“The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil, himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday.
“Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.”
"An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans...'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'..." -- Charles Rangel
Americans aren't particularly fond of way over-the-top attacks on the President in any case and they certainly don't want to hear them from some tinpot thug, Castro-wannabe whom we were gracious enough to allow to enter our country. So, Rangel's comments were good politics and, if you ask me, just common decency.
As you read these comments, note the poisonous hatred towards Bush which is so extreme, so out of control, that these people are actually spewing massive amounts of venom at an ultra-left winger like Charles Rangel just because he defended George Bush. Apparently, for these people, being a loyal Democrat means NEVER saying a kind word for the other side, cooperating with them , or defending them for ANY REASON, no matter how justified it may be. Some of these comments are just....wow, you'll see:
Moochy: Oh brother. Nationalism is a poison... Thanks Rangel.
xchrom: then tell your president to stop trying to overthrow legitimately elected governments.
RandiRhodesArchives: that he needs to switch parties! and he can take Zell LIEbushlover with him too!
malaise: Attack? How is calling him the devil an attack. Doesn't Bushco call people terrorists with no evidence. Bush is the fugging anti-christ. Charlie knows a Dem backlash is coming for Chavez speaking at a Baptist Church in Harlem
OneBlueSky: when that president represents an immediate threat to world peace . . .and, indeed, to the survival of humanity and of the planet itself, I'd say that criticism is quite appropriate -- anytime, any place, and by anyone . . .
Generic Other: Evil translates into many languages. F*ck ALL BUsh apologists. I am not offended by the g*ddamn truth.
Rex: Well then he can go and goosestep with his new best friend George Bush. I hear Lieberman was a great progressive at one time and p*ssed his whole career away due to a kiss by the Devil.
michael_1166: Tell you what, Mr. Rangel: I'm just an ordinary German citizen, but I'm not only refraining from visiting your country, I also won't buy any American products unless your mass murdering president is behind bars.
Skidmore: You know, none of us here could possibly hate this country as much as the chickenhawks voted for these imbeciles that head this Mickey Mouse administration (yeah, I'm calling Boosh & Cheney names so sue me) and the Mickey Mouse Club Congress y'all installed with them. By the time they are done, America will be unrecognizable and no longer sovereign. Land of the free and home of the brave, my ass. Bunch of cowards lined up behind a coward and a bunch of Christian fanatics trying to bring Armageddon on cause they've been told that Mickey and the gang are put there by God. Handed the nation over Bin Laden and the terraists a long time ago. "They wanna kill us all." Inless we go shopping, of course. Shop till you drop, but my guess is y'all won't wear a uniform and actually go fight. Of course, there are those lucrative positions with KBR & Halliburton in which you can always make megabucks in and retire after a year.
LaPera: SO F*CK YOU CHARLIE RANGEL! Yes, Bush with his war mongering, killer of the poor and his imperialism certainly is the "devil"...But, we all knew this! Viva Chavez! Bravo!!
El Zopilote: What is U.S. Congressman Charles Rangél doing? Is he betraying the Democratic Party? He's bashing Hugo Chavez and defending Bush. It is very disturbing and alarming to see a Democrat, especially a monority, to critize an international Hispanic leader and ally by expressing sympathy for Bush and his racist Republicans. Has Mr. Rangél gone loco? Has he turned into a rogue Democrat? Is he a traitor? Hopefully Mr. Rangél has an ulterior motive. But as Democrats we must be careful not to create the slightest impression that our strong united coalition has a crack in it. I consider all minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics of course, Muslims, American Indians and all to be my brothers in the cause of solidarity). We must remain united. Solidarity is the key to victory. We do not need dissent.
Over at the Daily Kos, in a recommended diary, Bob Johnson suggests that Democrats, "Walk Out Of The Capitol."
"It's time to shut down the government.
Torture.
The gutting of habeus corpus.
And now this.
An attack on Iran.
These people are lunatics. Insane, fascist, psychotic, psychopathic, sociopathic lunatics.
Our Democratic leaders must throw political calculation ito the wind. The future of our Republic is at stake. We must shut down the government.
...This madness must be stopped.
And to my fellow community members: Will you stand up and be counted? Can we protest in massive numbers? Can we shut down the Capitol and our major metros? Can we say to these lunatics, "Enough is enough?"
It's time. Shut it all down and make them do what they must do if they want to proceed: Overturn democracy.
At least we'll know where we stand."
Yeah! Yeah! That'll show the Republicans and...hold on a second. The Democrats will walk out of Congress, they'll, "shut down the Capitol and our major metros," and, uh, what happens then?
It's like a business plan made by the Underpants Gnomes in South Park:
Step 1: We shut down the government!
Step 2: ?????????????
Step 3: The Republicans have to, "Overturn democracy," or...what exactly?
All I can say is, if you wackos are out in the streets protesting, make sure to bring lots of giant puppet heads and wacky signs. After all, that's what made all your previous protest marches into such big successes...oh, wait...none of them actually accomplished anything, did they?
PS: What does it say about the Daily Kos, the most popular liberal blog on the planet, if this sort of drivel is actually a recommended diary?
The Pear Growers Are Complaining, So We Must Be Doing Something Right On Illegal Immigration
The New York Times has written a sob story about pear growers in California who suffered losses this year because they relied on illegal aliens who turned out to be in short supply this growing season:
"Stepped-up border enforcement kept many illegal Mexican migrant workers out of California this year, farmers and labor contractors said, putting new strains on the state’s shrinking seasonal farm labor force.
Labor shortages have also been reported by apple growers in Washington and upstate New York. Growers have gone from frustrated to furious with Congress, which has all but given up on passing legislation this year to create an agricultural guest-worker program.
...California farms employ at least 450,000 people at the peak of the harvest, with farm workers progressing from one crop to the next, stringing together as much as seven months of work. Growers estimate the state fell short this harvest season by 70,000 workers. Joe Bautista, a labor contractor from Stockton who brings crews to Lake County, said about one-third of his regular workers stayed home in Mexico this year, while others were caught by the Border Patrol trying to enter the United States.
With fewer workers, Mr. Bautista fell behind in harvests near Sacramento and arrived weeks late in Lake County. “There was a lot of pressure on the contractors,” he said. “But there is only so much we can do. There wasn’t enough labor.”
...As they sum up this season’s losses, estimated to be at least $10 million for California pear farmers alone, growers in the state mainly blame Republican lawmakers in Washington for stalling immigration legislation that would have addressed the shortage by authorizing a guest-worker program for agriculture. Many growers, a dependably Republican group, said they felt betrayed.
“After a while, you get done being sad and start being really angry,” said Toni Scully, a lifelong Republican whose family owns a pear-packing operation in Lake County. “The Republicans have given us a lot of lip service, and our crops are hanging on the trees rotting.”
Tons more pears that were harvested were rejected by Mrs. Scully’s packing plant because they were picked too late. The rejects were dumped in a farm lot, mounds of pungent fruit swarming with bees, left to be eaten by deer. “The anthem about the fruited plain,” Mrs. Scully said sadly, “I don’t think this is what they had in mind.”
Some economists and advocates for farm workers say the labor shortages would ease if farmers would pay more. Lake County growers said that pickers’ pay was not low — up to $150 a day — and that they had been ready to pay even more to save their crops. “I would have raised my wages,” said Steve Winant, a pear grower whose 14-acre orchard is still laden with overripe fruit. “But there weren’t any people to pay.”
First of all, if you can't bring in your crops without illegal aliens, your business is a criminal enterprise and you should either go straight or go out of business. In fact, I'm glad to hear that these businesses lost money for lack of illegal aliens. In my book, if you've been fattening your profits by willfully disregarding the law, then you're getting your just desserts if you lose money when your source of illicit income dries up.
Next, has there ever been a more deceitful statement than, "I would have raised my wages, but there weren’t any people to pay?" That's not how the world works. If you raise your wages and benefits enough, you can get workers who will show up to do the work.
Last but not least, here's a question this Times article doesn't answer: isn't it entirely possible that there are a lot of growers out there, ones that have tried to obey the law, that are benefitting immensely from their competitors having an illegal worker shortage?
Obviously, the ones that are complaining now are the people who have hired a lot of illegals. But, if you ran a business and didn't hire illegals, wouldn't you be thrilled to find out that your competitors, who have always had a leg up on you before, were finally starting to pay a price for breaking the law? If you're an honest pear grower, aren't you sitting around thinking, "I hope that Toni Scully loses his shirt. Serves him right for relying on illegal alien labor to pick his crops?"
If we cut off the flow of illegal aliens, all the growers will be able to compete on an even field and they will all do what it takes to get their crops picked. Maybe they'll raise pay and benefits to hire more workers. Maybe they'll improve their technology. Maybe some of the less efficient pear growers will sell out to more competent competitors who will be able to turn a profit by managing larger operations. It will work itself out. So, we should ignore the howls of these crooked pear barrons, cut off the flow of illegal aliens, and just trust that the labor market will correct itself.
Excerpt Of The Day: The Real Size Of The National Debt
"Ask a congressman what the national debt is, and he will say $8.5 trillion. That’s a lot of money, but it completely ignores our two largest and most important government programs, Social Security and Medicare. If you include the promises made by those programs to workers who are already paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, the national debt jumps to $46 trillion.
So which number is correct? Do we face a mountain, or a Mount Everest, of debt? If you believe that Congress was just kidding about your retirement or health care benefits, we owe $8.3 trillion. If you think America is serious, the total is $46 trillion.
If you look closely at the annual letter you receive from the Social Security Administration, you will see that the benefits you’ve been buying with your payroll taxes are only “scheduled.” That’s a fancy word for maybe. The federal government can revoke them at will, according to the 1960 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Fleming v. Nestor." -- Jim Cooper
Here's a short excerpt from Ann Coulter's latest column from Human Events this week, which was the version that I read and linked before today:
"McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner -- or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" -- want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture."
Now, here's the same part of Coulter's column from Townhall:
"McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner -- or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" ("f*g-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days) -- want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame."
The reason you didn't see that line in the Human Events column is because Robert Bluey edited it out. He told me that he cut it because, "That's not a word we use in Human Events."
You know what? Coulter should hire Bluey or someone like him to edit all of her columns because lines like, ("f*g-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days), do nothing but hurt her career. That line isn't funny. It's not making some larger point like her comments about the Jersey Girls, which started a big, much needed debate. It's nothing but an unnecessarily mean and inflammatory non sequitur that does nothing but detract from her column.
Coulter is a brilliant writer who managed to cross the line over and over and over again, and not only has she managed to get by without paying much of a price for it, it has helped her career. But, Coulter is already famous and already at the top of her profession. She doesn't need these exceedingly nasty little jabs to gain attention any more -- and unfortunately, if she keeps spewing them out, it's going to cause her career, eventually, to die a death of a thousand cuts and crater -- that is, if Coulter doesn't self-immolate in one big, highly offensive outburst first.
Either way, it would be a real shame because Coulter has too much talent to waste.
Here's an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal editorial that points out how utterly and completely the United Nations has failed in dealing with Iran:
"Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put on quite a show at the United Nations this week, and it's tempting to dismiss it all as mere bombast. Except that their assertiveness can't be separated from the more important U.N. story this week, which is its continuing failure to come to grips with Iran's open defiance of the Security Council's demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.
At issue is whether the U.N. can have any role in enforcing collective security--and the mystery is why the very nations that say the U.N. must do so are doing the most to undermine it. Consider the behavior of Russia, France and China--all veto-wielding members of the Security Council--in squaring up to the Iranian threat.
In July, the Council adopted Resolution 1696, which noted "with serious concern that . . . Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Governors." The Council went on to express "its intention . . . to adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution." Article 41 refers to all legally binding measures short of war--sanctions, that is--to bring states into compliance with U.N. resolutions. The Resolution said Iran must cease enriching uranium by August 31, a deadline Tehran has openly flouted.
So, serious consequences? Not quite. Chinese Middle East envoy Sun Bigan has rejected sanctions on Iran as "detrimental not only to the region but also to ourselves"--the latter a reference to China's oil imports from Iran, up 56% from last year. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov--who is selling Iran a $700 million air-defense system--also says sanctions won't work. That sentiment was echoed earlier this week by France's Jacques Chirac, whom the Bush Administration has claimed is a stalwart ally in stopping Iran. "I am never favorable to sanctions," said the French President, adding that, if they are unavoidable, they should be "moderate and adapted."
In other words, it has taken less than a month for the deadline set by Resolution 1696 to prove to be absolutely meaningless, something Mr. Ahmadinejad predicted in April. Why then would the Permanent Five risk their credibility as an institution by setting a deadline in the first place? Why threaten sanctions if they have no intention of imposing them?
The answer may be that U.N. diplomacy has come to serve as a deterrent not against Iran but against any American effort to do anything about Iran's rush to acquire the bomb."
Do you know what is so ironic about this situation? Because the UN is hopelessly incompetent and our European allies are so feckless, it makes a conflict between the US and Iran much more likely.
If we were actually getting a lot of cooperation on sanctions and the attitude was, "We support a US bombing run on Iran, if that's what it takes to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," this would probably never develop into a military conflict.
But, this international weakness gives the Iranians false hope in exactly the same way that it gave false hope to Saddam. The reality is that the United States doesn't need the help or permission of the United Nations or Western Europe to bomb Iran and if need be, we will go it alone.
There is absolutely no way that we're going to knowingly sit back and allow a nation run by unbalanced, terrorist supporting, genocidal Islamo-Fascists to acquire the bomb and set off a Middle-Eastern arms race that will undoubtedly lead to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq -- at a minimum -- all acquiring nuclear weapons as well.
Keep in mind that George Bush does not need the permission of Congress to bomb Iran and since we wouldn't be sending in ground troops, it's highly likely that the American people will strongly support a military attack. In fact, all it will take to build up 70% support for bombing Iran would be playing translated clips of Ahmadinejad talking like a lunatic and asking, "Do you really want this homicidal lunatic to have a nuclear bomb?"
Bombing Iran? That's what is probably going to happen at some point down the road -- and Western Europe and the UN deserve a lot of blame for making that outcome more likely.
A Teleconference With Roy Blunt, Dan Lungren, & Ed Royce On Illegal Immigration
Earlier today, I got in on a teleconference with Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Congressman Dan Lungren and Congressman Ed Royce in order to talk about illegal immigration.
Here are some of my notes from the discussion (These are not quotes):
My question to Roy Blunt: Mr. Blunt, can we get a commitment from you that when the GOP holds the House, that the Party will continue to stand strong on illegal immigration after the election? In other words, when the pressure's off, can GOP voters count on Republicans in the House to continue to insist on getting all the enforcement measures in place before we start seriously considering the comprehensive parts of the Senate Bill?
Roy Blunt: Yes, you can. I think House members have become more convinced that we're right over the last few months. Securing the border has to come first and I think it's critically important that we continue along the same course after the election.
Question: We had heard immigration reform was dead for the year. How did everyone get it wrong?
Roy Blunt: This was our plan all along. We said we were going to have hearings, evaluate the results, and act. I think the Mainstream Media didn't believe we were taking the issue seriously.
Also, the Senate put a bad bill out there and it helped draw attention to the good parts of our bill. Plus, we have done a few things. The end of catch and release, which is coming, is a big deal.
Question: Pence and Hutchinson have introduced a plan. Have you taken a position and where do you stand?
Roy Blunt: We haven't taken an official stand, but illegals shouldn't be able to become citizens. Nor should they be able to just go across the border, touch base and come back. They should have to go back home, get in line like everybody else, and apply from there.
Question: Is the Senate going to kill all the good things that the House is doing?
Roy Blunt: I do think that many of the Senators who voted for the Senate bill have got to be wondering why they voted to support it at this point. Still, we do have trouble with the Senate on this issue.
Also, we have taken some steps to secure the border -- almost $22 billion worth of new money spent on the border -- about the same amount next year. It is producing some results. We just spent $5 billion more on technology on the border and there are people building the fence. Unfortunately, the border has been neglected for a long time and we're trying to play catch up.
At this point, Roy Blunt had to go and Dan Lungren & Ed Royce took over.
Dan Lundgren's Basic Statement: The American people sensed that Congress didn't follow-through on the commitments from the Reagan Amnesty and they were right. War, spending, and immigration were the big 3 issues that we kept hearing from constituents. We do need to do something about temporary workers and illegals that are here, although they shouldn't be able to become citizens. But, security has to come first.
Ed Royce's Basic Statement: Border security has become national security. The Senate plan is like the Reagan Amnesty plan that didn't work. The Senate plan would weaken border security. House Republicans stuck to principle on the border security approach. The bloggers and rank and file deserve credit for pushing so hard to make this a big issue. Support for tough border security measures is so strong that even the Senate has started to come around.
My Question: When will the border fence be completed?
Answer: We will be working at various points across the border, but we will have enormous opposition from the left. The fence in San Diego took an act of Congress to complete. We certainly don't want to consult with Mexico, as the Senate requests. That won't be in the bill Senator Frist is bringing up. (Hawkins' Note: Translation -- it's going to take years and years and years.)
Question: Why do you think that turned into such a big issue?
Answer: If the Capitol were located in Long Beach, CA, we would have solved it already because Congress would have realized how important it was earlier. It used to be a border district issue, but it's a national issue now. Immigration is one of the top 2 issues in races all over the country. Anyone who doesn't deal with immigration in a way that people find acceptable probably isn't going to win at the ballot box this fall.
Summary: Overall, I liked what I heard. They sounded absolutely convinced that an enforcement first position was a right way to go, they seemed to have a good handle on how important this issue is to the base, and Blunt, who is a member of the House leadership, said with no wiggle room whatsoever, that they are not going to roll over after the election and just go along with what the Senate and President wants on illegal immigration. In other words, it's going to be the House way or the highway, which is exactly the attitude they should have on this issue.
"An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans...'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'..." -- Charles Rangel
"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug. Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations. He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela." -- Nancy Pelosi
Two things.
First of all, here's a little applause for Rangel and Pelosi. No...really. It's great to see them doing the right thing. Now, would they have said what they said if an election wasn't right around the corner? That's highly doubtful. But, whether it's in the run-up to an election or not, if you do a good thing, you deserve some credit for it.
Number Two, let me say a word about the author that Hugo Chavez was pimping at the United Nations, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is the king of the America haters and you can boil just about everything he has ever written down to, "America is responsible for almost every bad thing that happens in the world."
Which brings up an important point: many of the people around the world who hate Americans and Bush have learned their hatred from members of the American left -- like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Howard Dean.
Does that mean that lefties shouldn't criticize Bush or America? Absolutely not. But, they should really think about what the ramifications of some of their more outrageous hyperbole may be. Bush is Hitler, it's a war for oil, we're occupiers, Bush supports torture, Republicans want to turn America into a theocracy, the Bush Administration is behind 9/11, etc., etc., etc.
Most Americans, even a lot of the liberals who are saying those things know that it's all rabid rhetoric with no basis of reality. But, do the people in Venezuela? Iran? Iraq? Cuba? People complain that Bush has undercut our popularity in the world. However, there is nothing Bush has done or will ever do that could be half as damaging to our reputation as the rest of the world simply taking at face value what liberals say on a day in and day out basis about Bush and America.
So again, it's great that Pelosi and Rangel ripped Chavez for what he said. But, more responsible liberals should be willing to stand up and confront other liberals who go over the line, in order to cut this sort of rhetoric off at its real source.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy."
When we started the whole 15 day challenge, I figured it wouldn't be all that hard to pull in 100 contributions for each of our 21 candidates. However, we got off to a really slow start and something that normally is a big positive, a high dollar per contribution average, really worked against us.
By the time we made it halfway through the challenge, I realized that we were in deep trouble. At that point, I figured we were on pace to raise about $20,000 to $25,000 and miss our donation goals by a mile. I mean, come on, we had some candidates who were barely out of single digits on their contributions.
However, Lorie Byrd had a brilliant idea: we'd do a blog burst and invite people all across the blogosphere to link to Righroots on Friday of last week. Well, the blogburst, along with a fantastic column by Mary Katharine Ham, worked. The donations started rolling in on Friday and kept going through the week-end. Things did slow up for a few hours on Monday, but, as we got closer to our goals, the challenge took on a momentum of its own. With the clock ticking down, people wanted to step up and help us succeed.
Well, guess what? It worked. All of our candidates hit their donation goals:
Peter Roskam (IL-06): 119
Mike McGavick (Washington): 120
Ralph Norman (SC-05): 122
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17): 124
Thomas Kean (New Jersey): 133
Michele Bachmann (MN-06): 127
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota): 145
Van Taylor (TX-17): 146
Mike Bouchard: (Michigan): 152
David McSweeney (IL-08): 154
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07): 159
Ray Meier (NY-24): 160
Scott Tipton (CO-3): 160
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03): 163
Chris Wakim (WV-01): 163
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6): 166
Max Burns (GA-12): 166
John Gard (WI-08): 169
Mike Whalen (IA-01): 170
Michael Steele (Maryland): 186
Diana Irey (PA-12): 205
Moreover, in the process we raised a nice chunk of change. The official count that ABC PAC gave us for the moment we started the challenge was $50,250.12. As of this moment, we have raised $112,618.46. So, we raised more than $62,000 during the challenge and, because of our success, the RNC has agreed to send out a promotional email on our behalf to their mailing list, which consists of millions of Republican voters. Furthermore, our totals don't include the $14,000 that Jack Kingston's PAC has given to our candidates for meeting a previous challenge.
Consider that 10 weeks ago, Rightroots wasn't even an idea in my head yet. Nine weeks ago, we had our first meeting via email. Seven weeks ago, we went public.
In that short period of time, we've raised 6 figures for our candidates, been endorsed by the Senate Majority leader and the RNC, and we've shattered the conventional wisdom, which has always been that right-of-center bloggers can't raise money. That's not bad for a grassroots effort put together on the fly by a bunch of bloggers -- and, it's worth noting that we're not done yet (Feel free to help us keep up the momentum by donating here).
Now, I'd like to take a moment to thank some of the people responsible for helping us meet this challenge.
First and foremost, thanks to everyone who chipped in. Without the people who dug deep and contributed, we obviously couldn't have made it.
Also, thanks to all the bloggers who've been running blogads and linking Rightroots. By the next election cycle, ABC PAC should be far enough along so that every blog can select its own candidates to promote. But, since that wasn't possible this time around, it has been great to have so many bloggers supporting the Rightroots slate.
Speaking of ABC PAC, thanks for doing such a great job of handling the money and working with us. It would have been easy for ABC PAC to sit this election out, find some donors, and debut with a website that had every bell and whistle on it for the next cycle. But, because they decided to step up this time, it made this whole effort possible.
Of course, the other members of the Rightroots group, Mary Katherine Ham from Townhall, Robert Bluey from Human Events, Erick Erickson from Redstate, Ed Morrissey from Captain's Quarters, Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits, and Lorie Byrd from Wizbang have all played a big role in getting this effort off to a successful start. They've promoted Rightroots on their blogs, came up with great ideas, and they each have done a lot of grunt work that no one will ever hear about to make it work.
Also, special thanks goes out to Bill Frist and VOLPAC, John McCain and Straight Talk America, as well as the RNC for their support during the challenge.
Granted, we still have more work to do on the fund raising front. Also, admittedly, we haven't been as successful as the liberal bloggers at raising cash yet (although it is worth noting that they had only accomplished a tiny fraction of what we've done so far when they were only 7 weeks along). But still, it's great to take a moment after a push like this to stop and appreciate what has been accomplished so far. From small acorns like this, mighty oaks will eventually grow in future election cycles.
My Favorite 30 Opinion Columnists For The 3rd Quarter Of 2006
It has been a while since I last ranked the best opinion columnists in the business, so I figured it was time to do it again. Here are my current faves in order...
The Most Competitive Senate Races For 2006 (4th Edition)
It's time to reevaluate the Senate races again, although it's still early and these rankings will change between now and the election. The higher the rating is, the greater the chance is that the seat might change parties.
Dark Horse Races: (These are real long shot races)
15) Bernie Sanders* (I) vs. Richard Tarrant (R)
14) Jon Kyl* (R) vs. Jim Pederson (D)
Competitive: (The challengers are behind, but within striking distance.)
13) Maria Cantwell* (D) vs. Mike McGavick (R)
12) Mark Kennedy (R) vs. Amy Klobuchar (D) (Dem Seat)
11) Debbie Stabenow* (D) vs. Mike Bouchard (R)
10) George Allen* (R) vs. James Webb (D)
Dogfights: (If election were today, it would be a coin flip.)
9) Bob Corker (R) vs. Harold Ford (D) (Rep Seat)
8) Michael Steele (R.) vs. Ben Cardin (D.) (Dem Seat)
7) Jim Talent* (R) vs. Claire McCaskill (D)
6) Lincoln Chafee* (R) vs. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Danger Zone: (If the election were today, there would be a take-over.)
5) Robert Menendez* (D) vs. Tom Kean (R)
4) Joe Lieberman* (I) vs. Ned Lamont (D) vs. Alan Schlesinger (R)
3) Rick Santorum* (R) vs. Bob Casey (D)
2) Mike DeWine* (R) vs. Sherrod Brown (D)
1) Conrad Burns* (R) vs. John Tester (D)
PS #1: Incumbents are marked with an asterisk.
PS #2: Lieberman's seat would flip if he won, since he is running as an independent.
"Velasco Elementary School’s principal said he has been taken aback by a controversy that has arisen from his campus’ Mexican Independence Day celebration, and he apologizes for offending parents.
During a short school assembly Friday, several parent volunteers read a pledge of allegiance to the Mexican flag. Since a parent complained on the Chris Baker show on NewsRadio 740 KTRH that afternoon, the issue has become a focal point of some Houston talk radio shows.
...At about 10 a.m. Friday, students and parents gathered in the gym for an assembly commemorating Diez y Seis de Septiembre, Sept. 16, when Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain. The school’s bilingual classes from different grade levels performed songs, Williams said.Everyone was given a small Mexican flag and a group of six or seven parents recited the pledge from a script, Williams said. The students did not recite it, he said.
“My students don’t even know the Mexican pledge,” Williams said. “In the minds of my little kids here at the elementary school ... they were simply holding a flag.”
He said the audience did stand as a sign of respect because that is the custom with which students are familiar.
“What we normally do is we stand for any pledge that’s given,” he said. “They can only relate to the U.S. pledge and the Texas pledge.”
This seems so obvious that it shouldn't have to be said, but apparently some people need to be reminded that this isn't Mexico.
Let me repeat that: this is not Mexico.
Sept. 16th isn't a holiday here and quite frankly, the fact that Mexico became independent from Spain on that date shouldn't be a cause for celebration for any American student. Moreover, American children shouldn't be asked to hold a foreign flag, nor should the recitation of a pledge of allegiance to a foreign power be part of an event at a school.
We certainly shouldn't expect Mexican school children to celebrate the 4th of July and similarly, no American school children should be attending a "Mexican Independence Day celebration," at an elementary school.
"His plans for raising taxes on American families and small businesses: “Democratic Representative Charles Rangel vowed to reach out to Republicans if his party wins control of the House in November, while acknowledging that they may find his plans for changing tax policy unpalatable.
“Rangel’s accession to the chairmanship of the committee would likely end six years of tax cuts by the Republican- controlled Congress. He said he ‘cannot think of one’ of President George W. Bush’s first-term tax cuts that merit renewal.”
None of them merit renewal, but just yesterday we read this report: US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion.
Earlier we read that the growing receipts are doing real damage to the deficit.
Kathryn lists just some of the tax cuts Rangel does not think worthwhile.
See, this is one of the reasons I HAD to leave the Democrats. There is a disconnect, a fundamental refusal to engage in reality; to look at a thing and say, “gee…maybe we should rethink our old taxing habits,” seems not to be in their make-up. Unemployment is incredibly low - lower than it was in the “full employment” 1990’s. Tax receipts are incredibly high. But tax cuts are bad.
That’s right up there with the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle, whereby “strong, feminist women” were suddenly delicate shrinking violets unable to endure a ribald joke. Sexual harrassment - a serious issue - got defined downward for political expedience and suddenly the same women who had declared themselves “sexually emancipated” were cowering at a man’s appreciative glance at their legs, or a risque joke…that is, until Bill Clinton got into office and then, suddenly, we were told “boys will be boys” and “some guys have to be allowed one free grope…” or, you know…a woman complaining about sexual harrassment was “what you find when you run a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.”
The inconsistancy, intellectual dishonesty and politically expedient double standards and rationalizations are breathtaking. I may not be a Republican much longer…but sometimes I wonder if I will ever be able to vote for a Democrat again.
This content was used with the permission of The Anchoress.
Oh, what a lame little puff piece the people at Newsweek have written about psychopathic holocaust denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here's a little sample:
"A day after slamming the Bush administration for its Middle East policies in an address to the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this morning told a group of international affairs specialists and a handful of journalists that Iran seeks dialogue with the United States on nuclear and other contentious issues.
In what might be construed as a charm offensive–at least an effort to lay out a less confrontational tone before Americans–Ahmadinejad asked, "Can't we just be friends?" He added, "We are in favor of dialogue … but under fair conditions."
The Iranian president called as well for more society-to-society exchanges, including by scientists and policy specialists.
"We are ready for it," he said. At another point, he declared that "America can be a friend of Iran. Why are you an enemy?"
...Ahmadinejad again used today's session to argue that Iran sought nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes, not for bombs, which he said are forbidden by Islamic teachings. He called the U.S. preoccupation with Iran's nuclear program, which was concealed for 18 years, "a political excuse" to try to deny Iran access to nuclear energy.
"Nuclear weapons are only for killing; it's quite simple," he said.
....Ahmadinejad, who this spring sent a broad-ranging, 21-page letter to Bush touching on religious and foreign policy themes, said he never received an American response but that his proposals–U.S. officials contend there was little of a specific nature in the missive–remained "on the table." He reiterated his challenge to Bush to a debate at the U.N. The two leaders did not encounter each other during their respective New York meetings."
Gosh, why is George Bush so mean to this moderate, genial man who only wants to reach out to the United States so he can be our friend? Gee, maybe it's because when he's not putting on a happy face for his meetings with the US press, he's saying things like:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism"
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
This guy is a maniacal, genocidal dictator, a Muslim Mussolini -- and he's the President of a nation that's pursuing nuclear weapons. Is it too much to ask that Newsweek actually communicate that fact to their readers instead of whitewashing his record?
I played a few times when I was a teenager, but I wasn't THAT into it and I had a couple of rotten experiences with the game.
In one of the first rounds of golf that I ever played, I had no idea what I was doing -- and I carried one of those big, heavy golf bags, full to the brim with clubs, all the way around the course for 18 holes. Oddly enough, although it didn't break the skin, the area where the strap rubbed up against my shoulder left a permanent scar that I have to this day.
Then, after that, I was out playing golf with a group of friends. All of us were new to the game and so, we didn't know any better than to walk 60 yards or so up the course after we hit our balls, but BEFORE the last one of us teed off. We figured that we were way off to the side, so what could happen?
Well, the guy teeing off hit a screaming slice that never went more than a few inches off the ground and unfortunately, it went right into my shin. At that point, I dropped like a paralyzed falcon and reeled off a string of obscenities that probably killed the grass for 10 yards in every direction.
After that, I was done with golf.
But, now I live on the coast of North Carolina and there are golf courses everywhere. Plus, not so long ago, I finished up Vince Lombardi's autobiography and it talked about how he liked to play golf on the week-ends to relax. Besides, I think there's some sort of rule that says Republicans over 35 are required to play golf (It's right before the rule that says we have to move down to Florida when we reach 70).
Put it all together and I've decided to start playing golf again.
So, towards that end, I headed out to a local driving range today to hit a few balls and see how it feels. On the upside, it felt fine. On the downside, I was so awful, that I'm sure Jack Nicklaus would be spinning in his grave if he had seen me play. Now, you may be thinking, "Wait a second, Jack Nicklaus isn't dead." True, but had he seen how terrible I was and what I had done to his beloved game, he would have keeled over from shame on the spot; then after he was buried, he would have rolled over.
Still, I'm going to soldier on. So, if you have any advice on how to play or can point me towards some great golf pages that'll give me some pointers, I'd appreciate it.
The Rightroots 15 days Challenge -- 8 1/2 Hours To Go
We have some enormous news:
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Announces Rightroots Challenge
See below. The Chairman just sent this e-mail setting out the biggest Rightroots challenge yet. If Rightroots meets its September goal to support each of its 21 candidates by midnight tonight, Chairman Mehlman will send an e-mail to the RNC's entire list of millions of activists asking them to support the Rightroots candidates.
Rightroots is a great example of how blogger-based activism will help us keep the majority in the House and Senate. The RNC is proud to support this effort.
Folks, this is enormous. Those millions of email addresses? I don't know how much money that will actually translate into for our candidates, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was in the $50,000 to $100,000 range.
If we hit this challenge tonight, the RNC email we'll bring in as a result will absolutely guarantee that the whole Rightroots project will be a huge success. So, go over to the Rightroots page, chip in a small amount to every candidate below 100 donations, and help us secure that RNC email.
Mike Whalen (IA-01): 89
Chris Wakim (WV-01): 90
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07): 91
Scott Tipton (CO-3): 91
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03): 93
Max Burns (GA-12): 96
David McSweeney (IL-08): 96
John Gard (WI-08): 97
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6): 98
Ray Meier (NY-24): 98
Mike McGavick (Washington): 100
Peter Roskam (IL-06): 102
Ralph Norman (SC-05): 106
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17): 107
Michele Bachmann (MN-06): 111
Thomas Kean (New Jersey): 124
Van Taylor (TX-17): 125
Mike Bouchard: (Michigan): 134
Michael Steele (Maryland): 170
Diana Irey (PA-12): 175
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota): 192
PS #1: This is an extremely smart move for the RNC. They're reaching out to the blogosphere, supporting a successful grassroots project, and they're helping insure that the first big blogosphere fund raising project is a big success, even as they raise more money for Republican candidates. So this is a very smart decision by the RNC -- and I'd be saying that even if I hadn't found the Rightroots project.
You can contribute to the Rightroots candidates here.
The Democratic Party Plan -- Operation Infinite Weakness
With the elections coming up in November, it's important for the American people to take a hard look at how both political parties intend to handle the war on terrorism. Republicans believe in winning the war in Iraq, aggressively pursuing terrorists far from our shores, and using our intelligence assets to prevent another attack.
On the other hand, the Democrats have no strategy at all. Of course, they would deny that, but undercutting every effort to fight terrorism and then planning to blame any terrorist attacks that happen as a result on George Bush isn't a strategy.
Sadly, you have to go all the way back to their vote for the war in Afghanistan, way back in 2001, to find the Democratic Party making themselves of use in the War on Terror...well, wait, that's not exactly true. The Democratic Party has, in an act of unparalleled moral courage akin to coming out against child molestation, endorsed capturing Osama Bin Laden. Clap. Clap. Clap. Great job, guys.
Aside from those two meager contributions to the war on terror, the majority of Democrats in Washington have been nothing but a hindrance to Republicans who want to stop another 9/11 from occurring on American soil.
What's that, you say? Democrats want to stop terrorism from occurring, too? That's fantastic, but what have they actually done about it? From where most Americans are sitting, Democrats seem to oppose terrorism about the way that they oppose abortion. They may say that they want abortion to be safe, rare, and legal, but in practice, they oppose any and every policy that might actually cut into the number of abortions. When it comes to terrorism, they say that they're serious about fighting it, but they oppose almost every policy that might actually make it easier for us to kill the terrorists or prevent them from murdering Americans.
They want to close Gitmo, kill the Patriot Act, oppose putting a wall at the border, don't want to use data mining to track the terrorists, protest tapping calls to international terrorists, want to give classified information to terrorists on trial, think we shouldn't use mild techniques like sleep deprivation while interrogating Al-Qaeda members, and they want to cut and run in Iraq.
In fact, they've become so hostile to fighting the war on terrorism that they actually knocked off Joe Lieberman, the only credible Democrat in the Senate on national security issues, in the Connecticut primary. They might as well just change their mascot from a donkey to a neutered French Poodle that's rolled over on his back exposing his throat.
It's almost impossible to overstate how bad the Democratic Party is on national security issues. In fact, if the entire Democratic Party in Congress were on Al-Qaeda's payroll, the only way you could tell the difference would be that the terrorist-controlled Senators would vote in favor of national security issues more often than Dems like Ted Kennedy so that people wouldn't figure out that they were ringers.
Now typically, the Democrats bitterly complain that people are calling them unpatriotic when it's pointed out that they're supporting policies that help America's enemies and make it more likely that Americans are going to die. But, their problem isn't patriotism, it's priorities. As a general rule, they hate Bush more than they hate the terrorists, they put politics above national security, and they're more concerned about "world opinion" than they are about protecting America.
Quite frankly, that is an unforgivable flaw in a political party. Paraphrasing something that
HREF="http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/thatcher.php" TARGET="_blank">Denis Healey once said, if "our security is imperiled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders." So, saying that the Democrats are a fine party except that they're weak on national defense is like saying that you have a great car, but it explodes in a cataclysmic fireball if it goes over 55 MPH.
It's tragic to see that the party of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson has turned into the party of John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, and Howard Dean, but it's the dangerous reality that Americans have to live with. A vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for going back to the failed pre-9/11 policies of Bill Clinton that left America wide open to terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, what the Democratic Party seems unable or unwilling to comprehend is that just because they're tired of the war on terrorism, doesn't mean that they can just call the whole thing off. Either we can have a party in office that believes in fighting against terrorism or we can have a party of ostriches, who want to bury their heads in the sand. But, either way, the terrorists are going to keep relentlessly trying to rack up a huge American bodycount. Since that’s the case and we’re still in danger, we’re better off saying, "Thank God the Republicans are in charge," instead of, "Oh my God, the Democrats are in charge."
From the comments section of the latest Rightroots post
"Nothing on Rightroots (but good luck on that). Just want to say, heavy props on advertising Sam Harris's book on your site; these days, that kind of thing takes guts. And if there's one thing morally/intellectually destroying this nation/the world, it's organized religion. No question of that.
You rarely see even liberal sites advertise a book like Sam Harris's, for fear of (Heaven forfend!) offending Christians, Jews, etc. I know that more than a few Christians and Jews visit your site, so again, props on the courage to fly that banner...because I truly believe that if you get rid of the religious madness, you get rid of the world's madness, and open doors to true peace.
Now, first of all, although Right Wing News is a great place to advertise, I'm not exactly sure that they decided to run an ad for that particular book on RWN.
After all, I'm a conservative Southern Baptist, who doesn't believe in evolution, and I run a blog friendly to social conservatives that I assume has an audience that is probably 90+% Christian. So, advertising a book like, "Letter To A Christian Nation," on RWN would be sort of like Joe Lieberman trying to sell a book on the Daily Kos.
That being said, I'm also a capitalist who generally doesn't mind running ads featuring people or products that I don't agree with. Still, sometimes there's a very thin line between what ads I run and what ads get rejected.
Running an ad for the UN? It was a tough call. An ad for a 9/11 conspiracy group? It was a tough call. This ad? it was a tough call...and yes, sometimes I do turn ads down. I've actually rejected a couple of websites that wanted to advertise because they were racist, one website because it was homophobic, and an ad for a book because it was promoting bizarro world conspiracy theories about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Long story short: Even though this book really isn't my cup of tea and I have some reservations about it, I'm willing to run an ad for it. Maybe that's a mistake, maybe not, but it's in keeping with how I've traditionally handled advertisers....
PS: Also, I donated 10% of the money I made from running the ad to the Salvation Army because I thought it would be deliciously ironic to give money earned from advertising a book like that to a Christian organization that can put it to good use.
You May Want To Sit Down Because I Am About To Compliment A Member Of The MSM
As a general rule, if the mainstream media is discussed on RWN, they're being beaten like a bongo drum at.....ehr, somewhere they hit bongo drums a lot. But, for once, let me single out an article for praise. It's a piece by James Healy at USA Today. Here's the key excerpt:
"A hefty 42% of Americans polled over the weekend said they think fuel prices are being manipulated by the Bush administration to help Republicans in an election year. The USA TODAY/Gallup Poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Petroleum analysts say the reasons are less Machiavellian: Supplies are above average, partly because summer's high prices attracted record imports. Hurricanes haven't knocked out Gulf of Mexico production. U.S. regulations permit a cheaper-to-make fuel blend in fall and winter.
Without a shadow of a doubt, there is not any manipulation, and it has nothing to do with the approaching election, says Peter Beutel, head of energy-price consultant Cameron Hanover. The petroleum market is too big a market to manipulate. The price just … could not sustain itself."
Healy mentions that 42% of Americans incorrectly think that the Bush administration is somehow manipulating the price of gas, which obviously isn't correct.
Then note what Healy did here or more accurately, what he didn't do.
-- He didn't just leave the 42% number hanging out there.
-- He didn't grab a conspiracy kook to say, "Yeah man, Bush was like an oil man. So, he like knows how to deal with oil and stuff."
-- He didn't quote some partisan Democrat ripping Bush.
Instead, he just politely pointed out that the 42% of people who believe that are completely wrong and he offered up an expert that explained why.
Mike Whalen (IA-01): 75
Chris Wakim (WV-01): 76
Scott Tipton (CO-3): 77
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03): 80
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07): 80
Max Burns (GA-12): 83
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6): 84
John Gard (WI-08): 84
David McSweeney (IL-08): 86
Ray Meier (NY-24): 88
Peter Roskam (IL-06): 92
Ralph Norman (SC-05): 94
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17): 95
Mike McGavick (Washington): 100
Michele Bachmann (MN-06): 104
Thomas Kean (New Jersey): 112
Van Taylor (TX-17): 119
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota): 121
Mike Bouchard: (Michigan): 125
Michael Steele (Maryland): 152
Diana Irey (PA-12): 164
We're a little over 200 donations short, but we can still make it if people will give small donations to everyone under 100. Come on, there are only 13 of them left. We've raised a lot of money for the candidates, but let's make that donation goal!
So, can you contribute to the candidates under $100, even if it means giving a small donation to each one...please?
Thailand’s army commmander ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a military coup Tuesday night while the prime minister was in New York, circling his offices with tanks, declaring martial law and revoking the constitution. An announcement on national television signed by army Commander-in-Chief Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin ordered all troops to report to their duty stations.
As soldiers and armored vehicles moved through Bangkok, an announcement from the military earlier declared a provisional authority loyal to beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The announcement declared that a “Council of Administrative Reform” had seized power in Bangkok and nearby provinces without any resistance. It recognized the king as head of state.
Frankly, while there have been troubles in Thailand for years, they’ve largely passed off my radar screen. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the crisis which notes a series of “incidents” that have increased friction.
The origins of the crisis may be traced to the controversy surrounding Viroj Nualkhair, CEO of state-owned Krung Thai Bank (KTB). Viroj faced pressure to leave his position after KTB reported higher than expected levels of non-performing loans in 2004. Viroj was vigorously defended by Sondhi Limthongkul, a media tycoon who had previously been a staunch Thaksin supporter. As KTB CEO, Viroj had forgiven Sondhi’s personal debts by THB 1.6 billion and arranged for further rounds of debt forgiveness. When Viroj was forced out of his position, Sondhi’s public criticism of Thaksin started to increase.
The Sondhi-Thaksin conflict escalated when Sondhi’s Channel 11/1 was temporarily ordered to stop broadcasting due to a contract dispute between cable operator UBC and the government regulator.[2][3] Weekly attacks on Sondhi’s Muangthai Rai Sapda (Thailand Weekly) television show on Channel 9 started getting more public attention.
In September 2005, Sondhi reportedly made repeated disrespectful on-air references to King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Among these references was a claim that the government’s 2004 appointment of Somdet Phra Buddhacharya as acting Supreme Patriach in place of the critically ill Somdet Phra Yanasangworn contravened the prerogative of the King. According to Thai ecclesiastic law, the Supreme Patriarch is nominated by the Supreme Sangha Council and formally appointed by the King. Somdet Phra Phuthacharn’s appointment was vehemently opposed by Luang Ta Maha Bua, an influential monk with close affiliations to Sondhi (see Luang Ta Maha Bua’s opposition to Thaksin Shinawatra). After discussions with King’s principal private secretary, Arsa Sarasin, MCOT executives cancelled the program.
On 27 September 2005, Manager Daily published a sermon by Luang Ta Maha Bua, a popular but controversial monk. The sermon was extremely critical of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinwatra, and further controversial because it came from a monk (who are above criticism in Buddhist Thailand).
Subsequent incidents which escalated the crisis make little sense to me but I’ve got only passing familiarity with Thai culture and Buddhist religious traditions.
It’s strictly a coincidence that third-wave democratic governments in Hungary and Thailand are having a spot of trouble today. There does seem to be a loose commonality in the underlying sources of the instability, however.
[…]
In both countries, the formal electoral rules and laws seem incapable of dealing with shady behavior by duly elected officials.
BBC has an interesting backgrounder on this (to my sensibilities, at least) very odd crisis.
Thailand’s latest political crisis traces its roots back to January when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra sold his family’s stake in the telecoms firm Shin Corp. The move angered many, mainly urban Thais, who complained that the family avoided paying tax and had passed control of an important national asset to Singaporean investors. It led to mass protests and calls for the resignation of the prime minister, who was already under pressure over his handling of a Muslim insurgency in the south and his extensive control over the media.
In a bid to tackle the crisis, and to show he still had widespread public support despite regular massive street protests in Bangkok, Mr Thaksin dissolved parliament in February and called a snap election for April. Mr Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party won 57% of the vote in the April election, but millions of Thais cast protest votes and the opposition refused to take part.
After weeks of limbo, Thailand’s highly-revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej called the situation a “mess” and ordered the courts to sort it out. The election result was ruled invalid by the Constitutional Court and a new date was set for later this year.
Mr Thaksin took a seven-week break from politics following the election, but came back to work in May. And last month, he accused several military officers of plotting to assassinate him. His opponents accused him of fabricating a story to win him support in the forthcoming election and the atmosphere has remained tense ever since.
The Thai media has speculated about dissatisfaction towards Mr Thaksin within the military, which is traditionally very loyal to the king. There has also been talk of a split within some parts of the army, following an annual reshuffle which saw some officers with links to Mr Thaksin moved.
The rumours took on a new urgency last month when police intercepted a car driven by a military officer and carrying a large bomb, near the prime minister’s house.
It's the last day of the Rightroots 15 day challenge and unless we have a big burst, we're not going to make our 100 donation per candidate total. Do you want to help us meet our goal? Well, here's the best way to do it. Chip in small donations to the following candidates:
1) Michele Bachmann
2) Chuck Blasdel
3) Max Burns
4) John Gard
5) Jeff Lamberti
6) David McSweeney
7) Ray Meier
8) Ralph Norman
9) Rick O'Donnell
10) Peter Roskam
11) Scott Tipton
12) Chris Wakim
13) Mike Whalen
14) Andrea Lane Zinga
15) Mike McGavick
Come on, it's worth it if only to keep the right side of the blogosphere from having to listen to gloating from Kos, MyDD, and the rest of the left side of the blogosphere. We've already raised enough money to call this thing a success, we just need to hit our donation targets. Help us do it!
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: Christians? Yuck!
One of the things that the Democratic Party seems to perpetually be trying to do is reach out to religious Americans. Unfortunately, they usually don't have much luck because they treat religious people like robots who'll respond to the right piece of code. It's like,
"Well, if we show up in a few churches right before election day and mention a few Bible verses, maybe they won't notice how intensely hostile we are to them and their agenda."
Oh -- and "intensely" hostile is the right word, especially when you're talking about the Democratic base.
As you read these comments from the DU'ers, ask yourself how religious people can co-exist in a party that's chock full to the brim with people who have attitudes like this:
Philosoraptor: "I don't WANT to reach out to right wing Evangelicals, screw em'.
I don't know how many times I've heard Democrats suggest we need to close the supposed gap between Democrats and the so called Evangelicals. That we need to reach out to them, to invite them into our fold, reason with them, appease them, etc.
I disagree. If you are an evangelical, you can still be a Democrat of course, and that's not who I'm referring to. I am talking about the right wing evangelicals who actually think the creator of all things chose the stupidest man on earth to be our president.
How and why would you reach out to them? I don't want them around, and I know I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, they are either going to come around to me, or screw em'. You can't make a right wing evangelical into a Democrat if they are not willing to already. They see us as enemies, and I return the favor.
I don't want to try to reason with them, or appeal to them with logic, its pointless. I don't want to welcome them into my party, look what they did to the right wing. Screw them."
eallen: "Agree. They are what we are not. This is the political issue of our times."
bluestateguy: "No, no. I want to connect with them. With a fist to the face. :rofl: Seriously, though, they are only 20-25% of the population. Republicans have no qualms about writing off liberals, gays and blacks. Why do we have to connect with white evangelical conservatives? Why must we be the party of everybody? There is no shame in leaving some Americans behind in our vision of America."
Donnachaidh: "100% Agree -- these people are sheep. They can stuff the *reaching out* bit."
BeachBuckeye: "Totally agree! They are regressive, power hungry, dangerous and needing to be put in their places. If they are allowed to have their way we'll be having "Salem Witch Trials" all over America."
LeftyMom: "They're f*cking crazy. You can't talk sense to them. It's a waste of time."
Skidmore: Call them what they are. Religious fanatics. Extremists. Cult members. They are no different than Muslim extremists, Jewish extremists, or any other extremist or fanatical religious cult.
Hamlette: "it is a complete waste of time. Fundamentalists and many (most?) evangelicals distrust reason.
There is no middle ground with them. They are incapable of compromise because that would be against god's word.
I had a good friend who was a very politically liberal evangelical. We parted company over gay rights. It got pretty bloody when we stopped talking 7 years ago. His position was everyone gets his or her moral code/values from god, even if you don't believe in god. This guy had a PhD so I thought there was some hope that he could reason.
I don't get religion and maybe they are not all like this but evangelicals believe that people are incapable of devising a moral code based on reason. By extension, they believe we are all lesser people because we refuse to follow the one true path even though, to them, god's existence is obvious.
When you deal with religious people, you hit a brick wall if you do not believe. A place beyond which you can no longer have a reasonable discussion because they trump you with god. With reasonable religious people that place is so far back its not an issue. But with evangelicals they believe they must make a public display of their religion, that religion should "inform" everything in our lives especially politics, and their one true calling is to convert people. The only difference between them and the terrorists is they are not (yet?) willing to kill to get their way."
endarkenment: "Lets reach out to meet intolerant bigots halfway!
I know, we can just give up half of our remaining rights. I'm sure the Big Tent of Bigotry and Intolerance has lots of room for all sorts of bigots. It sure will be fun to have such a broad mix of views in the party. Hey we can bring in the corporate greed heads and neoclowns too. Oh wait, they are already here and are the ones bringing in the religious bigots! Yipee!"
Libby2: "Oh, I do!! I want to reach out and knock them right on their *sses."
leftofthedial: "we need to ensure that mentally ill people get the help they need and are made no longer a threat to the well being of themselves, of others and of their country"
Sinti: "I've always felt they needed deprogramming. They need help to get out of their self-made hell. Appeasement, however, turns us into them - f*ck that. Don't change the party to please them, that would be insane. The deprogrammer needs to be really subtle in the beginning, and it takes a lot of patience - most folks wouldn't have the stomach for it, they'd rather just smack 'em up and hope that straightens them out."
You know what the difference is between people like this and Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, the people at the ACLU, etc.? These people are willing to openly and honestly say what they believe because they're not trying to raise money or run for office. Otherwise, they're birds of a feather.
Mike Bouchard, who's running against Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, has put together a video pitch to encourage people to give to him through Rightroots.
We're down to 36 hours to go on the 15 day challenge. If you haven't chipped in yet -- or even if you have -- it would really help us out if you could chip in some small donations for all of our candidates that haven't hit 100 donations yet -- including Mike Bouchard.
Time is running out and we need your help if we're going to meet our goal.
You can contribute to the Righroots endorsed candidates here.
Update #1: Here are the updated candidate totals:
Max Burns (GA-12): 52
Mike Whalen (IA-01): 55
Chris Wakim (WV-01): 57
Scott Tipton (CO-3): 59
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03): 61
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07): 63
John Gard (WI-08): 66
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6): 67
David McSweeney (IL-08): 70
Ray Meier (NY-24): 72
Peter Roskam (IL-06): 74
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17): 76
Ralph Norman (SC-05): 77
Mike McGavick (Washington): 80
Michele Bachmann (MN-06): 85
Van Taylor (TX-17): 98
Mike Bouchard: (Michigan): 103
Thomas Kean (New Jersey): 104
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota): 108
Michael Steel (Maryland): 143
Diana Irey (PA-12): 146
Time has almost run out and we're not quite there. But, if we can get just 30 or 40 people to chip in small donations to everyone under 100 contributions, we can still make this happen.
Come on, folks -- with your help., we can still pull this off.
Shocking Truth Revealed! Attractive Women Can Use Their Looks To Get Traffic
Beth over at My Vast Wing Conspiracy, (a blog that I like, by the way) took great offense at part of the Blogger Boobygate! post yesterday, in which I said that there was nothing wrong with women using their looks to draw traffic.
"You know, I don’t get emotional often–in fact, it’s an extremely rare thing for me to be “emotional” about anything other than being pissed off about the usual sh*t (leftards, Islamotards, punditards, the usual).
But this?
The idea is supposed to be that it’s all about their brains, it’s all about their writing, that it’s cheap or improper for them to have guys checking out their web pages just to ogle them.
That’s bullcrap.
This would be one of those extremely rare occasions. That f*cking hurt.
If you’re a female blogger and one of your strengths is your looks, there’s nothing wrong with trying to look sexy to entice guys over to your page. Nothing. At. All. If you’ve got it, flaunt it, and enjoy the increased traffic.
I’m not sure there are adequate words in the English language to describe my revulsion and fury at that insulting shot at women. Maybe there’s some 15-letter German word for it.
I don’t know why I bother with this sh*t. You know, I don’t plaster my f*cking mugshot all over this blog because I don’t want the kind of readers that only come here for the f*cking human decoration. I suppose if I were a whore, as apparently women are expected to be, I would use my face and body for a payoff. But I don’t. Maybe that’s acceptable in your world, but it isn’t in mine. Frankly, I find the constant objectification of women at RWN and a couple other blogs sleazy and creepy, not to mention out of place on what is supposedly a political site. Apparently you think women have so little to say of import that we SHOULD show some skin to boost our traffic–that no matter what we actually have to SAY, our looks trump (tramp) it."
I forgive Beth for getting so emotional here. That's just how chicks get sometimes....I'm just kidding, I'm just kidding. Don't throw that rotten fruit!
In all seriousness, what we're seeing here is a result of one of the weird tics of the feminist movement.
The rule is: You're not supposed to acknowledge in any way, shape, or form that you admire a woman's looks. If you do, it somehow means that what she says is valueless and that you think of her as some sort of gutter trawling prostitute.
Of course, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Moreover, if you have the sort of attitude that Beth apparently does, it's hard to see how you make it through the day. If you go to the movies, what are you going to see? Beautiful people who got their jobs, in part, because of their looks. If you watch MTV and happen to catch one of the rare segments where they're actually showing music videos, you're going to see beautiful people who got their jobs, in part, because of their looks. If you turn on (shocked gasp) your local news show, you're usually going to see beautiful people who got their jobs, in part, because of their looks.
Of course, one of the great things about the talk radio, the blogosphere, and for that matter, the internet as a whole, is that you don't have to be an 8 on a 10 scale or better to make it.
But let's face it: the blogosphere has a mostly male audience and men, being what we are, are drawn to pictures of beautiful women. Therefore, if you are an attractive woman, you can use your looks to pull more readers to your blog. Do you have to do that? No. And a female blogger who doesn't want to (or simply can't) use her looks to draw traffic can still be successful. In fact, if a woman doesn't put up a pic, it just puts her on an e
