In news favorable to the President, the Dems have thrown in the towel and will submit a spending plan for the Iraq War without pork and without a surrender date. Both party's nominations become more interesting.
A true scandal should be self-evident and need no explanation.
The firing of a few will-and-pleasure employees by the Bush
administration is routine. But it is another in a series of faux
scandals dreamed up by desperate Democrats who are the sorest losers in
It began with the lie that Bush somehow stole the election in
Florida. Al Gore was allowed to drag this nation’s electoral process
through the mud by an anti-Republican media, led by the oafs at the New
York Times. An unprecedented recount by the media proved Bush won. It
made the back pages of the Times.
Where is the apology to the nation from Gore?
Where is the apology from the New York Times?
Next was the auto pen “controversy.” The New York Times tried to
create a scandal because some crook in jail received an invite to the
Next was Vice President Dick Cheney’s “secret” negotiations with
energy companies over an energy bill. The Sierra Club and others sued
in court to try to get papers turned over regarding the meetings.
Next was Sen. Robert C. Byrd slamming the president for failing to
take the lead on the Kyoto Protocols. This is the same Robert C. Byrd
who sponsored the anti-Kyoto resolution that passed 95-0 in the Senate
when Clinton was president.
Next was the Enron scandal. Bush’s critics swore up and down that
Ken Lay would never be tried. Well he was tried and convicted and
sentenced — for things he did on Bill Clinton’s watch.
In his commencement speech at Southern New Hampshire University this
morning, Obama — like most commencement speakers — delivered a call to
public service; unlike many, however, he also warned against the charms
of doing what most college graduates set out to do: Make money.
"In a few minutes, you can take your diploma, walk off this stage
and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice
suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should
"But I hope you don’t. Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows
a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will
leave you unfulfilled," he told the crowd.
Time Magazine is obviously unhappy with the current crop of Democrats vying for the Presidency. The title of this week's cover article, The Last Temptation Of Al Gore, should give you an idea of the esteem in which the great bloviator, the former Vice President of our cherished fruited plain, is held by the editors.
Let's say you were dreaming up the perfect stealth candidate for 2008,
a Democrat who could step into the presidential race when the party
confronts its inevitable doubts about the front runners. You would want
a candidate with the grass-roots appeal of Barack Obama—someone with a
message that transcends politics, someone who spoke out loud and clear
and early against the war in Iraq. But you would also want a candidate
with the operational toughness of Hillary Clinton—someone with
experience and credibility on the world stage.
Yeah, we need someone like Hillary or Obama -- not just, um, them. He's not a woman, she's not black and the other's a proven election-loser. I say this is good news -- very good news. Only the liberal Michael Bloomberg's entry into the race as an independent with $1 billion of his own money to spend could bode better for the Republicans' chances than Gore's splitting the party in three.
I can see the bumperstickers on those Priuses now: "Al Gore 2008 -- Hey, George Isn't Running, He Might Win This Time." Inspiring stuff.
The American media really does not give us the information we need to make informed decisions. For example, did you know that the House Democrats have been considering a change in the rules not tampered with since 1822? The Dems don't want their members to have to go on record as supporting tax increases; the Republicans are forcing their hand.
The still-not-quite-ready-for-prime-time Barack Obama cruised into the motor city Monday to lecture the American auto industry on its failure to improve fuel economy.
"For years, while foreign
competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their
vehicles, American auto makers were spending their time investing in
bigger, faster cars," he declared. "And whenever an attempt was made to
raise our fuel-efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby
furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that
could've saved their industry."
But he didn't show up in a Prius or even a Corolla, nope he drove his good ol' Chrysler 300.
So his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of
hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama's choice proves once
again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy
cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator,
his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters. It gets 25 miles per
gallon on the highway, good for a big sedan, but far short of hybrids
and compact cars.
His campaign Thursday said it leases a flex-fuel vehicle, and Obama,
whose family has just one car, "believes we need to work together to
achieve energy independence."
So although owning a hybrid is politically correct for presidential
aspirants -- many report that they do -- this week reminds Detroit that
campaigning still is sometimes about doing what I say, not what I do.
The Dems live to point out sexual hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. Would that our side would do more to highlight their economic humbug.
I'm sure that my opinion of Bill Richardson won't seriously affect his chances of winning the Democrats' nomination for president, but it's only fair to say that the guy's a big wienie. For starters, he's a power-hungry hypocrite.
NPR reported today on an admittedly clever ad he's posted on Youtube. In it, he's portrayed as interviewing for a job (president, get it). The interviewer dismisses his qualifications and ends up declaring Richardson overqualified. But NPR (and I suspect the rest of the mainstream media) miss the exquisite irony that, for years, Richardson included in his real resume the lie that he'd once been drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.
He's since come clean and because he's a Democrat, I suppose, the whole matter has been buried. But I can't help but wish that the Youtube ad had included his imagined batting averages, too.
The centerpiece of the Edwards plan is to do away with public
housing projects and replace them with one million rental vouchers
through which to disperse the poor into better neighborhoods, closer to
good schools and jobs. However, as the Post explains, a major federal
experiment started during the Clinton administration shows that
dispersing poor families in this fashion does not improve earnings or
school performance. When this inconvenient truth was brought to
Edwards' attention during his November 2005 symposium on poverty, he
apparently had no answer.
I also wonder whether Edwards can explain (except by reference to
political calculation) why he favors vouchers that would enable poor
families to relocate but opposes private school vouchers. If the idea
is to give poor families choices through which they can improve their
lives, it's difficult to see why school choice should be off the table.
Moving poor people close to good jobs they lack the skills to perform
is meaningless. The key is education, but Edwards is not interested in
maximizing educational opportunities. Nor, he admits, is he interested
in talking, as Barack Obama, does about the need for the poor to take
more personal responsibility. That message, he says, won't play well
coming from him.
It's obvious that he doesn't want to diminish his potential contributions from the teachers' unions. Evidently the unions representing public housing employees aren't coughing up. But, please, stay tuned -- that could change.
The Democrats love -- indeed, they revel -- in calling themselves the rational party. Not encumbered by any silly religious beliefs (except when they're courting the black vote, of course,) they insist that what's left is pure, unadulterated reason. It's all crap of course as illustrated in this Rasmussen poll.
in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush
knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure.
reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not
know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with
either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the
61% of Democrats are not sure that Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. My gosh, it's become a party of paranoiacs. I like to think that screwballs like Rosie O'Donnell are a cosseted and tiny minority who say what they say out of a desire to get headlines. This poll causes me to wonder.
Hey, to hell with the Independents, the Republicans need to go after the shrinking minority of Democrats who still have some grip on reality.