RWN will return on Monday. Until then, consider this to be an open thread, enjoy the links below, and have a great week-end.
PS #1: This week-end, the new RWN design and back-end will be going into place. Hopefully, everything will go smoothly on that front, but you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men. Also, all the comments on the posts this week will disappear when the new design kicks in. Sorry about that.
PS #2: The early results from tracking the clicks on the daily news seem to indicate that it isn't being heavily read. Additionally, 17 out of the last 20 most read links have come from the columns and left-overs.
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (First Half Of 2007 Edition)
Right Wing News emailed more than 230 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a ranked list 1-5 of the candidates that they would most like to take the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and the 1-5 candidates they'd least like to see as the Republican nominee in 2008. Representatives from the following 50 blogs responded...
All participating bloggers were provided with the following list of potential candidates although they were also allowed to select nominees who were not listed:
Sam Brownback
John Cox
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
As I mentioned earlier, the bloggers were allowed to make 1-5 ranked selections. Those selections were weighted as follows...
1) Worth 2 points
2 or 3) Worth 1.5 points
4 or 5) Worth 1 point
So, for example, a candidate who received two first place votes (4 points), a third place vote (1.5 points), & and three fifth place votes (3 points), would receive a grand total of 8.5 points.
Also, keep in mind that the scoring cut-off to be included in the lists below was 5 points. If a candidate received less than that, his/her score was not listed.
Here are the selections that were made with the total number of points each candidate tallied following his/her name in parentheses...
Most Desired Nominee For 2008
14) John Cox (4)
13) Jeb Bush (5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Ron Paul (8.5)
10) Condi Rice (11.5)
9) Mike Huckabee (14)
8) Tommy Thompson (15.5)
7) John McCain (19)
6) Sam Brownback (20)
5) Tom Tancredo (31.5)
4) Duncan Hunter (35.5)
3) Mitt Romney (43)
2) Rudy Giuliani (45)
1) Newt Gingrich (52)
Least Desired Nominee For 2008
13) John Cox (4.5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Tommy Thompson (9)
10) Ron Paul (10.5)
9) Mitt Romney (11.5)
8) Mike Huckabee (12)
7) Newt Gingrich (13.5)
6) Rudy Giuliani (17)
5) Sam Brownback (21)
4) Tom Tancredo (30)
3) George Pataki (49)
2) John McCain (60.5)
1) Chuck Hagel (64)
Update #1: One of Duncan Hunter's staffers was reading this poll, along with the comments, and he noticed some people saying Hunter had voted for McCain-Feingold. Hunter actually voted against it.
-- The top 5 candidates weren't a big surprise to me, since they're the only ones creating a positive buzz in the blogosphere, although I was a little surprised that Hunter beat Tancredo in the most desired category. Once you get past the top 5, the next batch of candidates is either disliked or ignored.
-- The biggest surprise in the most positive list? That would have to be Tommy Thompson's 8th place finish with 15.5 points. Granted that's not very strong, but still, I'm not sure I've heard a single soul talk up Thompson since the race started, so it's a little surprising to see him finish that high. Of course, a lot of his votes were near the end of people's lists and it could just be a case that the field is weak and the bloggers wanted someone to round out their lists. And since Thompson is better known than say Jim Gilmore or John Cox, he got the nod.
-- Republican politicians could learn a lot from Newt Gingrich, who has been slowly creeping up this list for a long time. Back in 2005, he finished 5th. Last year, he finished 4th. This time around? He took the top slot. And that's during a time when a lot of Republicans have been losing popularity with the base. That could be because of the weakness of the field, but when you see a guy like Newt, who has very high name recognition, making that kind of progress, it's probably an indication that people like his message.
-- You know, the conventional wisdom in the Senate seems to be that the war is unpopular, so it's smart to stand against it and that comprehensive immigration is the safest way to go as well. However, look at Chuck Hagel. Here's a guy who sticks to conservative orthodoxy for the most part, except on those two issues, and he finished dead dog last in this poll. That would seem to be a strong hint that the conventional wisdom may be more than a bit off kilter.
-- Here's the order of the candidates if you subtract their least desired numbers from their most desired numbers:
Newt Gingrich +52 / -13.5 = 38.5
Duncan Hunter +35.5 / -3.5 = 32
Mitt Romney 43 / -11.5 = 31.5
Rudy Giuliani +45 / -17 = 28
Tommy Thompson 15.5 / -9 = 6.5
Mike Huckabee +14 / -12 = 2
Tom Tancredo 31.5 / -30 = 1.5
Jim Gilmore +5.5 / -5.5 = 0
John Cox +4 / -4.5 = -.5
Sam Brownback +20 / -21 = -1
Ron Paul 8.5 / -10.5 = -2
John McCain +19 / -60.5 = -41.5
George Pataki 1 / -49 = -48
Chuck Hagel +1 / -64 = -63
(This is the unedited version of the column which I like better than the edited version which ran in Human Events)
It's not unusual any more to see people in Libertarian circles attacking the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. In my opinion, that is misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable theoretical concepts in the real world.
For example, you often hear advocates of drug legalization say that we're never going to win the war on drugs and that it would free up space in our prisons if we simply legalized drugs. While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs, we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either. Moreover, it's true that it would free up lots of space in our prisons if we legalized drugs, but you could say the same thing about most crimes. In fact, we could reduce the crime rate to zero and save enormous amounts of money on police, lawyers, and courts if we simply made everything legal. But, that doesn't mean it would be a net plus for society.
Another point that's often brought up is that if we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders "had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction offense." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or alcohol? No, both products are too societally accepted for that and perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of revenue from their sale. Do we really want to get into that same position with Crack, Acid, or Meth? Do we really want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin, but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an exorbitant rate?"
Moreover, the drug legalization crowd claims that we can manufacture drugs here in the U.S., tax them heavily, thereby making money for the government, and yet still be able to sell the drugs cheaper than the dealers can. That would seem to be a dubious proposition. Drug dealers who pay no taxes, have no unions, and don't have to pay their labor the minimum wage, may very well be able to produce drugs more cheaply than corporations in the U.S. that will be under strict FDA guidelines (It typically costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market), that will be faced with a never ending stream of lawsuits, that will have to pay taxes, and then, additionally, will have to sell a product that will be taxed to the high heavens. That means it's entirely possible that the cost of illegal drugs could go up, not down, with the government running the show and that would be a problem in and of itself because currently, "16% of convicted jail inmates said that they committed their offense to get money for drugs."
Of course, the number of people using what are currently illegal drugs would skyrocket if they were legalized, so we'd see a new wave of drug addled burglars if we "legalized it." Now, maybe you think that's not the case. Some people certainly argue that if illicit drugs were legalized, their usage would drop. However, the fact that drugs are illegal is certainly holding down their usage. Just look at what happened during prohibition if you want proof of that. Per Ann Coulter in her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must:"
"Prohibition resulted in startling reductions in alcohol consumption (over 50 percent), cirrhosis of the liver (63 percent), admissions to mental health clinics for alcohol psychosis (60 percent), and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct (50 percent)." -- P.311
That's what happened when alcohol was made illegal. However, on the other hand, if we make drugs legal, safer, easier to obtain, more societally accepted, and some people say even cheaper as well, there would almost have to be an enormous spike in usage.
Certainly that's what happened in the Netherlands where "consumption of marijuana...nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds" after the drug was legalized.
But, some people may say, "so what if drug usage does explode? They're not hurting anyone but themselves." That might be true in a purely capitalistic society, but in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country, the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs -- and that's even if you forget about the thugs who'd end up robbing our houses to get things to pawn to buy more drugs. Even setting that aside, we make laws that prevent people from harming themselves all the time in our society. In many states there are helmet laws, laws that require us to wear seatbelts, laws against prostitution, and it's even illegal to commit suicide. So banning harmful drugs is just par for the course.
And make no mistake about it, drugs do wreck a lot of lives. Of course drugs aren't the only things that wreck lives and not every person who does drugs ends up as a crackhead burglar or a dirty bum living in an alley. Heck, Barack Obama, a man some people would like to see as our next President has used cocaine -- and doesn't it seem like every few weeks we read about another celebrity who comes out of rehab and goes on to have a successful career?
Sure, that's true. But, every person who plays Russian Roulette doesn't end up with a bullet in his head either. Look at the flip side of the equation. How many homeless people are drug addicts? How many women have had crack babies? How many people are in jail today because they got high and committed a crime? How many lives have been wrecked in some form or fashion by drug use? There's probably not a person reading this column who doesn't know someone who has faced terrible consequences in his life because of drug use.
That's why once, way back when William Bennett was the drug czar, he responded like so to a caller on the Larry King show who told him that he should "behead the damn drug dealers."
"I mean what the caller suggests is morally plausible. Legally, it's difficult. But somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all." -- Bill Bennett
Bennett was right then, he's right now, and my guess is that most parents, upon finding out that someone was peddling drugs to their kid, would agree with him. Since that's the case, do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit? No, we don't.
Mary Katharine Ham: John Edwards' Crib: "At 28,000 square feet and 100 acres, if there are two Americas, I'm sure John can pony up and house at least one of them."
The Huffington Post: Greg Gutfeld: The "patriotic terrorists" here at the Huffington Post.
The Corner: Black media and black "leaders" have so successfully integrated the idea upon blacks, especially poor, that supporting republicans is tantamount to selling out (to white people).
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
Video Of The Day: Iraqi Soldiers Whale On Three Terrorists
This is video of some Iraqi troops that catch three insurgents with mortars. The British news agency that filmed it is horrified that the Iraqi troops beat the living crap out of them while the American troops sat back and laughed about it.
But, here's the reality: these are non-uniformed terrorists who follow no rules of war, have no qualms about murdering civilians, and will happily torture our soldiers to death. Moreover, they were caught red handed with mortars on them, so there's no question that they're guilty. In WW2, our troops would have simply lined people like that up against a wall and shot them without having a second thought about it. So, if these terrorists got roughed up a little, not only did they get off light, they are still being treated better than our troops would have been if the situation had been reversed.
Now, would I approve of American soldiers beating these terrorist? No. Would I prefer that these Iraqi soldiers didn't beat the terrorists? Yes, because it's unprofessional and even if these guys deserve it, if you get into the habit of delivering beatings, the next person may not.
On the other hand, am I going to pretend that my heart's breaking because the Iraqi troops beat the hell out of some insurgents? No way. They deserved everything they got and much, much, more. Heck, if anything, it was great to see the Iraqi troops in the lead and showing some enthusiasm for their jobs.
PS: However, I will say this, our troops should have made sure that the embeds didn't film this. That was a mistake.
Below is a list of the key senators to contact in order to fight against the Warner Resolution (I cribbed it entirely from Hugh Hewitt's page. I don't think he'll mind in this instance.), a non-binding resolution opposed to the surge.
If you contact these senators, make sure to be polite (There's no point to abusing the poor staffers who may not even agree with their bosses' stand) and make sure to let them know if you happen to be one of their constituents. Their ears really perk up when they realize they're dealing with someone from back home.
Please tell the candidates in the ’08 cycle especially –Alexander, Collins, Coleman and Smith and would be presidential nominees McCain and Brownback—that a vote for the Warner resolution is the end of support for them.
The GOP leadership, which need to announce that no resolution will voted on that encourages the enemy, and that includes the Warner resolution or any cousin of the Warner resolution:
Update #1: Hugh Hewitt had John Ensign, the head of the NRSC on his show yesterday and although Ensign made it clear that he didn't support a non-binding resolution against a surge, he also told Hugh that the NRSC isn't going to withdraw support from the senators that break with the party on that issue.
And let's face it, even setting aside the fact the NRSC exists solely to get Republican senators elected -- so if this pledge runs counter to the purpose of its existence, they'd be dumb to give in because what would happen if the NRSC were rolled on this issue? Well, next week, I'd be leading the charge to do the exact same thing on amnesty and someone else would be leading the fight on embryonic stem calls and you can go on and on with this.
That's the reason the pledge is a bad idea: it puts the NRSC is a no win situation. They cannot possibly give people what they want, no matter how many people sign the petition. So, in the end, yes, you're going to put pressure on the bad actors in the senate with this, but that could have been done without bringing the RNSC into it in the first place. By going about it in this way, it may cost the RNSC a significant amount of fund raising dollars and then, as a consequence, we may see key conservative senators going down to defeat in 2008.
I pointed this out right from the beginning, even before this went live, and nobody was willing to listen. Big mistake.
John Ensign: Well, you know, people are going to have to make their own decisions on who they support. As the chairman of the NRSC, you can’t pick one vote and say if you don’t vote here, we’re not going to support you. You can’t have litmus tests like that on virtually anything, because Ronald Reagan, and I live by his adage, he said that somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time, that’s your friend, not your enemy. And as we go forward, we have to look for people that are with us the vast majority of the time, and certainly because the other side, you know, if you elect a Democrat over a Republican, you’re going to end up with somebody who’s against you 80% of the time, if not more.
Hugh Hewitt: So I gather, Senator Ensign, the NRSC will not change its policy of supporting incumbent Republicans, regardless of how they vote?
John Ensign: Oh, I mean, we have a policy right now, I do, I’m the chairman, I set the policy over there, that we have to make sure to try to get back into the majority, and you know, we can’t do that without defending our 21 incumbents. But at the same time, I’m trying to recruit the best people I can recruit out there to try and get us back in the majority. You know, Hugh, you know where I’ve stood on the positions, you know my record well, and I am a Ronald Reagan type of a Republican. I believe in limited government, a strong national defense, and believe our party is best for this country. And sometimes, that means having people in our party here in the Senate that we don’t necessarily match up exactly with. But that…it still can bring us to the majority, to where then we can control the agenda. When we’re in the minority, we can’t control the agenda. And sometimes, we get upset with our other members who don’t vote the way that we would want them to vote, and sometimes it’s one person, and sometimes it’s another.
How about clicking on just a few of these ads? It helps support Right Wing News and it rewards advertisers for spending money on conservative blogs. So, hope you'll help out!
GOPUSA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude! Podcast Show
Listen to a special post State of the Union edition of the GOPUSA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude! podcast show. Joining me & Richard Ross was John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com.
In addition to the State of the Union, we also discussed the NRSCPledge, and the ‘08 presidential race.
“The president worked hard to get a Congress that agrees with him on this and now he’s got it,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, in reference to the Democratic takeover of both chambers of Congress in the November elections. “But we’re still going to fight him on it.”
Ouch!
You know something is wrong when a republican president receives more applause from the democrats then his own party on something he says in a speech:
Mr. Bush on Tuesday reissued his call to welcome foreigners with a guest-worker plan, and he called for a path to citizenship for millions of those here illegally.
“We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals,” Mr. Bush said in his speech to uneven applause. “We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country, without animosity and without amnesty.”
More Democrats than Republicans rose in applause.
Ted Kennedy praises G.W. Bush!!
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, welcomed “the president’s renewed commitment” to comprehensive immigration reform. “The president has been a leader on this issue and I am hopeful that he will continue his efforts with members of his party so that we can pass legislation that will solve the problem once and for all,” he said after Tuesday’s address.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
Quote Of The Day: Two Faced Senators Wish Petraeus Well And Then Try To Undercut The Troops
"ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq..." -- The Washington Post
The Hypocrites At GLAAD Get Upset Because Glenn Beck Used The Same That They Did
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is all huffy because Glenn Beck used the word f*ggot on the air:
"Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Neil G. Giuliano today criticized CNN host Glenn Beck for his flippant and gratuitous on-air use of an anti-gay slur during his Jan. 22, 2007 program.
The host of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck was discussing the Isaiah Washington story when he had the following exchange with radio host Dave Glover:
BECK: But anyway, Dave, what is the—what is the controversy? One of the guys called another guy a naughty name.
GLOVER: Yes. Basically you have Isaiah Washington, who's one of the stars of the show, who referred to one of his co-stars during a heated argument as a derogatory term for a gay man that starts with “F”, rhymes with maggot. Did it a couple more times after that. And do you like how I did that?
BECK: Yes.
GLOVER: And…
BECK: Do you know that “The New York Times” wouldn't even print—I mean, we can say the word. We're having an adult conversation here. Wouldn't even print the word “f*ggot.”
GLOVER: Right.
BECK: Wouldn't print it. I find that amazing.
Glover's attempt to identify the epithet without using it on-air was in keeping with how other broadcast and cable outlets – including CNN – have approached it since the 64th Annual Golden Globe® Awards incident that sparked a national dialogue about the slur and the impact of anti-gay prejudice. Throughout CNN's coverage of the Isaiah Washington controversy over the past week, Beck appears to be the only host to have repeated the epithet on the air.
"Beck's obnoxious repetition of the slur -- and his flip dismissal of it as simply a 'naughty name' – speaks volumes about his appalling ignorance of its impact," Giuliano said. "Beck added nothing to the audience's understanding of the issue, except perhaps to demonstrate his juvenile belief that repeating an anti-gay slur makes him an 'adult.'”
As to the word f*ggot being a 'naughty name,' in my book, it's no better or worse than most of the other nasty names out there and considerably less offensive than some of them. So, 'naughty name" isn't an inapporpriate way to refer to the term. More importantly, it's incredibly hypocritical for GLAAD to complain about this when they used the word f*ggot in a press release about exactly the same subject that Beck was discussing, a mere 8 days ago. From GLAAD's own website:
"Los Angeles, Calif., January 17, 2007 -- Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Neil G. Giuliano today condemned Isaiah Washington's on-air use of the word "f*ggot" during a backstage press conference at the 64th Annual Golden Globe Awards, calling on him to apologize and make amends for this second use of the slur in the past four months."
That's right. 8 days ago, GLAAD did exactly the same thing in a press release that they're criticizing Glenn Beck for doing on the air.
PS: You could make an intelligent argument that Beck shouldn't have used any curse words on the air, but of course, it's difficult to make that argument when, like GLAAD, you freely print them on your own website.
The Political Pit Bull: Video: Blitzer Asks VP Cheney About Mary's Pregancy and Cheney responds by burning a hole in Wolf's chest with his patented Darth Dick death stare. It's quite possibly the most awkward moment in cable news that I've ever seen.
It Shines For All: Cindy Sheehan surrenders to President Bush?
Outside The Beltway: The Glenn Beck other "f-word" controversy
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
Normally, I wouldn't bother posting about a 17 year old kid who went to jail for having consensual sex with a 15 year old because it's really not all that uncommon. Unfortunately, it's a sad byproduct of statutory rape laws, which, although they're good laws overall, have a tendency to be too broadly applied. However, in this case, the attention might actually do some good. Here's ESPN explaining why:
"Genarlow Wilson is standing on a threshold all right, at the end of the last hall of Burruss Correctional Training Center, an hour and a half south of Atlanta. He's just a few feet from the mechanical door that closes with a goosebump-raising whurr and clang. Three and a half years after he received that letter, he's wearing a blue jacket with big, white block letters. They read: STATE PRISONER.
He's 20 now. Just two years into a 10-year sentence without possibility of parole, he peers through the thick glass and bars, trying to catch a glimpse of freedom. Outside, guard towers and rolls of coiled barbed wire remind him of who he is.
Once, he was the homecoming king at Douglas County High. Now he's Georgia inmate No. 1187055, convicted of aggravated child molestation.
When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.
...Yet no one will do anything to free him, passing responsibility around like a hot potato. The prosecutors say they were just doing their job. The Supreme Court says it couldn't free him because the state legislature decreed the new law didn't apply to old cases, even though this case was the entire reason the new law was passed. One possible explanation is that Bernstein, an admitted neophyte at backroom dealing, simply didn't know enough politics to insist on the provision. That haunts her.
...The legislature still could pass a new law that would secure Wilson's freedom, so Bernstein is pushing hard for that. One such bipartisan bill was introduced this week, pushed by state Sens. Emanuel Jones, Dan Weber and Kasim Reed. This is Wilson's best shot.
"I understand the injustice in the justice system," Jones says, "and when I heard about Genarlow and started studying what had happened, I said, 'This is a wrong that must be righted.' Everyone agrees that justice is not being served."
Afterward, Bernstein can file a writ of habeas corpus, which could get him out of jail, but those are legal Hail Marys. She's a true believer, but if the legislature denies this latest attempt, she knows she might not be able to save Genarlow Wilson. Until it's over, nothing's off the table. Not even simple positive thinking. Sitting at a midtown-Atlanta Chinese restaurant on a lunch break from all the political wrangling, she picked up her fortune cookie, smiled thinly and said, "Gimme a good one: Genarlow will be free."
She's still working every angle, from the capital to cookies, riding up an elevator to the 53rd floor of an Atlanta high-rise to see David Balser, the attorney who got Marcus Dixon out of jail. The Dixon case was similar: As an 18-year-old, he had sex with a 15-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years before the conviction was overturned."
I'm for law and order all the way and this may be it, but it's not justice. So, if the Georgia legislature wants to retroactively apply the law and get all the Genarlow Wilsons out of their penal system, I think that would be something worth doing.
Katie Couric: "In his State of the Union Address, President Bush took note of the unrest in Lebanon as well as the suffering in Darfur, but there was not one mention of Katrina, though the suffering and hardship continue. The federal government has spent $80 billion on recovery efforts in the Gulf region, but there are still 13,000 people living in FEMA trailers. And as chief investigative reporter Armen Keteyian reports, some who lost everything are asking, 'What about us?'"
Armen Keteyian: "It sits on a flat gravel mud-soaked lot, the irony of the name [“Mt. Olive Gardens”] not lost on its residents. Seventeen months after Katrina, nearly 200 people uprooted by a hurricane still live in Mt. Olive Gardens, whole families packed into 200 square foot FEMA trailers they now call home."
Chris Davis: "God can't let this happen."
Keteyian: "Chris Davis is one of the displaced from New Orleans now living near Baton Rouge. Like many here, he watched the President's speech, his rage rising with every word."
Davis: "At this time, I almost broke my TV and knocked it off the stand, you know?"
Keteyian: "A Vietnam vet, Davis lost a job as a ship builder to Katrina, now in a place where crime's a constant worry, and children rarely venture outside. He's long since lost hope."
Davis: "It gets hopeless and more hopeless every day."
...Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-LA): "The pains of the hurricane are yesterday's news in Washington."
Raymond Jetson, Louisiana Family Recovery Corps: "There's been a lot said, very little done, and now we've evolved to the point where there's even very little, if nothing, being said."
Keteyian: "To a point where in places like Mt. Olive Gardens, words like 'relief' and 'recovery' now seem as empty to them as last night's presidential address. Armen Keteyian, CBS News, Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
Guess what, Kathleen Blanco? Hurricane Katrina is "yesterday's news." Not only did it happen in 2005, the federal government has spent more money on Katrina than any other disaster in U.S. history. It's actually a little disturbing to find out that we're still providing government-run trailers to people more than a year after Katrina. If your house burns down tomorrow, are they going to provide you with a new house? No. You're expected to take care of yourself. So why in the world should we still be providing people with places to live more than a year after Katrina?
You know, in this country, we've got this cult of perpetual victimhood developing. You have the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Michael J. Fox, Max Cleland, Chris Davis and his ilk up in New Orleans, you could go on and on with this. Something bad happened to them and instead of acting in accordance with the fine American tradition of sucking it up and getting on with their lives, they want to milk every single, last drop of sympathy from anyone they can find for their own personal profit and/or political advantage.
Don't these people have any close friends who care about them enough to say, "Everybody has tragedy come into their life at some point. Bad things happen to good people, people you love die, you have terrible things happen to you. But, after you take a little while to recover from the blow the best you can, you get up off the ground, and you move on."
As far as this story goes, yes, Katrina was a terrible event, but in my book, if you're still living in a 200 ft. government trailer a year after Katrina and moaning about it, you're a little pathetic and "sorry." Granted, you're not supposed to say something like that, because in politics you're supposed to appear compassionate and show how much you care about everybody, but geeze, it needs to be said and there are some people who desperately need to get that message.
Yesterday, I was invited to a blogger teleconference that had been called about a proposal that was designed to pressure the GOP senators into standing up against a non-binding resolution that would condemn the surge. Later in the day, that pledge that was discussed went live online -- and you may have heard about it. It's getting positive attention all across the blogosphere.
Now, me? While I think it's disgraceful that any Republican would sign onto such a resolution and strongly favor putting heat on them over it, I think this pledge is misguided. After you take a look at it, I'll tell you why:
"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."
Would a non-binding resolution be encouragement to the enemy? Yes, it would. Do I have a problem with people saying that they won't contribute to any senator who signs on to such a non-binding resolution? Not at all. Personally, if you vote for this or you vote for amnesty, it's a deal breaker with me. So, up to this point, I think everything in the pledge is a good idea.
But, here's the part that's problematic:
Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
Look, the chances of the NRSC agreeing to something like this are practically nil. In fact, they shouldn't agree to it because their whole job is to get Republicans elected in the Senate. Moreover, if this catches on or even just makes a really big splash, you're going to have people trying to do the exact same thing on amnesty, embryonic stem cells, and who knows what other issues over the next two years. There are a myriad of different issues that could draw in thousands of people to sign a pledge like this.
So, while this effort will create pressure on these senators, which is a good thing -- what it's also going to turn into is a list of people who are pledging not to donate money to the NRSC. As I write this, there are already 6,138 people who are basically promising not to give money to NRSC in 2008. Is that supposed to be a good thing, well, for someone other than the Democratic Party?
If that last paragraph had just been left off, if it focused on cutting off funds to the actual senators involved and calling these senators and the senate leadership to get our message out, this pledge would have been something I could support. But because it's in there, it has turned this pledge into a sister tactic to a protest vote. You know, "I'm mad because all those Republican senators voted for amnesty so I'm not doing anything to support any Republican on the ticket this year!" That's exactly the sort of attitude that probably cost Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, and George Allen their seats, thereby handing control of the Senate over to the Democrats. And who knows how many Republicans in the House went down because of it? Now, we're in January of 2007 and we're already getting right back into the same mentality, except more people are participating this time.
Of course, I made these points in the blogger teleconference on this subject last night and even on the Hugh Hewitt show after he invited me to talk about it, but as far as I can tell, I'm the only dissenter on this.
PS: It does make a big difference if the NRSC is starved of funds and, no, people won't just give the money elsewhere. After doing some fund raising last year, I can tell you that a big part of it is simply taking the time to ask for money. If people don't give to the NRSC, they may not be asked elsewhere and that may mean millions less for GOP senatorial candidates in 2008. If you take millions of dollars out of the pocket of the NRSC, it's not going to just hurt any Republicans who sign onto a non-binding resolution, it's going to hurt every Republican senator in a close race, including senators we're going to desperately want to see elected.
PS #2: I certainly hope these Republicans can be turned on this issue and failing that, I'm hoping that Mitch McConnell has the votes for a filibuster if need be. That's the right thing to do and as a bonus, it might end up freeing however many thousands of people sign onto this petition from their promise not to donate money to the NRSC.
The Republicans in the Senate have sent out a press release directing people's attention to this article, which exposes the hypocrisy of ACORN, a left-wing outfit. Here's part of the release:
Minimum Wage: activist group ACORN demands a minimum wage increase without relieving the burden it imposes on small businesses:
It’s time for Congress to do the right thing and raise the minimum wage! [...] Call and e-mail your Representative and urge him or her to support an increase in the minimum wage [...] Ask your Representative to ONLY support a clean bill with no tax breaks for businesses...
Ironically:
"While advocating living wages, though, ACORN has opposed paying even minimum wages to its own workers. This was made apparent back in 1995, when ACORN sued the state of California to be exempted from paying its own workers the minimum wage. According to the December 21, 1995 ruling of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District:
"ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws ... are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy. According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates.
Republicans are insisting on the inclusion of tax relief for small businesses in the minimum wage bill. Quotes from Democrats who, once upon a time, supported small business tax relief are appended to the end of this email."
What have conservatives been saying about the minimum wage? It'll put poor people out of jobs. What does ACORN say about the minimum wage? That if they're forced to pay it, they "will be forced to hire fewer workers." What are the Democrats telling us about American Samoa? If you force them to pay minimum wage, it'll kill their canning industry!
So, why push the minimum wage? Because they think it's good politics. They can say, "Look how we helped poor people! We got them more money." But, they never get concerned about all the poor people they help right out of jobs unless it has an impact on their own selfish interests.
Invention Of The Day: A Flamethrower For Carjackers
Yesterday, as I was perusing an article called, the "10 Strangest Inventions," I ran across this:
Automobile burglar alarm consisting of a detection circuit and a flamethrower
Charl Fourie and Michelle Wong (Johannesburg, South Africa) invented an automobile burglar alarm consisting of a detection circuit and a flamethrower, to provide a deterrent to carjackings. With a rising crime rate, carjackings became a serious concern in South Africa. The Blaster car modification functions as a liquified petroleum gas flamethrower; when a carjacking occurs, the driver steps on an additional pedal next to accelerator and flames erupt from outer sides of both front doors, "neutralizing" the assailant. The inventor claims it is unlikely to kill but would "definitely blind" the assailant. In South Africa, it is legal to use lethal force in self-defense if in fear of ones life, and ownership of flamethrowers is unrestricted.
Can you believe that someone invented a device that shoots flame at carjackers in a country other than America? We are apparently slipping farther than we may have thought in the science geek category.
(I know the news is smaller than normal, but there's a reason for it. It's part of the experimentation I'm doing as part of the decision on whether to keep the daily news or not.)
Reaction To The State Of The Union From Around The Right Side Of The Blogosphere
There didn't seem to be much excitement around the right side of the blogosphere about Bush's State of the Union speech -- and I mean that literally. There didn't seem to be a lot of scathing criticism (although the immigration portion of the speech predictably rankled a lot of bloggers) or soaring praise. In fact, most of the nuggets from around the blogosphere on the State of the Union speech were about side issues, rather than things the President actually said. Still, here they are:
"There’s not doubt that Dikembe Mutombo, who was seated next to the First Lady, and who the President was “proud” to call an American citizen has done some great work on behalf of charity. But this was also the same guy - a married father of 6 - who was getting oral sex from whores at the notorious strip joint “The Gold Club” in Atlanta. As a Sixers fan I’m also upset because Dikembe couldn’t stop Shaq in the 2000 NBA Finals.
But to his credit, Mutombo is also responsible for the single greatest pick-up line ever (even if there’s a dispute as to whether he actually said it) - “Who Wants To Sex Mutombo?”, which has achieved the status of urban legend." -- Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundits
"No matter what is said, who applauds, who abstains, none of these weasels are able to overcome their own weakness and the inertia of our system. They will not work together, they will sway with the polls, they will waste most of every dollar they spend, they are a force of idiocracy, not good.
Our entire way of life is actively under attack by tens, maybe hundreds of millions of Muslim nuttahs and yet we are unable to maintain our stones after several thousand deaths in this war?
FFS people, we are living more prosperously than, oh say 99.99999999999999999% of all humans ever. We have lost an understanding of how different the lives of most other earthlings are. We are so coddled, we require instant victory and lack the fortitude to endure discomfort, let alone actual sacrifice. I do not minimize the sacrifice, or loss of those who have been affected by these efforts, but in context they are small next to the goals and dangers.
A good look at our Congress reminds me why they are hardly an answer to any big problem. W is not much, even as a figurehead, but he's all we've got. I have some hope for a military win, only because the alternative is a loss that will cripple us for decades and so we must prevail." -- Uncle Jimbo, Blackfive
"I had to laugh at this passage (From Webb's rebuttal):
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
Did he? Does anyone really think the Korean War ever came to an end?" -- Captain's Quarters
"9:01: Laura looks fab in red. Smart of her to avoid royal blue, navy blue, and orange in order not to telegraph any administration support for either the Colts or the Bears.
...9:09: Hypocrite Hand-Shake Watch. Dennis Kucinich leans in, but gets no kiss.
...9:27: Immigration talk. Obligatory shot of the Tanc, who shakes his head, sadly.
...9:34: Asks for up-or-down votes for judges by appealing to the fact that the American people deserve a quick-acting, fully staffed judicial system. Pelosi looks down and scratches the back of her neck.
...9:46: Talks about more troops in Baghdad and Anbar. Is Pelosi even listening? She's chewing the inside of her bottom lip. Stop that, Nancy. You know you're on screen the whole time.
...9:51: Increase of Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in next five years. Ooh, cute Marine. Who is he?" -- Mary Katharine Ham
"Imagine that you’re John McCain. You’re running for president for the second time, and this time you’re widely considered the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Knowing that, you’ve got to expect that whomever is directing the television coverage of tonight’s speech is going to point the camera your way. You’re going to be on primetime TV, no doubt. With that in mind, you’re going to want to stay awake. If you’re McCain, who will be over 70 by 2008, you’ll want to make doubly sure to demonstrate your alertness and vigor. You definitely won’t want to slump in your seat, out cold, when Bush starts talking about Iraq. And yet that’s exactly what McCain did tonight, napping on camera for ten agonizing seconds. Lack of self-control? An expression of contempt? Embarrassing in any case." -- Tucker Carlson at Hardblogger
"Still, it’s revealing that the Democrats stand up when the President mentions Darfur–where there are no US troops and won’t be any US troops–but sit on their hands when he mentions Iraq–where there are US troops and where there will be US troops fighting hard for a while to come. What possesses a group of people to take Sudan more seriously than Iraq as a crisis? What possesses a group of people to rank the importance of international crises in an inverse relationship to those crises’ effect on US national security?" -- Hot Air
"There we go. The magic, meaningless words: "Comprehensive immigration reform." Everybody stand up! Other low moments so far: The commander-in-chief mentioning "battery research," "wood chips," "agricultural waste," and "global climate change." Inspiring rhetoric from those overworked White House speechwriters." -- Michelle Malkin
"Bush mentions disrupted plots. I thought it was particularly smart for the president to mention plots that have been disrupted. The American people don't hear enough about the successes that we've had in this war and that certainly contributes to the notion that the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are for nothing.
There's a fine line between scaring the American people about the threats against the homeland and mentioning the successes of those that protect homeland. I thought the president stuck the right balance tonight." -- The Political Pitbull
There were two important lines about Iraq that Speaker Pelosi (along with many her Democratic colleagues) declined to applaud at all. One was the president's call for us to "find our resolve, and turn events toward victory." The other was his statement that "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East [and] to succeed in Iraq." -- Paul Mirengoff, Powerline
"It was telling that more Democrats clapped longer and louder for a free Darfur than victory in Iraq." -- Erick from Redstate
"Anyone else notice how the Dems didn’t stand up en masse and applaud when the President talked about the pursuit of victory and security in the WOT? Telling, but not exactly ‘revealing’ to most of us." -- Sister Toldjah
"The highlights of the Bush speech:
1. Surrender to Al Gore’s pseudo-science. (”And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” )
2. Surrender the borders. (”Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program.” )
3. Put on Jimmy Carter’s sweater. (”Let us build on the work we’ve done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.” )
Tough times call for tough leadership. Look at George Bush run.
But the good news was Pelosi rejected Bush’s domestic plans out of hand.
In fact, old Pelosi gave an on-going analysis, blinking up to 30 times a minute as the president spoke, according to Broadcasting & Cable. Nice to know Blinky Pelosi brings the maturity of a grandma to politics." -- Don Surber
"The War on Terror - take the fight to the enemy. A standing 'O' and number of whistles. Nancy really looks uncomfortable now.
We uncovered all kinds of al Qaeda plots and we owe a debt thanks to those who put their lives at risk to stop these plots. Nancy jumped out of her seat at that one.
Hillary looks like she's about to fall asleep.
The best, and most accurate, line of the night so far:
"In the six years since we have been attacked on September 11, and I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use the every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty to find these enemies and to protect the American people." -- Kim Preistap, Wizbang
What Religious Person Would Want Andrew Sullivan Representing Them In A Debate?
From a press release I just received:
Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan Face Off in a Beliefnet “Blogalogue”
This week, two leading thinkers take sides in an extraordinary “blogalogue” about God, faith, and religious violence. Best-selling author Sam Harris, author of the controversial books “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation,” explains why he’s an atheist and why religion, to him, is the force most to blame for tragedies like 9/11. Uberblogger Andrew Sullivan, pro-religion author of “The Conservative Soul,” responds to Harris’ Beliefnet posts on his own blog—countering that faith and reason aren’t mutually exclusive.
Andrew Sullivan is supposed to be the "pro-religion" side of a debate? You're talking about a guy who thinks most of the Christians in this country want to live in a theocracy and who once held up Madonna as a shining example of Christian behavior.
Having a debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan over religion would be like Karl Marx and Ted Kennedy debating which economic system does more to help the poor, Communism or Capitalism.
John McCain was born on August 29, 1936. In 2008, he will be 72 years old. If he were reelected in 2012, he would be 80 years old by the time he left office. Is he really still energetic enough to handle a job as important and demanding as the Presidency? Maybe...
A potentially explosive dispute in the City Too Busy to Hate is taking shape over a proposal to break Fulton County in two and split off Atlanta's predominantly white, affluent suburbs to the north from some of the metropolitan area's poorest, black neighborhoods.
Legislation that would allow the suburbs to form their own county, to be called Milton County, was introduced by members of the Georgia Legislature's Republican majority earlier this month.
Supporters say it is a quest for more responsive government in a county with a population greater than that of six states. Opponents say the measure is racially motivated and will pit white against black, rich against poor.
...The legislation calls for amending the Georgia Constitution to allow the return of Milton County, which succumbed to financial troubles during the Depression and was folded into Fulton County in 1932.
The former Milton County is now mostly white and Republican and one of the most affluent areas in the nation. Atlanta and its southern suburbs are mostly black, are controlled by Democrats and have neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in America. (Buckhead, a fashionable Atlanta neighborhood of clubs, restaurants and mansions, would remain in Fulton County.)
"The only way to fix Fulton County is to dismantle Fulton County," said state Rep. Jan Jones, the plan's chief sponsor. "It's too large, and certainly too dysfunctional, to truly be considered local government."
Jones, a former marketing executive who lives in the Fulton suburb of Alpharetta, cited the county's troubled library and public transit systems and a jail that was taken over by a federal judge because it was filthy and unsafe. He denied the move is racially motivated.
Don Petree, the 62-year-old owner of Don's Hairstyling in Roswell, another northern Fulton suburb, said many of his customers "feel like they're not being taken care of like they should be with the tax dollars they're spending. I think there's some truth to that."
Milton County would have a population of about 300,000, instantly making it Georgia's fifth-largest county.
Residents of north Fulton represent 29 percent of the county's population of 915,000 but pay 42 percent of its property taxes, according to a local taxpayers group. A split would lead to the loss of $193 million in property taxes alone for Fulton County.
About 25 miles to the south in downtown Atlanta, the Rev. J. Allen Milner said he is afraid the tax revenue loss would have a devastating effect on those who need government help the most."
So basically, the citizens in North Fulton are paying high property taxes, which are then funneled over to the rest of the people in Fulton County. Meanwhile, the residents of North Fulton are looking at the lousy public services and the mediocre local government and saying, "We're getting screwed here," -- and they are.
Notice that no one is making the argument that the people in "Milton County" wouldn't be better off if they formed their own county. That's because it would clearly ring false. Obviously, the real beef these Democrats have with this is that if North Fulton goes off on its own, they can't use it as a piggybank to support the rest of Fulton county. But, if they say that, then everyone gets to see that they're taking advantage of the people in North Fulton. So, they're crying "racism" instead and hoping that all reason will be thrown out the window as a result.
Glenn Greenwald Is Mad At Joe Lieberman Because David Petraeus Told The Truth.
Joe Lieberman had the audacity to ask Gen. David Petraeus, "if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort." Then Petraeus answered honestly and lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald got all upset. Here's part of his commentary:
But yesterday, Lieberman reached what might be a new low. During the confirmation hearings of Gen. David Petraeus, Lieberman provoked this truly reprehensible exchange with Gen. Petraeus, as summarized by The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
Using the terms to" give comfort" and the "enemy" in the same phrase has no conceivable objective other than to invoke accusations of treason. The Constitution's definition of "treason" is exactly that -- giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy. For Lieberman to purposely track the Constitution's treason language when describing opponents of the "surge" plan -- and to invite the new Iraq War Commander to agree with his accusation -- reveals so inescapably what Lieberman is. That's just the basest and most despicable smear one can imagine.
How hypocritical. Of course, a resolution against the surge is boosting the terrorists. Of course, the mainstream media and anti-war movement's attempt to undercut the war have helped Al-Qaeda. How could it be any other way?
What does Al-Qaeda want in Iraq? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run. Then they can crow about how they defeated America and more importantly, they can try to create a state within a state in Iraq or, with a little luck, create another pre-9/11 Afghanistan there. As long as the US military is in Iraq, that can't happen. Moreover, if Bush's plan works in Iraq, that can't happen.
So, what does the anti-war movement want? What do the senators who oppose a surge want? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run, just like Al-Qaeda does. How could that not encourage the terrorists to hang in there just a little longer? The terrorists can never defeat the US military, but they understand that they don't have to defeat them. All they have to do is break our will here at home, then we'll give up, and they'll have a chance to defeat us by default.
With that in mind, what is a non-binding resolution against the surge? It's a message to the terrorists in Iraq that says, "If you can keep it all going just a little longer, we'll give you what you want. So resist, murder more innocent people, kill more of our troops and it will pay off in the end!"
What message do people like Glenn Greenwald imagine our enemies will take from our wavering and losing our will to fight? "Gee, I think they're going to give up, so maybe we should give up, too?"
Quote Of The Day: General David Petraeus On The Non-Binding Anti-Surge Resolution
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “What effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval, of this new way ahead that you embrace, what affect would it have on our enemies in Iraq?”
Gen. David Petraeus: “Sir, as I stated in the opening statement, this is a test of wills at the end of the day, and in that regard, speaking purely as a military commander if confirmed… a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like to the enemy to feel that there’s no hope.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “And a – a Senate passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that – some clear expression that the American people were divided?”
(9:01) Here's the thing that disappoints me about this speech going in. George Bush is missing a real opportunity to do a turn-around here. We've already got a new plan for the war, Bush is doing some good things on fiscal conservatism now -- if only he would bend on illegal immigration.
Imagine his announcing that he doesn't support citizenship for illegal aliens, that he's pardoning both those border patrol agents, and that he's not going to support a guest worker program until the wall is built. It could be the start of a political earthquake.
(9:07) I already have 3 or 4 press releases from congressmen in my email on their reaction to the State of the Union speech. They're all, "Embargoed Until Delivery." Why not just wait 35 minutes and send them out?
(9:09) Dennis Kucinich wants to shake hands with the President. That's always silly. They want their face time with him on camera and they'll be shredding him as soon as the speech is over.
(9:11) You know what would look great right now? An Atlanta Braves style tomahawk chop in Congress.
(9:13) Madame Speaker....that was gracious, but still ***gag.***
(9:16) I care which side of the aisle you sit on!
(9:17) 41 months of job growth.
(9:18) The Democrats don't like that bit about not raising taxes.
(9:19) Earmarks, huh? Take a bow, porkbusters, and Tom Coburn. This part of the speech is because of you.
(9:20) Cut the number and cost of earmarks in half by the end of the session. Good stuff!
(9:20) Ted Kennedy is already nodding off. He probably had a few before this got started.
(9:21) Where are the No Child Left Behind statistics? They're impressive. He should have used them.
(9:22) A call for vouchers. Good!
(9:25) A standard tax deduction for health care, 15k for families. $7,500 for singles. This will benefit self-employed people. Very good. Loving it. He left out the tax increase on people with company sponsored health plans that are very expensive.
(9:26) Grants to states? Not sure that's a good idea. Health savings accounts and association health plans? Fantastic! Price transparency and medical liability reform? Excellent!
(9:27) Illegal Immigration? Boo!
(9:28) Oh, yeah, a guest worker program will solve our problems -- until people figure out they can get illegals cheaper than the guest workers.
(9:28) Our amnesty plan isn't amnesty because we don't call it amnesty. Gag.
(9:30) They always say this stuff, hippy fuels (which don't work) and clean coal and nuclear which Democrats oppose.
(9:31) Reduce gas by 20% in the next 10 years. Ok. 5 times the current total of ethanol, switch grass, etc., etc. -- I'm not sure that's a good idea.
(9:32) Double the strategic petroleum reserves? Good idea. They should triple or quadruple them.
(9:33) Yeah, that's right! Vote in our judges, you Democratic jerks!
(9:35) To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy. That question has been settled? Don't tell the Democrats that. They're in favor of cowering and appeasement.
(9:36) Al-Qaeda was going to use anthrax against the US and fly a plane into a West Coast building and we stopped them? Wow. They should be talking that up more often.
(9:40) Al-Qaeda, bad guys. They want us to retreat and abandon the cause of liberty. Shia extremists like the Iranians. Hezbollah = evil. The dangers have not ended. Oh, come on, the Democrats are clapping for that? Like the Democrats support protecting the American people from terrorists. Since when did they decide to veer away from their, "curl up in fetal position and blame any attacks on Bush," strategy?
(9:41) We are advancing democracy and, woah, Condi looks mad! What's up with that?
(9:42) Need proof McCain is too old to run for President? He's asleep!
(9:44) It's not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it's the fight we're in. We wish the war were over, but it's not. It's still within our power to shape the battle in Iraq; let's win it! Democrats aren't standing for winning the war.
(9:45) The Iraqis need our help to stop sectarian violence. Lot of Republicans clapping for sending troops. That's good.
(9:48) They have to send more of their troops into the fighting, stop giving breaks to Shiite extremists, meet the benchmarks, lift restrictions on our troops, and take over every province. We've talked about this from every approach. It provides the best chance for success. We must not fail!
(9:49) If we run, a real civil war could start in Iraq that could draw in the whole region and it would be an enormous opportunity for Al-Qaeda. It would invite another 9/11. We must succeed in Iraq. Nancy is not clapping on succeeding in Iraq.
(9:50) This is a generational struggle. A special advisory council from both parties? Does anyone in the Democratic Party want to win the war on terror other than Joe Lieberman?
(9:51) 92k more troops in the next 5 years. That's a lot of troops. I like it.
(9:53) We won't allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons! Nancy clapped on that? Please...give us a break.
(9:53) Polite applause on the peace in the Middle East line. Nobody thinks that's right around the corner anymore.
(9:54) Let somebody else save Darfur. We're saving enough people as it is.
(9:54) Now we're responsible for curing hunger, poverty, and disease, too? Give me a break.
(9:56) Have any of the leaders of these African countries thanked us for helping them fight malaria and AIDS or for the expanded debt relief? Sure, we may be showing generosity, but as far as I can tell, not a soul appreciates it.
(9:57) Dikembe Mutombo is doing great stuff in the Congo? Perfect. That's exactly what should happen. Private citizens, private organizations doing that sort of work.
(9:58) How long is Bush going to spend on this mamby pamby stuff? Who cares about Baby Einstein? How many people put malaria and AIDS in Africa on the top 25 issues that matter the most to them?
(9:59) Now, Wesley Autry? He's pretty cool.
(10:00) Ok, we could do without all the hand gestures, Wesley.
(10:01) Sgt. Rieman -- now that's cool, too. A Silver Star winner.
(10:02) We have been through a lot together...God Bless. Nice close.
(10:05) Sheila Jackson Lee and Jesse Jackson, Jr. sucking up to Bush and asking for autographs. Gag.
Quick Final Thoughts: Very good delivery -- for Bush anyway. The speech was a little short on detail and could have used some more oomph, but it was better than I thought it would be overall. Overall Grade: B-
Update #1: The James Webb rebuttal:
(10:16) There are two big differences between Democrats and Republicans. We like socialism, Republicans oppose socialism. Republicans want to fight terrorism; we do not.
(10:18) The proletariat realizes that the bourgeoisie is robbing them blind and only by giving the workers power through the Democrats, can we level the playing field.
(10:20) My family and I served in the military, so when I say to surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you can trust me!
(10:21) The President recklessly took us into this war. No one wanted to go except him (And the majority of Democrats in the Senate).
(10:22) We've got to move forward in the war on terror by surrendering -- strongly!
(10:23) Oh, good grief, now he's comparing today's situation to when the robber barons and monopolies were running industries.
(10:23) Dwight Eisenhower didn't cut and run in Korea, despite what Webb seems to think.
Quick Final Thoughts: Still, James Webb did better than the average Democratic rebuttal -- although that's not exactly hard.
A Teleconference With Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary, About The State Of The Union Speech
I just got off of a teleconference with Tony Snow about the President's State of the Union speech tonight. Tony did as good a job as anyone possibly could trying to sell the thing, but I can't say that much of anything Bush will be talking about seems particularly exciting except for the health care plan, which I like.
PS: I will be live blogging the speech tonight at 9 PM, EST.
Here are my notes (not quotes), from the teleconference.
Tony Snow's Opening Statement
The first half of the speech will be domestic policy. The 2nd half will be foreign policy. Bush isn't going to cover the same ground he did in the speech last week although the President will discuss how failure in Iraq would hurt the US not only in security, but in economic issues. He will also briefly mention Iran and Syria.
The first half will begin with congrats to Nancy Pelosi for being the first woman speaker. The Democrats claim they want to work with the President and he is happy to do it. Here are five major planks:
1) Deficit reduction to balance the budget within 5 years. Bush wants the line item veto, to extend the tax cuts, and to cut earmarks in half. He will also make the case for entitlement reform.
2) Energy: 20 in 10 plan. Reduce energy consumption 20% in 10 years. That will be done in part by increasing and rewriting CAFE standards. We will also want to double the strategic petroleum reserve.
3) Health Care: Now, tax deductions for health care only come through work. That bias would be gone. The President's plan would create price competition and a tax credit for the self-employed. For chronic conditions, he is encouraging states to put together risk pools.
4) No Child Left Behind. Extend to everyone through high school. Expand school choice options.
5) Immigration: He will propose comprehensive immigration reform.
He wants to expand the size of the military by 92k slots and he will talk about AIDS and malaria prevention in Africa.
Q&A Session
Q: 600 militia men arrested in Iraq and a high level Mahdi army guy arrested -- does that mean the Iraqis are catching on?
A: The Iraqi PM has said to the militias, "You're on your own now." I'm not rendering final judgment, but these are signs of progress.
Q: On the health care issues, why has it taken him this long to propose something?
A: I can't address the timing issue. But, I think this is an important initiative. This system currently is geared towards corporations, not individuals. We want to change that. I can't answer why now, but why not now?
Q: How do you expect the Democrats to respond?
A: We'll see, but Democrats realize that they have to accomplish something. Just saying, "no," isn't accomplishing anything. There are a lot of areas that the Democrats can work with the President to get things done.
Q: These speeches are usually split between the foreign policy and domestic issues. Has the foreign policy part been scaled down here?
A: No, the President will hit foreign policy. Also, if we run in Iraq, the neighboring countries will lose confidence and cut side deals with countries not friendly to us. If we finish the job, people realize that we're serious and they may even see that, hey, democracy in Iraq can be pretty nice. It may inspire them to want the same thing. The State of the Union won't be what sways people on Iraq though, it'll be results on the ground.
Q: How far will he go on Social Security tonight?
A: I think he is going to hit the same ground he has also covered.
Q: Bush's approval ratings are as low as Nixon according to Drudge. Does Bush have a plan to bring his approval rating back up via the State of the Union Address?
A: The President doesn't get into fetal position and feel sorry for himself because of poor approval ratings. Ultimately, the way you demonstrate that you're better than the other side is to have better ideas. Plus, if we see progress in Iraq, it will help. And do the Democrats have anything to offer? They do nothing but oppose. Bush is trying to do his job, while they're being negative. Rebuild enthusiasm amongst the base, reaching out to people on the health care issue, having better ideas are all part of bringing Bush's ratings back.
Q: Rebuilding enthusiasm with the base? Speaking of that, you skipped over immigration and No Child Left Behind. How will Bush do this? Oh, and what about Social Security?
A: Republican leadership made the decision not to bring up Social Security. We won't have that problem any more.
With immigration, we're being aggressive on the borders. We're catching heat for being too tough on businesses that hire illegals. We're building fences. We're putting state of the art technology on the border. We got rid of catch and release. We get the message. But, what's the best way to deal with the people who are here? We have laid out the most difficult path to citizenship in history. They have to pay taxes and social security, they can't break the law, they have to keep working. They have to master the English language, pay back taxes and fines. We want to work with the base on this and we think we don't get enough credit for what we do right on illegal immigration.
With No Child Left Behind, it's all about accountability and it will have a voucher component added in tonight. Conservatives should like that.
Q: At the top of the call, you mentioned Iran and Syria. How specific will Bush get tonight?
A: Not too specific. We made it clear that Iran needs to quit supporting terrorists and building nuclear weapons. With Syria, we want them to quit supporting terrorists.
And that's all Tony had time for....
Hawkins' Final Note: Snow is about as good as anyone you are going to find at putting lipstick on a pig, but long story short: the health care proposal is the only really new thing that seems to be coming out of the speech. The deficit reduction stuff is good, but probably too late to fix Bush's big government Republican image. Illegal Immigration? It's the same old, same old. It looks like there won't be anything too exciting coming down the pike tonight.
