It’s only a matter of time before Harry Reid calls for the unionization of U.S. Attorneys.
Fred Thompson would make a welcome addition to the GOP Presidential field for Conservatives leary of Liberal Guiliana, opportunist McCain, recent convert Romney and high-negative Conservative hero Gingrich. Thompson is solidly and historically Conservative, a serious and capable communicator, and the owner of a warm spot in Conservative hearts for his recent lucid commentary exposing the travesty against Scooter Libby.
Thompson does carry the stigma of supporting McCain-Feingold, having been rolled by John Glenn in the Senate non-investigation of Chinese government political donations to Bill Clinton and other Democrats, and of voting not guilty on Clinton's impeachment; but, besides Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde, which Republican Congressional leaders didn’t get rolled in the Clinton years?
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, today declared that Democrats would vote to retreat from Iraq by 2008 and concentrate on "the real war on terror, in Afghanistan, where it began..."
Pelosi further criticized President Roosevelt for the invasions of Italy and France, because these actions distracted from the real war in North Africa, where fighting between U.S. ground forces and Hitler's Germany began.
So, Barak Obama's ancestors were slave owners. Most Americans agree that it is bad to own slaves, and therefore slave owners should not be elected President of the United States. But, should a candidate be held accountable for the repugnant beliefs and actions of his ancestors? Even if he clearly does not share those beliefs or perpetrate those actions?
If this seems like a simple "yes" or "no" proposition, that just goes to show how unsophiphisticated you are. What elite media types with nuanced understanding appreciate is that it would be unfair and un-American to judge a Liberal Democrat (and especially a Black Liberal Democrat) by the behavior of his slave-holding ancestors, but it is perfectly proper to judge a Conservative Republican candidate, (faithfully married to his first and only wife for three and a half decades) by the behavior of his polygamous ancestors.
Get it now?
Nancy Pelosi reacteded to V.P. Cheney’s recent remarks by assuming the role of the injured party. Why? Because there is no answer to the substance of Cheney’s point. The Vice President pointed out that the Murtha-Pelosi push fro American withdrawal from Iraq validates Al Quada’s strategy.
This is axiomatic. The terrorists can never defeat the U.S. Military on the battlefield, so Al Queda has chosen to try to break the political will of the American government by providing as much murder and mayhem as possible for Western News Networks to feed into American living rooms. If the American government quits the fight, Al Queda’s strategy is proved valid.
Murtha and Pelosi have proposed quitting the fight, this validates Al Queda’s strategy. What can Pelosi say? Well, she hauled out not one, but two golden oldie responses to being undone by the facts. 1. “I won’t dignify Cheney’s remarks with an answer,” and 2. “Cheney is questioning my Patriotism.” Translation: 1. there is no answer to the self-evident logic of the V.P.’s analysis, and 2. Let’s change the subject.
It used to be said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” but it’s now apparent that Patriotism is at best the second-to-last refuge. When it comes to averting substantive policy debate Pelosi & Co. regularly take refuge in the claim that their Patriotism has been questioned.
Hillary calls for a "phased withdrawal" of American Armed Forces from Iraq. Obama calls for immediate withdrawal and accuses Hillary of being wishy-washy about retreat. Hillary quickly finds a microphone to assure Democratic Primary voters that she is every bit as invested in American defeat as Obama or anyone else.
With a full year before the Democrat Primaries are held is there any doubt where this is headed? Obama and Hillary are in a race to see who can surrender the fastest.
At this point the general electorate, although unhappy with the situation in Iraq, does not share the lust for an ignominious American defeat that seems to motivate Democrat Primary voters. So, the winner of the Fastest Surrender Derby may simultaneously become the Democrat Nominee and unelectable.
George McGovern, call your office.
Lincoln was one of the most beloved and most hated men in American history. His character and his leadership were viciously maligned, but Lincoln remained focused on the central mission of his Presidency, to preserve the Union, and eventually, despite many setbacks and numerous re-calibrations of strategy and replacements of Generals, Lincoln prevailed.
Speaking at Gettysburg, the scene of a terribly lethal battle fought years after most Americans had expected the war to be over, Lincoln exhorted his countrymen to honor the sacrifices already made by American fighting men, with these timeless words, “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us . . . that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion . . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of the people . . . by the people . . . for the people . . . shall not perish from the earth.”
Obama claimed on CBS 60-Minutes that his Black skin dissuades Taxi drivers in Chicago from picking him up when he hails them. Well, anybody who rides in a cab in Chicago knows that Obama could not have been playing the well-worn Race Card of implying that White Redneck Cab drivers would leave a Black man standing in the cold, since there’s no such thing as a White Cab Driver in Chicago – they’re all Muslims!A few months from now, the Mullahs may realize just how offended they were at Obama’s insensitive remarks, and they’ll call for the Arab Street to initiate the requisite Holy activities, i.e. chanting, murdering, pillaging, firing AK-47’s skyward, and lighting up lanky, big-eared effigies in street bazaars all over the Middle East.
Speakerette of the House, Grandma Nancy Pelosi, is demanding a 757 to jet back and forth from Washington DC to her California District.
Let me be the first to say that I support Speaker Pelosi . . . I just don't support her mission.
Media Wise Men may recall that the Democrats used this parliamentary tactic repeatedly for the better part of six years, to block confirmation votes on President Bush's appointments of Federal Judges, as well as legislation that, like the Judicial Appointments, enjoyed the support of a majority of Senators.
In those days, the Drive-by Media never referred to Senate Democrat's refusal to end debate as a refusal to allow debate. Is the decision by News organizations to substitute a Democrat Talking Point (i.e. "Republicans are Blocking the Debate") for the objective facts (i.e. that Republicans have voted against ending the debate) a product of partisanship or ignorance? The correct answer is probably, "both."
The Washington Post provides a classic illustration of the Left's blindness toward the stakes in the worldwide war against Islamic Facists -- a blindness brought on by Leftists' fixation with hating George W. Bush.
In a "news" article entitled, "Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raised His Profile," Post Staff Writer, Shailagh Murray offers the following summary of Conservative angst at despair-monger, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. "[Hagel's] GOP critics fume that Hagel and his Democratic allies who sponsor resolutions opposing a troop buildup are undermining Bush at a critical moment."
NO, Mr. Liberal Washington Post Reporter, we are fuming at Hagel for undermining AMERICA at a critical moment.
At least the Post correctly associated Hagel's latest outburst with the Senator's Presidential Ambitions, which should put to rest the naive idea that Hagel is a champion of principle; but the assertion that Hagel's treachery is merely a swipe at President Bush is characteristic of the Leftist psychosis that sees George W. Bush as the enemy, while dismissing the real threat from our real and declared enemies.
Somebody recently told me that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq while we were still fighting in Afghanistan was stupid and doomed to failure, because anybody knows that it is impossible to win a war on two fronts.
That probably explains why the U.S. lost World War II.
But, I do think the two-front proposition has some validity. From the outset President Bush has underestimated the difficulty of America simultaneously withstanding the hateful attacks of both Islamic Jihadists on one front and the Leftist American Media and the Democrat Party on another.
Adding to the perception that freshman U.S. Senator, Barak Obama, would be an invincible Presidential Candidate, Obama yesterday survived eating lunch with Hillary Clinton.
Sources close to the event, hosted at his Massachusetts residence by Moderate Democrat, Edward R. Kennedy, told reporters that the conversation between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama was polite, if strained, and that Obama, who seemed uncharacteristically nervous, picked at his food, dropped his fork and his napkin several times and raised eyebrows by inexplicably directing Ms. Clinton's attention to a window several times during the meal.
According to an Obama Staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, during the course of the meal Senator Clinton repeatedly asked Senator Obama how he was feeling. The Staffer said that Obama answered each time that he felt just fine, and that Senator Clinton seemed to supress a growing irritation with each inquiry.
In an unrelated incident, members of Senator Kennedy's household staff reported that following the luncheon they were saddened to find a Kennedy family pet, a Black Lab, lying dead on the floor, as well as a wilted potted plant, both near Obama's place at the table.
Giving a worse name to Affirmative Action, freshman U.S. Senator, Barak Obama, has been basking in a wholly unearned national spotlight, which will in time reveal to the nation what observant Illinois voters have known for years. Namely, that Obama is a thoroughly conventional Leftist Democrat, substantively distinguished from Teddy Kennedy only in that the former can pronounce the latter's name.
In order to mount the heights of his political ambitions, Obama will need a pithy campaign theme that captures the essence of the man and his message. Here's my suggestion: Barak Obama: Fresh Face, Stale Ideas.