self-destructive as Howard Dean, their party chairman."

This is always possible and were it to happen, it would actually be good for the country. But, there's very little evidence that they're about to turn things around. In fact, if anything, the Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Kos wing of the party that is killing them politically actually seems to be getting stronger.

When the Dems start seriously considering Southern Democrats with a reputation for being moderates, like Phil Bredesen & Mark Warner, as their candidates for President, then that'll be a sign that they've wised up. As long as they keep running faux moderate liberals like Kerry and Hillary Clinton, they're never going to be able to turn things around over the long haul.

Here's #5 from Barnes:

"Finally, there's the media, more aptly called the Republican-hating media. We've already seen what they are willing to do to protect Hillary Clinton."

The media is going to slobber all over Hillary Clinton and give Republicans a hard time? What else is new? Since when has the mainstream media ever played fair in a presidential election?

Fortunately, that matters less and less as time goes on because the MSM is bleeding eyeballs and credibility by the day, while conservatives are slowly but surely starting to balance the scales with Fox, Talk Radio, and the blogosphere.

Sure, the MSM may hate us, but if media bias were a decisive factor, the GOP would never win an election.

Last but not least, Barnes doesn't discuss Hillary Clinton's many defects as a candidate. Even though Hillary should make a better candidate than Kerry, she still has a cavalcade of weaknesses.

She's a liberal politician from a liberal state with a liberal voting record. Furthermore, she has staggeringly high negatives & she's so hated that she'll actually motivate the GOP base. On top of that, she has a frosty personality and she doesn't generate much more enthusiasm than Kerry did amongst the Kos/Moore/Dean crowd.

That's not to say that Hill can't win, because she can. But, Hillary Clinton is far from the rampaging juggernaut she's portrayed to be and if the GOP can put up a halfway decent candidate against her, chances are, she'll lose by a bigger margin than Kerry did.

Earlier this morning at Blogsnow, there seemed to be dozens of British bloggers who were in a big huff over this story. It must be a cultural thing because I am just not grokking what they're so upset about:

"The Labour Party has apologised after an 82-year-old member was thrown out of its annual conference for heckling. Walter Wolfgang, from London, was ejected from the hall after shouting "nonsense" as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Iraq policy.

Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested.

Party chairman Ian McCartney criticised Mr Wolfgang's behaviour but said the way he was ejected was "inappropriate".

"I'm going to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm going to personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."

Mr Wolfgang, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, is a member of the Stop the War Coalition.

Erith and Thamesmead constituency party chairman Steve Forrest, who was sitting next to Mr Wolfgang, was also thrown out after complaining about his treatment.

...However Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang would not be allowed back into the conference, which ends on Thursday.

The Labour Party has a responsibility to remove people who create a "persistent disturbance", he said.

....The party member of 57 years' standing told the BBC Two's Daily Conference Live programme: "These two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out.

"I said: 'Do you want me to leave? I will leave, you don't need to manhandle me.' Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them.

"Most of the Labour Party stewards are very nice people. One or two people lend themselves to this nonsense.

"It makes me feel that the people who resort to these tactics are very unsure of themselves and they are on the losing side."

Granted, the guy is 82 years old, but as far as I'm concerned, that's old enough to know better than to heckle a speaker. Let me also add that it's a bit odd that the police felt the need to use a Terrorism Act to justify keeping some old codger from reentering a room and disrupting a meeting.

That being said, had that exact same situation occurred in the United States, I'd see absolutely no problem whatsoever with removing the heckler. Now some people might claim that would violate the heckler's right to free speech. However, they are not only wrong, they have it exactly backwards: the heckler is interrupting the free speech of the speaker.

The idea that the law should be neutral between an obnoxious heckler shouting from the cheap seats and a politician invited to speak to a crowd is simply asinine. You have no more constitutional right to heckle than you do to demand your column be published in your local newspaper or that CNN put you on the air.

The Constitution does guarantee free speech. However, that does not mean that other people have to cede their right of free speech to you or that they are required to provide you with an audience for what you have to say.

And if that's not enough for you, it's also just plain rude. So toss that heckler and don't feel bad about it.

Former FEMA Director Mike Brown told a House investigative panel yesterday that he takes much of the blame for the agency's response to "a national disaster of horrifying proportions which continues to cause pain, heartache and devastating financial hardship for millions of Americans."

"I should have come to Congress sooner to witness this tragedy in person," Mr. Brown told lawmakers. "As the government official in charge of coordinating disaster relief, I must take a large share of the blame for the dysfunctional organization, petty bickering, turf wars and massive amounts of wasteful spending that continue to this day."

The departing director acknowledged that the agency had been "overwhelmed by the scope and sequence of the disaster."

"FEMA is set up to handle storms that blow hard, and pass quickly," he said. "Congress has only one of those characteristics."

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Domestic

Indicted DeLay Steps Down From House Post

A Statement From Tom DeLay & His Comments About The Indictment This Morning

DeLay Calls Prosecutor A 'Partisan Fanatic'

Blunt Picked To Replace Delay As US House leader

Attempt To Pick Successor Is Foiled. Blunt Temporarily Takes Reins As Conservatives Reject Dreier (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Gov. George Pataki On Wednesday Removed A Proposed International Freedom Center From The Space Reserved For It At Ground Zero, Saying The Project Had Aroused ''Too Much Opposition, Too Much Controversy.'' (Free NYT Reg Req)

Gov. Blanco Gets No Katrina Questions From Senate Committee

NASA Chief Confesses:Space Shuttle 'Mistake'. Nearly All Last 30 Years 'Was Not The Right Path'

Foreign

Reports: Plot To Attack Paris Subway, Airport. Police Arrest 9 In Anti-Terror Sweep After Tip Off From Algerian Authorities

The Day When Osama Bin Laden Applied For Asylum – In Britain

Columns

Richard Brookhiser: American Jews Unprepared For Attacks From The Left

Jonah Goldberg: What We've Learned (About Democrats) From The Battle Over Roberts

Dick Morris: The Left Nips At Hillary After Her Move To The Right

Ann Coulter: Bob Shrum With A Good Cause

Robert Robb: Fiscal Relief Is There, If GOP Finds The Backbone

John Tabin: The DeLay Opportunity

Left-Overs

Democrat Ben Affleck Is Considering Running For Senator In Virginia?

100 Dead Cats Found In Empty Apartment. British Officials Believe Someone May Have Been Living Among Corpses

Quicksand Can't Suck You Under. Experiments Show That Humans Do Not Sink All The Way Into Shifting Sands

Website Of The Day: The Republican Research Council

As most of you undoubtedly already know, Tom DeLay has been indicted on dubious charges by a prosecutor with a history of politically motivated prosecutions. Even setting aside frivolous prosecutions past, Ronnie Earle, the prosecutor, has actually raised money for a Democratic PAC by publicly attacking Tom DeLay, so he's one step away from "Michael Moore territory" when it comes to political bias.

Still, we've got to wonder: are the charges valid? At this early point, there hasn't been time for a lot of analysis from the legal eagles, but judging by what I've read from Mark Levin and Media Blog, it sounds likely that DeLay will skate when it's said and done.

That being said, this indictment will result in the mainstream media spending months loudly and gleefully accusing DeLay of corruption while darkly hinting that he's guilty. The media's job will be made much easier by the fact that DeLay has well known ties to crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff and has been previously admonished by the House ethics panel multiple times.

Most Republicans, for the moment at least, will stick by Tom DeLay's side and insist that they want him back as Majority Leader after he beats the rap.

That is a mistake.

At one time, Tom DeLay was a great conservative leader of the House. Unfortunately, he has been in Washington too long. If you doubt that, you need look no further than his now infamous assertion that the GOP has achieved an "ongoing victory" over spending.

Moreover, while President Bush has taken plenty of well deserved shots for his big spending ways and inept political maneuvers of late, Tom DeLay is just as deserving of scorn as Bush is from conservatives. Yes, DeLay has done a better job of keeping Republicans in line in the House than Frist has done in the Senate, but if DeLay is wielding the whip to push through things like the Medicare prescription drug benefit & Highway Bill pork, why should conservatives be applauding?

For the moment, the House GOP has selected Roy Blunt to keep Tom DeLay's seat warm until he returns. But, instead of an interim appointment, what they need to do is select a permanent replacement. Republicans pulled out the long knives and got rid of Newt Gingrich when they decided he was a liability and, quite frankly, DeLay isn't half the leader that Newt was.

What Republicans in the House need to understand is that there's a time to "stand by your man" and there is a time to turn a crisis into an opportunity. This would seem to be the opportune time for House Republicans to get rid of the biggest spending Majority Leader in history while also appearing to take a tough stand against corruption. They should make the most of it.

*** Update #1 ***: Apparently, there are at least a few Republicans in the House who are thinking along these same lines. From the WAPO:

"When DeLay's indictment was unsealed yesterday, conservatives in the GOP caucus immediately erupted in anger over rumors that the selection of Dreier, whom they regard as too moderate, was being presented as a fait accompli .

As the conservatives met to vent frustrations and plot options, Hastert was changing course in a separate meeting on the second floor of the Capitol. Rep. Roy Blunt (Mo.), the majority whip, was making a personal appeal for the promotion. Hastert agreed, forestalling a possible revolt by conservatives, who regard Blunt as one of their own.

The wild day of maneuvering made clear that beneath the image of lockstep discipline in the House -- which DeLay himself enforced for years -- the GOP caucus is rife with ambitious personalities in not-so-subtle competition. With DeLay sidelined, it will fall largely to Hastert to move President Bush's agenda and to maintain order among an increasingly restless crowd as the 2006 elections approach.

Hastert's challenge was vividly highlighted yesterday by the mood at a private late-afternoon meeting of the House Republican Conference, with nearly all members in attendance.

Some lawmakers, such as Zach Wamp (Tenn.) challenged Republican leaders to set a date for formal leadership elections instead of allowing party bosses to impose their choices. At the same time, conservatives such as Steve Buyer (Ind.) rose to say Republicans should have allowed DeLay to remain majority leader even with an indictment. Earlier this year, under pressure from Democrats and a few in his own party, Hastert reversed a rule designed expressly for DeLay that would have allowed indicted leaders to retain their positions.

Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.) said afterward that the rules change "was like waving a red flag to Ronnie Earle," the Texas prosecutor who pushed for DeLay's indictment. Feeney said some conservatives may push for still another reversal, allowing DeLay to return even before his legal problems are resolved.

Despite the brave face, however, many Republicans said privately it is unlikely DeLay will return to his leadership position anytime soon, if ever. This would open the door for members such as Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), chairman of the House education committee, to run for a leadership position. Blunt, a teacher turned politician who first was elected to the House in 1996, is at least temporarily now the number two Republican in the House."

Sounds like there may be a quiet a power struggle in the works. Count me in on whichever side is looking to oust DeLay.

*** Update #2 ***: It's Time For Tom DeLay To Go Part 2

The National period of sensitivity expires: TBS is running “The Waterboy” twice tonight, I’d forgotten how hilariously cruel this movie is to Louisiana. Suffice it to say, poor old Mayor Nagin isn’t going down in popular culture with Rudy Giuliani. In fact, the whole state seems to be run by looters.

The state’s representatives have come up with a request for $250 billion in federal reconstruction funds for Louisiana alone—more than $50,000 per person in the state. This money would come on top of payouts from businesses, national charities and insurers. And it would come on top of the $62.3 billion that Congress has already appropriated for emergency relief.

That’s, what, well over $1,000 from every taxpaying American? Even Michael Brown is coming back from the grave to put the blame where it belongs.

"We can’t deny the point that it worked in the other states and it didn’t work in Louisiana,’’ Brown told the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation and Response to Hurricane Katrina. “The people of FEMA are tired of being beat up and they don’t deserve it.’’

Brown said the failure to evacuate New Orleans and other affected areas of Louisiana in a timely manner “‘was the tipping point for all the other things that went wrong.’’

“I just couldn’t pull that off,’’ he said. “My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional.’’

Democratic Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana said he was stunned that Brown put “the blame for FEMA’s failings at the feet of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans.’’

“I think that’s a very weak explanation of what happened,’’ he said.

Jefferson, who had already had his home and office raided by the feds for apparent securities fraud, was the same guy who diverted rescue resources (including two squads of National Guardsmen, a helicopter, and two trucks) to help him get his stuff out of his flooded house. I’d say the dysfunction of Louisiana’s public servants is not just a strong explanation, it’s an incredibly generous way to describe them. Sadly, it’s like a parody of a real state.

This content was used with the permission of Right Thinking From The Left Coast.

Make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine for links to some of the best articles on the right side of the blogosphere. Some of the stories linked over the last couple of days include:

-- Why am I (Still) not a Democrat?
-- Greg Gutfeld savages the other bloggers at the Huffington Post for the 75th time and it's still funny
-- Everything you need to know about the care and feeding of the male species
-- The budget cuts we'd need to make to turn our current deficit into a $347.47 billion surplus

Conservative Grapevine: you should be reading it every day!

"It would be a lot of fun to watch liberals going through their "Howard Dean phase" right now, except liberal hysteria always frightens Bush. Instead of poking them through the iron bars of their cages with a stick like a normal person would, Bush soothes them with food pellets and reassuring words. What fun is that? We're winning! This is no time to concede defeat."

"Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation."

(continued...)

Since George Bush is supposedly getting close to selecting a SCOTUS nominee and Alberto Gonzales is lobbying for the job, it's worth mentioning that the Attorney General would be an even worse pick this time around than he would have been as an initial pick for three reasons.

First of all, although John Roberts was supported by most conservatives, there were more than a few complaints that his track record wasn't long enough. Because of that, there's this nagging doubt in a lot of people's minds about whether Roberts will turn out to have more in common with his mentor William Rehnquist or enormous disappointment Anthony Kennedy. So if anything, the base is looking for a sure thing this time around and the level of discontent on the right will certainly rise if they don't get it.

Number two, George Bush's approval rating is significantly lower now than when he nominated Roberts. That's irrelevant as far as hard core Democrats (They won't like anybody he selects) or the general public (They don't know or care enough about the process to get fired up about it) goes. But, who Bush selects will matter a great deal to the Republican base and they have already made it crystal clear that they would consider the selection of Alberto Gonzales to be a betrayal of the worst sort.

In my opinion, selecting Gonzales would not only drive Bush's approval rating into the mid-thirties & lead to weeks of acidic attacks on Bush from the right, there would be a significant chunk of the base that would NEVER forgive W. for picking Gonzales.

Last but not least, George Bush has already been thrashed in the aftermath of Katrina for selecting "cronies" to run FEMA. Furthermore, Bush has also been dinged again on exactly the same charge after selecting another unqualified but connected nominee, Julie Myers, to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. After all that, for George Bush to nominate Alberto Gonzales, who would never be considered for the Supreme Court if he weren't Bush's friend, would truly reek of the rotten stench of cronyism.

Up to this point in his 2nd term, for whatever reason, George Bush's political instincts seem to have largely failed him. But, this is one area where Bush cannot afford to make a mistake. Nominating Alberto Gonzales or for that matter any of the other nominees with questionable conservative credentials -- like Edith Brown Clement, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Harriet Miers -- would be a calamitous error.

Bush should fulfill his campaign promises, make the base happy, and do the right thing for the country by selecting an originalist, with an impeccable record, who believes in judicial restraint.

"Years ago, management guru Tom Peters suggested the slogan of many U.S. corporations might as well be “We’re no worse than anybody else.” It didn’t work for those businesses in a competitive world, and DeLay’s new slogan for the House Republicans, which might as well be “We’re not quite as bad as the Democrats,” isn’t going to be much more effective for his party. Washington Republicans may not care much about limiting spending or restraining the growth of government, but the people who hired them and sent them here do." -- David Keene

Domestic

Illegal Immigrants Are Increasing Despite Tighter Border Security And Now Outnumber Foreigners Moving To The United States Legally

High Court Selection Process Winds Down

Brown Defends FEMA's Efforts. Former Agency Director Spreads Blame For Failures In Katrina Response (Free WAPO Reg Req)

$236 Million Katrina Cruise Ship Deal Criticized (Free WAPO Reg Req)

New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass Resigned Tuesday After Four Turbulent Weeks In Which The Police Force Came Under Fire For Its Conduct In Hurricane Katrina's Aftermath

'Peace Mom' Cindy Sheehan Meets McCain (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Court Rules Jesse Jackson Must Face Civil Trial for Assault and Civil Rights Violations

Foreign

Israel Unleashes Barrage In Gaza City (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Saudi Oil Minister: More Refineries Needed

U.S. To U.N.: Keep Away From Internet

Poll: Muslim Students Protect Terrorists. 10% In Uk Wouldn't Expose Coreligionist Plotting Attack

Columns

Investor's Business Daily: Start Saying 'No' On Hurricane Aid

Michelle Malkin: The Democrat Party Goes Dumpster Diving

David Keene: GOP Leaders Are Naked On Spending

John Stossel: Market Protects Us Better Than Politicians Ever Could

Left-Overs

The Ultimate 2008 Republican Straw Poll

Britain: Hospital Bans "Cooing" Over Babies

Scientists Capture 59 Ft Giant Squid On Camera. First Images Of Creature Live In The Wild

A Prosecutor Argued Tuesday That John Hinckley Still Thinks Women Are Making Romantic Overtures To Him When They Are Not, The Kind Of Misperception That Led Him To Shoot President Reagan 24 Years Ago (This Loon Should Never Be Free)

Chinese Satellites To Monitor Panda Sex

Website Of The Day: Let's Blame Bush

CBS News producer Mary Mapes, who was fired for her role in Memogate, is complaining that bloggers didn't pay enough attention to the content of the phony memos:

"There was no analysis of what the documents actually said, no work done to look at the content, no comparison with the official record, no phone calls made to check the facts of the story, nothing beyond a cursory and politically motivated examination of the typeface. That was all they had to attack, but that was enough."

First of all, that's not true. Here's one detail, pointed out by the blogosphere, that in and of itself should have thrown the authenticity of the memos into question:

"One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard."

Setting that aside, the content was essentially irrelevant. Why? Think about it like this:

If some shady source hands you a document that he claims was written by Napoleon and you notice that it's scribbled on a sheet of notebook paper, you don't need to look at content or the official record, it's not real.

The same goes for those Memogate documents.

When an unreliable source hands you copies of memos that are supposed to be more than 30 years old and they're written in the default font of Microsoft Word, what more do you need to know to figure out that they're fakes?

The fact that Rather, Mapes, and company went live with these memos in the first place over the objections of their own experts, relentlessly defended them back then, and are still defending them now, tells you that getting to the truth is way down on their priority list, well below getting Bush and covering their own behinds.

If Bush killed his own Medicare Prescription drug benefit, it would be the greatest accomplishment of his presidency on the domestic side. That's pretty sad when you think about it.

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section:

"Come on John. What about the tax cuts?

I mean, I agree with you, the Prescription drug benefit is a costly mess, but give him some credit where credit is due." -- Rooster349

Killing the Medicare Prescription drug benefit would be a much greater achievement than the tax cuts.

The tax cuts, even if they're made permanent, are still temporary. Politicians can always find some sneaky way to raise taxes as many people will learn to their detriment if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008.

But, the Medicare Prescription drug benefit? That's permanent. All by its lonesome it will likely lead to our country increasing the debt by an extra trillion dollars plus -- that's trillion with a t -- over the next 15 years. From there, the amount will only grow...

Here's a question not enough people are asking: why not kill the Medicare prescription drug benefit?

Consider....

* The program hasn't started yet so if it's killed no one will actually lose any benefits.

* There was no great hue and cry from the American people for a Medicare prescription drug benefit in the first place. The GOP pushed this issue simply because they wanted to take a campaign issue off the table for the Democrats. Of course, the poll numbers initially didn't look that bad because very few seniors are going to complain about getting free drugs from the government. Still, the tepid demand for the program never came close to justifying the cost.

* Furthermore, if the Republicans in Washington think they got some sort of lasting benefit from throwing their principles out the window to support this big government monstrosity, they're sadly mistaken. From a Kaiser Health Poll Report:

Seniors' views of the new prescription drug benefit are mixed. Between February 2004 and December 2004, around four to five in ten seniors have said they have an unfavorable impression of the new law, compared with about two to three in ten who said they have a favorable impression. In April 2005, more seniors still say they have an unfavorable impression (34%) than a favorable impression (21%) of the new prescription drug benefit, but nearly half have a neutral impression or don’t know (45%)...

* The program was originally billed as costing $400 billion dollars over its first 10 years. That number has already been inflated to over $720 billion dollars and it will likely continue to increase.

The enormous increase in estimated cost alone should be plenty of justification for any responsible lawmaker to turn against the program.

If that doesn't do it, just think about our country going $720 billion dollars -- and rising -- into the red every year, perhaps for decades, to buy drugs for seniors who spend less on medicine (only 3% of their income on average) than they do on entertainment.

What we have here is an almost unimaginably expensive, largely unnecessary, unpopular, new government entitlement.

So what would be wrong with simply saying: "The program cost much more than was originally estimated and we simply can't justify this kind of spending, especially now, when we're running a deficit?"

It would be fantastic and also unfortunately unexpected, if the Republicans in Washington were to stick up for the taxpayers for once, do what's right for the future of this country, and kill this abomination before it springs to life in 2006.

"But the party's problems are structural and can be explained by three numbers: 21, 34 and 45. According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate.

Those numbers mean that liberal-leaning Democrats are far more dependent than conservatively inclined Republicans on alliances with the political center. Democrats second-guess themselves because they have to.

Consider that in 2004 Democrat John Kerry won 85 percent of the liberal vote and defeated Bush by a healthy 54 percent to 45 percent among moderates. But Bush prevailed because he won 84 percent of a conservative vote that constitutes more than a third of the electorate.

Or consider the lay of the land for the 2006 congressional elections. It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried." -- E. J. Dionne Jr.

WorldNetDaily is one of the best -- and largest -- conservative websites on the net. But, for some reason, they will promote wacky stories or products that just make you scratch your head.

Here's a perfect example: a book they're relentlessly flogging called: "Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel." This book is the #1 seller at WND.

One problem: the book is pure lunacy. You can tell that much just by reading the promo:

"What do these major record-setting events have in common?

Nine of the ten costliest insurance events in U.S. history
Six of the seven costliest hurricanes in U.S. history
Three of the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history
Nine of the top ten natural disasters in U.S. history ranked by FEMA relief costs
The two largest terrorism events in U.S. history

All of these major catastrophes transpired on the very same day or within 24-hours of U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush applying pressure on Israel to trade her land for promises of "peace and security," sponsoring major "land for peace" meetings, making major public statements pertaining to Israel's covenant land and/or calling for a Palestinian state.

Are each one of these major record-setting events just a coincidence or awe-inspiring signs that God is actively involved in the affairs of Israel?

In this book, Bill Koenig provides undeniable facts and conclusive evidence showing that indeed the leaders of the United States and the world are on a collision course with God over Israel's covenant land."

This is just laughable. The President of the United States is always stuck mediating between the Israelis and Palestinians. To pick out a day and say, "The US talked to Israel and there was a tornado, so they must be related," is crackers. What about all the times they talked and there weren't disasters? The author might as well be claiming that God is punishing the US for running too many Andy Griffith reruns, because on the day all those disasters occurred, somewhere in the United States, somebody was watching.

A website like WND shouldn't be selling this sort of garbage because it undercuts their credibility. Come on, have SOME standards...

"Big-time Republicans tell me Bush's profligacy is doing a great job of neutralizing the Dem advantage in the spending-is-caring stakes. This may have been true initially -- in the same sense as undercover cops neutralize a massive heroin-smuggling operation by infiltrating it. But, if they're still running the heroin operation five years later, it looks less like neutralization and more like a change of management. " -- Mark Steyn

Much thanks goes out to all of RWN's guest bloggers because they did such a fantastic job yesterday. Thanks to:

Lorie Byrd from Byrd Droppings & Polipundit, Michael Fumento from C-Log & Michael Fumento.com, Mary Katharine Ham from C-Log, Cathy Seipp from Cathy's World, Kathy Shaidle from Relapsed Catholic, Sister Toldjah.

Most of all, I'd like to thank Frank J. from IMAO who was hilariously funny as he ruthlessly mocked my beloved dog Patton yesterday.

In honor of the great job Frank did, I'd like to invite him out to the Old Town gravel quarry tonight at 4:00 AM in order to, ah -- let's just say, I want to make sure he gets what's coming to him. Frank, make sure to come alone and unarmed. Once you get there, you'll see a shovel. Start digging a big hole. You'll find out why later, but not from me because I'll be sleeping soundly at that time, as I always do, which is what I would happily testify to in a court of law in the event of any gory gravel quarry murders -- if that were necessary, which it certainly won't be!

Again, thanks Frank!

Domestic

US Govt Katrina Spending May Only Be $100 Bln-Aide

Rumors Of Deaths In The New Orleans Convention Center & The Super Dome Were Greatly Exaggerated

Cindy Sheehan Arrested At White House

Frist Says He Had No Inside Data On Stock. Senator Calls Sale An Effort To Avoid Conflict Of Interest (Free WAPO Reg Req + I Believe Him)

Bush Offers Pentagon As 'Lead Agency' In Disasters

Lynndie England Guilty Of Iraq Abuse

Faulty Body Armor May Have Endangered Bush

Republican 'Porkers' Urged to Stop Spending

U.S. Crime Rate Holds At 30-Year Low

Foreign

The No. 2 Al Qaeda Leader In Iraq Was Killed Sunday Night, U.S. Officials Say. Abu Azzam, Reportedly The Deputy To Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, Was Shot During A House Raid In Baghdad

5 Iraqi Teachers Shot To Death In Classroom

Columns

Tom DeLay: Republicans Will Defend Taxpayers (Given The Size Of The Deficit, That Defense Isn't Worth A Bucket Of Warm Spit)

Mark Steyn: Politicians Not Giving Us Much Of A Choice

Robert Novak: GOP In Turmoil Over Spending

David Ignatius: How The Generals Think It's Going In Iraq

Mike Adams: Welcome To UNC-We Love Black People

Left-Overs

Police: Vegas Driver Wanted To 'Run Down Demons'

Michigan: Mentally Unstable Son Slashes The Throat Of Mother & Stepfather In Failed Murder Attempt

Website Of The Day: Global Cop

I went to a free blogger screening of the movie Serenity tonight, as did Daniel Drezner.

Drezner found that the geek quotient was high at his screening-- higher than the average quotient for LOTR and Star Wars openings.

When I got to the theater, there was a line of about 20 people waiting to be squeezed into the few seats left in the theater. They filled the place to the brim, but I think most everyone in the line got in. I was glad I was a party of one. The young lady checking people in said some folks had been in line for hours.

Despite my deplorable sci-fi/Serenity/Firefly illiteracy, I enjoyed the movie. I'm writing a review of it later in the week for Townhall, but the action was good and the dialogue was pretty great. I'd heard Joss Whedon was a good writer, but I never watched Buffy or Angel (no one throw anything at me!), so I wasn't sure what to expect.

I wasn't let down. Every time I thought the movie was veering into tired, typical action-movie banter, Whedon would pull it out. I think he was messing with me. Much more clever than the average Hollywood action flick, and a cute leading man with a decent Southern accent to boot.

I was happy, and a couple of hours of spaceship battles on the big screen always makes driving my car back home more fun. The ol' Civic's got no missiles, but she handles well. (who's the geek now, right?)

There were one or two underdeveloped relationships in the plot, but all in all, there's enough here to keep fans and non-fans happy. It got applause and some huge laughs from the Firefly fans in the audience tonight.

And, I forgot to introduce myself earlier today, so I'm Mary Katharine, and I blog over at Townhall. I like Georgia football, fiscal conservatives with backbone, and long walks on the beach (or at least as long as it takes to get to the fresh seafood and hushpuppies).

Big thanks to John for having me. It's a pleasure and privilege to post with all the guest-bloggers and Patton, of course.

First, it's interesting to see how the BBC labelled these terrorist thugs in the headline:

Gunmen kill Iraq school teachers

"Gunmen" eh? Ok.

The article goes on to report:

Gunmen in Iraq have killed five school teachers - all Shias - at a school near Iskandariya, south of Baghdad.

A police spokesman said the gunmen had arrived at the school in two civilian cars, and led the five teachers and a school driver out before shooting them.

Some reports said pupils had witnessed the murder, but police denied this.

Sunni Iraqi insurgents have recently intensified their attacks on police and US-led occupation troops, but school teachers have not been targeted.

Does one even have to wonder what George Galloway, Respect MP from the UK, thinks about this senseless terrorist attack? Why, no - he very likely sees at as 'normal' and part of the 'brave resistance'. One only needs to look at recent quotes from Mr. Galloway to realize this. From a recap of the Galloway vs. Hitchens debate held at the Baruch College Performing Arts Center in NYC on Sept 14:

[Hitchens] took issue with Mr Galloway's anti-war credentials. "To hear him speak you would think - would you not? - that he was a pacifist, that he defines himself as anti-war. Now how can this be said in good conscience by someone who has just, standing by the side of the dictator of Syria on the 30th of July, referred to the 154 heroic operations conducted in Iraq by the so-called resistance?"

Mr Galloway's comments following his visit to Syria were among his most controversial. He told al-Jazeera: "The Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony."

He added, speaking to Arab News Broadcasting: "Most of the operations which they carry out are against the occupying forces and their collaborators and this is normal in every liberation struggle."

And he told Syrian television: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners: Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. Some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it."

Hard to believe there are actually people out there who believe this nonsense. Why do traitors like George Galloway (who was kicked out of the Labour party in the UK for calling on the 'insurgents' to rise up against British troops in Iraq) garner so much respect from the 'peace movement' not just in this country but abroad as well? Could it have anything to do with him being against the hope of western-style democracy in Arab countries, a type of democracy that (along with oil for food profits) has served to see that his right to spew his anti-US/UK venom is protected by the blood, sweat, and tears of the US, UK and coalition partners in wars fought in this century and centuries past? Does the man even understand the word irony? How ironic is it that we have a guy who encourages the enemy to rise up against his fellow countrymen who are serving in Iraq, who slams the noble mission they are fighting with his ridiculous statements (which no doubt gives the enemy encouragement to fight again another day) and it's these same UK soldiers who have fought for his right so encourage the 'insurgency' to rise up and kill them! Same same for the Mike Moore types here. Why they are given any credibility at all is beyond me, but then again, I've never been so consumed by hate for a president of this country that I've given in to supporting those who only weaken it with their hateful, and shameful rhetoric.

If you enjoyed this post by Sister Toldjah, you can read more of her work at Sister Toldjah.

This link and the following quote are via Ace of Spades.

The No. 2 al Qaeda leader in Iraq was killed Sunday night, U.S. officials say. Abu Azzam, reportedly the deputy to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was shot during a house rain in Baghdad, according to Pentagon officials.

As the aide to Zarqawi, Azzam was reportedly in control of financing foreign fighters coming into Iraq, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

According to Pentagon officials coalition troops raided the house in response to a tip. When Azzam opened fire, these officials say, he was killed with troops' return fire.

This is a big deal and a real success, but the news tonight will be all about Cindy Sheehan's arrest. If any of those reporting the story wanted to put things into perspective, they could tell viewers that Cindy Sheehan's son was killed in a mission much like the one yesterday that took out the number two al Queda terrorist in Iraq. They could also mention that her son, Casey, volunteered for that last mission and should be remembered as a true hero. What makes me sad and angry is that he has been turned into a victim by his mother, the anti-war movement and the MSM. Unfortunately, few watching the network news tonight will realize that Casey Sheehan was a real hero.

This is cross-posted at Polipundit where I blog daily.

The Harvard School of Public Health has just announced its highest honor, the Julius Richmond Award, will go to Erin Brockovich. The award is given to those who "have promoted and achieved high standards for public heath conditions," specifically for Brockovich’s efforts "on behalf of all of us, and especially the residents of Hinkley, California, whose health was adversely affected by a toxic substance dumped by a utility company," according to a letter sent to American Council on Science and Health President Elizabeth Whelan.

Do you feel benefited? I don’t. Here’s why.

The California Cancer Registry showed no excess of cancer in Hinkley compared to surrounding counties to contract cancer than other Californians, despite the claim of Brockovich and her law firm that they suffered extraordinary rates from exposure to chromium six in drinking water. Indeed, there was and is no evidence of any excess of any type of illness at Hinckley. Further, the Environmental Protection Agency's toxicology web site declares that no study has ever shown chromium six is harmful to humans when ingested, and many have shown it is not.

The only person Erin Brockovich ever helped has the initials “E.B.” She pocketed a bonus of over $2 million in the Hinkley case, even as many Hinkley residents who were truly sick (albeit not from chromium six) received nothing. Her current celebrated lawsuit is against a vast number of oil companies, the city of Beverly Hills and the school district, claims that oil wells on the campus of Beverly Hills High School have caused alumni to have cancer rates “20 times higher" for three types of malignancies than the national average,” according to Brockovich. Yet her firm was later forced to admit it had no data showing any excess of cancer at the school. Further, when the University of Southern California looked at the cancer rates of Beverly Hills alumni it found nothing unusual.

That most people would be confused about Brockovich is explainable by her beatification in a fictitious film claiming to be “based on a true story.” But you might think the Harvard School of Public Health, of all institutions, would do more research before giving awards than watching a movie.

If you enjoyed this post by Michael Fumento, you can read more of his work at Fumento.com.

For serious. I'm guessing she won't be using her right to remain silent. Hee hee.

Update: Newer story link, here. Oddly, this draft (though written by the same Jennifer Kerr as the below draft) does not include the second paragraph below. Why would she do a rewrite and exclude the info about why Sheehan was arrested and the fact that the police warned her three times before they arrested her? Hmmm.

Update 2: There's another updated story on the AP wire, which reincludes the part about the police warning Sheehan. Another funny observation of an AP story in progress. Compare these leads, from the second story and the recently updated one:

1:57 p.m.-- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son's death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

At AP Headquarters: "Oops, did I say "used"? I didn't mean used."

3 p.m.-- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman driven by her son's death in Iraq to re-ignite the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

AP Headquarters: "Yeah, driven. That's the ticket."

Update 3: Lead No. 3 on this story at 3:38 p.m.:

Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

AP Headquarters: "You know, because the whole process was, like, so organic. Cindy didn't really "use" or "drive" anything so much as she "became" the conscience of a country veering horribly off course. It was her simple request to meet with the President, her private grief, and her authenticity that won us over. Not that we're on her side, mind you."

From AP:

Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son's death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Sheehan was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

I have a theory that whenever those on the left let me know that a particular part of my National Review column is weakly argued, or wrong, or unfair, or whatever, this is a sign that I may have actually managed to make a good point. Not long ago, for instance, I noticed that an exchange between my actress friend Leah and Larry Gelbart about Hollywood's pro-Castro bent was excerpted in various places on the Internet -- even in Swedish! So naturally a liberal friend gave me a hard time about it. The exchange in question:

"Name one pro-Castro movie that’s come out of Hollywood,” Gelbart demanded.

“Comandante!” Leah snapped back, referring to Oliver Stone’s recent paean to Castro.

“OK, that’s one...” Gelbart said.

“Motorcycle Diaries!” Leah immediately added. Gelbart was beginning to look exasperated at that point, so she shut up. “But there’s also Havana,” she whispered to me, “by Robert Redford, another lyrical poem to Castro.”

I can remember a time when a working actress hoping to remain working might not have been so outspoken about her anti-leftist views, and I suppose this exchange could indicate that conservatives are not as ostracized here as they once were.

I should add that Leah might not be so outspoken if she acted under the name Leah, which is her real name but not her stage name. Horror fans may remember her as Caroline Williams, who played the late-night D.J. terrorized in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," which next year celebrates its 20th anniversary at the Texas Frightmare Weekend Feb. 4 and 5, 2006. Leah/Caroline will be there, along with Joe Bob Briggs and others.

These days Leah/Caroline is often cast as the crying mom on police procedurals, so if you notice a tall thin blonde with a Southern accent on these shows, crying and crying and crying about her drug addict/killer/crime victim son, she just doesn't know where he went wrong, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, that just might be her.

And that's life here in in Hollywood. OK, back to my own blog...

Thanks to John for trusting me to behave while guest posting here at Right Wing News. I am not a quota kinda gal, but I couldn't help but notice that five of the seven guest bloggers he chose are female. John has written several posts on female bloggers, and I have written a bit on the subject, too. We are in agreement that there is no bias against women in the blogosphere, and his choice of guests today helps to make the point. Now to some more recent news...

During President Bush's recent speech from New Orleans I bristled when I heard him say that decisions about how to spend the Katrina rebuilding money would be decided largely by state and local officials. My reaction was not only due to the horrible bungling of the recent evacuation by state and local officials, but due to the decades old reputation of corruption in the area. Today, Betsy Newmark pointed me to an excellent John Fund piece about the history of corruption in Louisiana and some of the problems likely to be faced as more and more money flows into the state.

Put bluntly, the local political cultures don't engender confidence that aid won't be diverted from the people who truly need and deserve it. While the feds can try to ride herd on the money, here's hoping folks in the region take the opportunity to finally demand their own political housecleaning. Change is past due. Last year, Lou Riegel, the agent in charge of the FBI's New Orleans office, described Louisiana's public corruption as "epidemic, endemic, and entrenched. No branch of government is exempt."

Louisiana ranks third in the nation in the number of elected officials per capita convicted of crimes (Mississippi takes top prize). In just the past generation, the Pelican State has had a governor, an attorney general, three successive insurance commissioners, a congressman, a federal judge, a state Senate president and a swarm of local officials convicted. Last year, three top officials at Louisiana's Office of Emergency Preparedness were indicted on charges they obstructed a probe into how federal money bought out flood-prone homes. Last March the Federal Emergency Management Agency ordered Louisiana to repay $30 million in flood-control grants it had awarded to 23 parishes.

I am not very optimistic that Louisiana voters will be able to clean house in time to ensure that the Katrina funds flowing into the state get properly allocated. Fund, however, finds some "room for optimism" from Ron Faucheux noting that "2007 will inject new blood into Louisiana's Legislature when term limits kick in for the first time and force almost half its old-boy members to step down." Well, that will take care of some of them, and if state and local officials continue to behave in this manner, I wouldn't be surprised to see a voter uprising to throw the rest of the bums out, too.

If you enjoyed this post by Lorie Byrd, you can read more of her work at Polipundit & Byrd Droppings.

I wasn't happy with my previous post, so I thought I'd do something to make it like John Hawkins never left. So, I kidnapped his dog Patton so I could take pictures of him and blog all about our misadventures.

Patton is a great dog (I think he's some sort of poodle). We had lots of fun running around the yard while I chased him with a bat. Look how happy he is.

He needs to be more conscious of that long tongue, though.

(continued...)

Before I get started, I'd like to give a huge thanks to John for inviting me to guest blog here today. It's an honor to be blogging here and also to be included on the fine list of bloggers John has lined up to guest blog here at RWN today. A mini-bio on me: I'm a former liberal who voted for Clinton the first time around, saw the light just a couple of years later and have never looked back nor have I ever regretted my switch from liberalism to conservatism. It feels good to be a conservative, even though some members of the Republican party don't always act like conservatives.

Now, with that said, let's turn to the New York Daily News' Lloyd Grove, who is reporting today on a documentary about the failed presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry called "Inside the Bubble", directed by Steve Rosenbaum . Here's more:

I hear that John Kerry loyalists are kicking themselves for cooperating last year with filmmaker Steve Rosenbaum on "Inside the Bubble," a potentially devastating behind-the-scenes look at the Massachusetts senator's failed presidential campaign.

I'm also told that Hillary Clinton partisans are licking their chops to see the film, which "could end up being the silver bullet that kills Kerry's presidential chances for 2008," says a Lowdown spy.

Kerry spinmeister David Wade - one of the senior staffers who allowed Rosenbaum to film his private moments - tried to dismiss Rosenbaum's effort as "a childish home movie destined to be forgotten."

Wade E-mailed me: "The 20 poor souls subjected to this movie will be reaching for caffeine and begging for old Lamar Alexander tapes on C-Span 2. Michael Moore has nothing to fear. I think the working title was 'The Snore Room.'"

But people who've screened the documentary say it's compelling and revealing.

It features, among other not-ready-for-prime-time moments, Clinton scowling and rolling her eyes over an apparent Kerry gaffe during a presidential debate; Kerry pretending to interview himself and babbling in Italian while waiting for a real interview to begin; Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) cursing at reporters during a campaign stop, and Kerry message guru Robert Shrum confidently declaring a few days before the 2004 election: "Zogby [a prominent pollster] just announced who's gonna win. Us!"

Though this is a documentary (dare I say 'docudrama'?) that I am most definitely interested in seeing, I can understand why those "Kerry loyalists" aren't too keen on people seeing it. If I ran against a guy my supporters called things like Dumbya, Chimpy, Pretender in Chief, pResident, Rove puppet, and still lost, I'd be pretty embarassed for people to get an inside look on how it all fell apart, too. Perhaps it'll provide some valuable insight for those in the DNC who have their eye on the '08 prize as to what not to do on the path to the presidency. Of course, the Dems still haven't gotten over losing in 2000 and seem to staunchly refuse to learn from their mistakes (see the '02 and '04 elections for more), so the insight this documentary will put forth may end up only providing a healthy dose of schadenfreude for us political junkies on the right out there who watched with major enjoyment the campaign of Senator John Kerry go down in flames. In fact, his entire campaign could be summed up in just three words: WMI - Weapon of Mass Implosion.

Grove goes on to report that the movie will be shown for the first time publicly on Thursday, but I couldn't find word anywhere else as to when it will be available for the masses to see. If it's anything like Alexandra Pelosi's (daughter to House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy) documentary "Diary of a Political Tourist", then "Inside the Bubble" will be well worth watching.

If you enjoyed this post by Sister Toldjah, you can read more of her work at Sister Toldjah.

I have a theory that whenever those on the left let me know that a particular part of my National Review column is weakly argued, or wrong, or unfair, or whatever, this is a sign that I may have actually managed to make a good point. Not long ago, for instance, I noticed that an exchange between my actress friend Leah and Larry Gelbart about Hollywood's pro-Castro bent was excerpted in various places on the Internet -- even in Swedish! So naturally a liberal friend gave me a hard time about it. The exchange in question:

"Name one pro-Castro movie that’s come out of Hollywood,” Gelbart demanded.

“Comandante!” Leah snapped back, referring to Oliver Stone’s recent paean to Castro.

“OK, that’s one...” Gelbart said.

“Motorcycle Diaries!” Leah immediately added. Gelbart was beginning to look exasperated at that point, so she shut up. “But there’s also Havana,” she whispered to me, “by Robert Redford, another lyrical poem to Castro.”

I can remember a time when a working actress hoping to remain working might not have been so outspoken about her anti-leftist views, and I suppose this exchange could indicate that conservatives are not as ostracized here as they once were.

I should add that Leah might not be so outspoken if she acted under the name Leah, which is her real name but not her stage name. Horror fans may remember her as Caroline Williams, who played the late-night D.J. terrorized in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," which next year celebrates its 20th anniversary at the Texas Frightmare Weekend Feb. 4 and 5, 2006. Leah/Caroline will be there, along with Joe Bob Briggs and others.

These days Leah/Caroline is often cast as the crying mom on police procedurals, so if you notice a tall thin blonde with a Southern accent on these shows, crying and crying and crying about her drug addict/killer/crime victim son, she just doesn't know where he went wrong, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, that just might be her.  

And that's life here in in Hollywood. OK, back to my own blog...

Hi, I'm Frank J. You may remember me from such blogs as "Punditopia" and "Musings of an Angry Black Woman" and such podcasts as "No Talent Hack with Expensive Audio Equipment" and "I'm Not Exactly Sure What a Podcast Is Either."

Now, in all my days of blogging, I've gotten money, women, fame, and tons of free stuff, but, for the first time ever, I've been asked to blog on RightWingNews. John Hawkins was one of the first bloggers to ever link to me, so I immediately agreed to do a post for him at half my going rate (I know; can you even buy anything for $5,000 these days? But it's the honor, I guess). Even at half-price, I'm going to make this a special post. Instead of my usual badinage about hating monkeys and nuking natural satellites, I'm going to write something more apropos to RightWingNews. That's right, I'm going to write some news that is right-wing.

And, unlike the FOX News website, I'm not just going to grab stuff off the AP wire.

Anyway, here is my big scoop, exclusive to RightWingNews...

(continued...)

Review of Living It Up with National Review, small government, polling, "marriage, European style", sharia law in Canada, and much more in an all new edition of EnterStageRight.

If you enjoyed this post by Kathy Shaidle, you can read more of her work
at Relapsed Catholic.

"A coalition of homosexual activists and atheists plan to march on a Boy Scout camp in San Diego next month demanding the organization open its membership and leadership to them," reports WND.

Thanks to Reaganites Unite! for the link.

If you enjoyed this post by Kathy Shaidle, you can read more of her work
at Relapsed Catholic.