Obama 'Listening' Bus Tour

Obama is supposedly going to listen to Americans.

He's going on a bus tour to get in touch with the people of the heartland.

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama will take a three-day campaign-style bus tour through the American Midwest this month, as he tries to refocus attention on jobs seen as vital to his chances of winning re-election in 2012.

The president will be on the road between August 15 and August 17 "listening" to the American people about jobs and the economy, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Obama's approval ratings have been dented by persistently high U.S. unemployment and acrimonious negotiations in Washington to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

"Listening"?

Very funny.

That reminds me of Wisconsin's former senator, Russ Feingold - the guy Wisconsinites rejected and threw out of office BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LISTEN. Feingold's listening sessions were a joke.

Obama's bus tour is a lame election stunt.

He has no intention of really listening to Americans.

I'm sure the audiences will be carefully screened to be friendly.

Obama won't learn a thing in an echo chamber.

Complete waste of time.

Ron Johnson's Senate Speech, June 28 (Video, Transcript)

UPDATE, June 30, 2011: Harry Reid cancels Senate July 4 recess
__________________

UPDATE, June 29, 2011: Johnson vows to fight any attempt in Senate to proceed with Fourth of July recess

Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson said Wednesday he will try to block any move by the Senate to recess tomorrow in advance of the Fourth of July holiday, saying lawmakers should remain in session to work on the budget and spending issues.

Johnson’s comments come a day after he took to the Senate floor vowing to block regular business unless Democrats advance a budget plan.

“We’re just trying to ratchet up the pressure on Democratic leadership, who controls what we do by and large,” the Oshkosh Republican said in an interview. “I’m doing this to make a point, to make sure we start turning our attention to the budget.”

...Johnson was joined by nine GOP colleagues at a press conference Wednesday demanding the Senate stay in session.

It is so refreshing to finally have someone like Ron Johnson representing me in the U.S. Senate.

What a tremendous improvement over Russ Feingold!

Ron Johnson presents real hope and change.
__________________

Ron Johnson isn't satisfied with business as usual in Washington.

He may be new in the U.S. Senate but he isn't afraid to shake things up.

He knows changes are needed in Washington. He wants to be part of the solution.

Video of Johnson speaking on the floor of the Senate, June 28, 2011:



Transcript:

SENATOR RON JOHNSON: “Mr. President, I ask to be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes.

“Thank you.

“Mr. President, I've been here for almost six months now.

“But I've been carefully watching Washington for more than 32 years, while operating my manufacturing business in Oshkosh, Wisconsin - watching how increasingly broken Washington has become over the years.

“Nothing I've seen in the last six months changes that evaluation.

“Washington is broken and America is going broke.

“Our economy is in a coma; people are suffering.

“America hungers for leadership, and it it’s not getting any - not from President Obama, not from the United States Senate.

“We can't afford to have a broken political process - not now - not while America is hurtling toward a financial crisis.

“Under Democratic leadership, it has been over two years since the United States Senate has passed a budget, and there is currently no mark-up going on in the Budget Committee to produce one.

“America is going bankrupt, and the Senate refuses to pass a budget.

“The President's budget - the one he presented several months ago to great fanfare, remember that? It was 4 ¼ inches thick, 2,400 pages long. Who knows how many thousands of man hours that document took to produce? It was going to be the solution to our fiscal problems.

“But it was so unserious, it would have added over $12 trillion to our nation’s debt.

“It was so unserious, when it was voted on in the United States Senate, it lost by a vote of ZERO to 97.

“It was so unserious, that not a single member of the President's own party voted for it.

“Instead of rolling up his shirt sleeves and personally tackling the number one problem facing this nation right from the beginning, President Obama delegated his role in sporadic negotiations to Vice President Biden.

“Now that those talks have broken down, the President is finally getting personally involved in this process.

“But what kind of process is this – a few people, talking behind closed doors, far from the view of the American public? Is that the process that is going to decide the fate of America’s financial situation, of our financial future? Is this how our government is supposed to work?

“I don’t think so.

“Of course not.

“Unfortunately, this has become business as usual in Washington.

“As a manufacturer, I know if the process is bad, the product will be bad.

“Business as usual here in Washington is a bad process.

“Business as usual is bankrupting America.

“It must stop.

“America is simply too precious to subject our financial future to Washington’s ‘business as usual.’

“Now I'm pretty new here, and I don't pretend to understand everything that makes the Senate work (or maybe more accurately, doesn’t allow the Senate to work). But I do know the Senate runs on something called unanimous consent.

“So unless we receive some assurance from the Democrat leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget out in the open, in the bright light of day - I will begin to object. I will begin to withhold my consent.

“The Senate needs to pass a budget. It shouldn't be that difficult.

“Families do it every day. A husband earns $40,000. A wife earns $40,000. Their total family income is $80,000. That's their budget. That's what they can afford to spend. American families figure out how to live within their means.

“The federal government should be no different. A budget is a number. We should first pick one number, and then a set of numbers, that won't let America go bankrupt.

“So let me start the process by throwing out a number: $2.6 trillion. This is $800 billion more than we spent just 10 years ago. That is the amount that President Obama, in his budget, says the federal government will receive in revenue next year. If we only spent that amount of money, we would be living within our means. What a concept, huh?

“If we want to spend more than $2.6 trillion, Members of Congress and members of this Administration should go before Congressional committees and openly justify what they want to spend, how much they want to borrow, and how much debt they are willing to pile on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

“They should explain just how much of our children’s future they are willing to mortgage.

“The American people deserve to be told the truth.

“Unless that happens, I will begin to withhold my consent.

“Unless there is some assurance that the Senate will take up its budget responsibilities in an open process, I will begin to object.

“Madame President, I note the absence of a quorum.”

I'm so glad we sent Ron Johnson to the Senate.

Osama: Obama, Democrats - Hypocrites

I've had enough of the Democrats and the Leftists strutting around praising Obama for HIS success in achieving the death of Osama bin Laden.

For years, they attacked and attempted to undermine President George W. Bush and the Bush administration. They vehemently objected to the methods utilized to deal with the terrorist threat and protect us.

Their assault was relentless, accusing President Bush and Vice President Cheney of being war criminals.

WATERBOARDING.

ENHANCED INTERROGATION.

SECRET PRISONS.

WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING.

Obama was adamant about closing Guantanamo Bay.

He and the Democrats opposed the very methods that allowed for bin Laden to be killed.

Here's a sampling of video, via Mark Levin:

FORMER Sen. Russ Feingold lies and rails against collecting intelligence.



David Gregory lectures President Bush on the interrogation bill.



Matt Lauer accuses President Bush of using illegal methods to obtain information.



Obama signs his first executive order - to close Gitmo.

OBAMA: Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.

Of course, that didn't happen.



Dick Cheney defends President Bush and the interrogation methods used to protect the country. This is must-see.



Obama chastises Dick Cheney for objecting to Obama's plan to close Gitmo.



Obama says he "fundamentally disagrees with Dick Cheney."

So, Obama and his Democrat comrades mercilessly attacked the Bush administration, while now they're hoping to take sole credit for getting bin Laden, and wallowing in the news of his death.

It's absurd.

It's a disgrace.

Democrat Gwen Moore wanted President Bush impeached.

Yesterday, she touted the mission, military action within the borders of a sovereign nation. She didn't call for Obama's impeachment because he gave the kill order to get bin Laden in Pakistan.

Moore's statement:

"I applaud our military, our President, and his national security team for ridding the world of the dark presence of Osama bin Laden. He has held the world captive, and his death ends a tragic chapter in a horror story where extremists target innocent civilians with murder, mayhem and fear.

"Bin Laden’s death brings a sense of relief to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and indeed every American. Our global partners and allies and peoples all over the world – regardless of race, creed, color, country, or religion – stand vigilant and unified with us today to rebuke this extremism and break free from the bondage of fear."

Personally, I don't feel a sense of relief. I'm glad bin Laden has been brought to justice, but I don't feel safer at all. This war, and it is a war, is not over.

In sum, Obama and the Democrats are shameless in their hypocrisy.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been vindicated.

Without their efforts and their tireless battle against Obama and the Democrats, bin Laden would be alive today; and Obama wouldn't be planning a 2012 election photo-op at Ground Zero on Thursday.
_________________

UPDATE: During the afternoon White House press briefing, Jay Carney insists that Obama hasn't changed his mind about the Bush policy interrogation methods.

Of course, Obama kept the vast majority of those policies in place, reneging on his promises.

Paul Ryan: Family Received Benefits After Father's Death

The Leftists have no shame.

Paul Ryan's father died young, and the family received survivor benefits for a while.

Liberals are using that to attack Ryan.

From Hans Bader, the Washington Examiner:

At the age of 16, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., suffered the death of his 55-year-old father. Because of his father’s early death, the government made survivor payments for a few years to Paul Ryan’s family – including for Paul Ryan himself. Ryan collected benefits for two years, until he turned 18.

The net effect of the death of Paul Ryan’s father was likely to reduce taxpayer expenditures on Ryan’s family, since retirees typically collect at least a decade’s worth of benefits. (My own father died five years short of retirement. The result was that my mother, who could otherwise have collected spousal benefits when he retired, instead had to wait well over a decade for benefits, reducing her lifetime social security benefits. She was effectively punished for his death.)

But the Daily Kos blog is now using his father's early death against Ryan. A Daily Kos diary attacks Ryan in a post entitled, “Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18.” Never mind that Ryan’s recent budget proposal doesn’t in fact seek to abolish entitlements, much less get rid of Social Security. It merely seeks to cut the rate of growth of exploding Medicare costs by eventually giving its recipients vouchers they can use to shop around for medical care.

Not all Daily Kos diaries reflect the views of Daily Kos as a whole, but this one does, since it was briefly featured on the top of the front page of Daily Kos, and is still listed as a “recommended” blog post in the sidebar on the right side of Daily Kos's main page. More than 183 Daily Kos readers have commented in response to it – virtually all in agreement with its hateful sentiments.

Here's the post from the slimy Daily Kos: "Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18."

The post attacking Ryan ends with this:

What an evil hypocrite.

No, Paul Ryan is not evil, though Obama tried to paint him as evil.

No, Paul Ryan is not a hypocrite, as Bader explains.

It's sick that the Leftists would cite the death of Ryan's dad to attack him so unfairly.

The fact is the Daily Kos liberals are fringe nuts.

They are filled with hate. It blinds them from the truth, which is convenient. The truth is their enemy. Their extreme agenda doesn't fit with reality.

Paul Ryan is not evil and he's not a hypocrite.

When it comes to the Daily Kos minions, however, I think a case could be made that many of them are not good people.

Feingold Bashes Walker and Obama

Russ Feingold, former U.S. senator, booted from office by the people of Wisconsin on November 2, 2010, received a Leftist award in Washington on Wednesday.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Making his first speech in Washington, D.C., since he left the Senate, Russ Feingold on Wednesday chastised Democrats for failing to protect civil liberties and Republicans for going after workers' bargaining rights.

Feingold was in Washington to receive the Ridenhour Courage Prize, an award honoring progressive figures and causes that has gone in the past to Daniel Ellsberg, Seymour Hersh, former President Jimmy Carter and Gloria Steinem.

He said at the awards ceremony that the White House was "flat-out wrong" in its recent decision to try suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks before a military commission instead of a civilian court.

"The administration's flip-flop on this issue is a mistake," said Feingold.

He also invoked the budget and labor debate in Wisconsin, saying a "cherished right for generations in my home state was stripped way from thousands of people who work for public agencies."

...Talking to small group of reporters before the awards ceremony, Feingold was unsparing in his criticism of Gov. Scott Walker over the collective bargaining issue.

"All of us in Wisconsin are shocked that somebody decided that, for the purposes of one policy issue, they were going to tear the state apart. And we are suffering from divisions that we've never had before and it's going to take a very long time to repair it," said Feingold. "I can't imagine anything worse than the way (the governor) has conducted himself."

On the recall drives now under way, Feingold stopped short of explicitly advocating the recall of GOP lawmakers or of Walker, saying, "I've never been a fan of recall elections." But he called recalls an appropriate remedy in unusual circumstances, and "this could be such an occasion."

Feingold said as a political matter that timing was a key tactical question for the opposition to Walker, who won't be able to undo his policies without taking control of both legislative chambers and replacing the governor.

"I hope that people who are thinking about recalls are thinking strategically, about when is the best time is to achieve those goals. Because the biggest mistake you could have is to just rush in, and put all your chips out on one recall election and if it doesn't go well, then things sort of go in reverse," said Feingold.

Asked about speculation he might be a candidate for governor in the future, the former senator said, "My plate is very full . . . I have no plans to run for public office."

Feingold says he has no plans to run for public office. His plate is full.

He sounds like Bill Clinton:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Of course, Feingold's future may hold a run for public office.

We know he wants to be president, but I think he'd be willing to settle for a run for governor or trying to get back in the U.S. Senate.

Feingold didn't establish his Progressives United (P.U.) political action committee to fill spare time. I don't think it's a hobby.

Russ has plans, though his chances for success are poor.

We aren't going to get fooled again.

Ron Johnson, Maiden Speech (Video, Transcript)

On Tuesday, Senator Ron Johnson delivered his Maiden Speech on the U.S. Senate floor.

Video



Here is the transcript, as prepared for delivery:

“Thank you Mr. President. It is my honor to represent the good people of Wisconsin in the United States Senate. It is an awesome responsibility - a responsibility I take very seriously.

“Today, it is my distinct privilege to address this historic body for the first time. It is a moment in time when our nation is in peril. Not only do we continue to face the very real threat of international terrorism, but we also face a threat of our own making - one that challenges the very foundation of this republic.

“Our nation was founded on the basis of God-given rights and individual liberty. The genius of our Founding Fathers’ vision was rooted in their recognition that more often than not, government was something to fear. Government necessarily limited individual freedom, and therefore, government itself must be limited; its potential for growth, highly constrained.

“During America’s first century, this vision was largely upheld. The last century, however, has been an entirely different story.

“In 1902, the federal government spent 2% of the nation’s gross domestic product. State and local governments spent 5%. Government was close to the governed. The size, scope, and cost of the federal government was constrained by the Constitution’s enumerated powers. The individual was preeminent, and government’s role was modest and pedestrian.

“This body played a key role in limiting federal government expansion. Debate in the Senate was unlimited. The cloture vote did not exist. As George Washington had said, the Senate really was the saucer that cooled the tea.

“All that changed in the 20th century’s second decade. The Senate adopted the cloture vote, and America adopted the 16th Amendment. The federal government now had the power to tax income, and the Senate had made it easier for government to grow. And guess what, government grew.

“It grew in reaction to real problems. Trusts had been formed that concentrated power and created monopolies that threatened free-markets. Capital did exert too much power over labor. Balance was needed.

“And as our nation’s prosperity grew, the elimination of poverty and retirement insecurity became a public responsibility. Private charity was simply deemed not up to the task.

“So government acted and government grew. From 2% in 1902 to today, where the federal government spends 25% of our nation’s economy, and combined, all levels of government in the U.S. now consume 39%. By comparison, the size of government in Norway is 40%; in Greece, 47%; and in France, 53%. In the end, I don’t believe Americans want to be like France or Greece. We haven’t reached that tipping point yet, but we are extremely close.

“There is a reason America holds 5% of the world’s population, and yet accounts for 24% of the world’s GDP. It is because of freedom, the free market system, and the American people.

“America became a land of unlimited opportunity because we were a nation of self-reliant people. Hard work was valued, personal responsibility expected, and success was celebrated, not demonized. I grew up in that America.

“I am sad to say, what I have witnessed during my lifetime, is a slow but steady drift, and I would argue over the last two years, a lurch, toward a culture of entitlement and dependency. This is not an America I recognize. It is not an America that will work.

“Even worse, we have granted entitlements and encouraged dependency with little thought as to how we would pay for it. We have racked up enormous debt, and now the bill is coming due.

“Time is running out. Last week, the government almost shut down because we were arguing over a few billion dollars. But our debt and deficits are measured in the trillions. Our problem is a thousand times larger than the current debate.

“Most of us recognize this is simply unsustainable. Most of us know what programs need to be reformed. And most of us want to fix the problem. So let’s start addressing these issues now, before it is too late.

“These are enormous problems, and it is easy to be pessimistic. But there is reason to be hopeful.

“I’ve done a fair amount of traveling throughout Wisconsin over the last year, speaking to all kinds of people: Republicans, Democrats, union members and Tea Party folks. I talked about America. About how incredibly precious and exceptional it is, and how I fear we may be losing it.

“What I will never forget is how many people came up to me after my speeches with tears in their eyes, or tears rolling down their cheeks. Not because I’m a great public speaker, but because people love this country. Their political affiliation makes absolutely no difference. Americans want this nation preserved, and they are counting on us to do just that. The good news is that they will support us, if we make the hard choices together.

“So together, let’s roll up our sleeves, and do what needs to be done.

“Mr. President, I yield the floor.”

I am so thankful that I have Ron Johnson representing me in the U.S. Senate.

Finally, FINALLY, the long Wisconsin nightmare of Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold is over.

Feingold, Commit Thyself

Sen. Russ Feingold: Do as I say, not as I do.

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Middleton said he'd be pleased with whoever wins the democratic presidential nomination.

"I'm going to be happy either way, I just want to get it resolved," he said to a group of 20 people at a Saturday morning listening session in De Pere.

Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York prepare to duke it out in the drawn-out and hotly contested race for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana. The winner of the nomination will face Sen. John McCain in November. Feingold voted for Obama, who won the Wisconsin primary.

Feingold whines that he wants the Dem presidential nomination to be resolved.

Terrific. This coming from Feingold. He still hasn't made a commitment as a super delegate to support Obama or Hillary.

He could help his party move toward resolution by taking a stand.

Feingold, commit thyself!

Hypocrite.

Gen. Petraeus' Iraq Evaluation

Yesterday, General David Petraeus proved what a poised and patient and patriotic man he is.

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress Tuesday that hard-won gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise any troop pullouts beyond this summer, holding his ground against impatient Democrats and refusing to commit to more withdrawals before President Bush leaves office in January.

Army Gen. David Petraeus painted a picture of a nation struggling to suppress violence among its own people and to move toward the political reconciliation that Bush said a year ago was the ultimate aim of his new Iraq strategy, which included sending more than 20,000 extra combat troops.

Security is getting better, and Iraq's own forces are becoming more able, Petraeus said. But he also ticked off a list of reasons for worry, including the threat of a resurgence of Sunni or Shiite extremist violence. He highlighted Iran as a special concern, for its training and equipping of extremists.

In back-to-back appearances before two Senate committees, Petraeus was told by a parade of Democrats that, after five years of war, it was past time to turn over much more of the war burden to the Iraqis. Those senators said Iraq will not attain stability until the United States makes the decision to begin withdrawing in large numbers and forces the Iraqis to settle their differences.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a longtime critic of the administration's war strategy, told Petraeus: "The American people have had it up to here."

Petraeus responded, "I certainly share the frustration."

But when it came to promising or predicting a timetable for further withdrawals, Petraeus didn't budge. He said he had recommended to Bush that he complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 extra troops. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation," to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.

The Dems kept pushing Petraeus to make predictions that are humanly impossible.

Of course, he didn't make any promises he couldn't keep. He's not a politician.

Sen. Carl Levin's questioning of Petraeus was absolutely idiotic:

In exchanges with several senators, Petraeus refused to say when he thought it would be safe to resume troop reductions beyond July without risking "fragile and reversible" security gains.

Asked Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee: "Could that be a month, could that be two months?"

Petraeus began to respond: "Sir, it could be less than that. It could be. ..."

Levin: "Could it be more than that?"

Petraeus: "It could be more than that. Again, it's when the conditions are met that we can make a recommendation for further reductions."

Levin: "Could it be three months?"

Petraeus: "Sir, again, at the end of the period of consolidation and evaluation. ..."

On they went in the same vein, even after a demonstrator — "Bring them home! Bring them home!" — interrupted the hearing and was escorted out.

When Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., started in again later, Petraeus said it would defy logic to establish a timetable before knowing what conditions will be like this summer.

"If you believe as I do — and the commanders on the ground believe — that the way forward on reductions should be conditions-based then it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it would be or that is when it would be," Petraeus said.

Levin was such a fool to press Petraeus.

He clearly said it's impossible to establish a timeable because it's dependent on conditions on the ground.

How difficult is that to understand?

When the Battle of the Bulge began on December 16, 1944, could commanders have declared that troops would be withdrawn by January 1, 1945?

That's ridiculous. The troops were withdrawn when the battle was won.

Of course, a predetermined timetable can be established in war, but that pretty much rules out victory. It certainly puts it in serious jeopardy.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The message to Congress and the American people from the U.S. commander in Iraq boiled down to this Tuesday:

Too much has been achieved to get out.

And not enough has been achieved to get out.

"We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible," Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services committee in the first of three highly anticipated hearings Tuesday and today on Capitol Hill.

"Obviously, I think that there is a way forward," said the general, whose appearance attracted a huge media throng and a corps of protesters who periodically sang, hoisted signs and called out their opposition to the war.

It was a familiar case for U.S. policy that drew a familiar set of reactions, with supporters of the war convinced that the surge has produced vital security gains that would be imperiled by withdrawing too soon, and opponents complaining that it has failed to achieve the political progress that was its chief rationale.

...Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, a member of the foreign relations panel and vocal opponent of the war, said the much larger al-Qaida threat was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. And he contended the war was helping Osama bin Laden achieve his stated goal of bankrupting the U.S.

"For us to somehow believe that staying in Iraq is not playing into his hands I think is a mistake," said Feingold.

While Petraeus pointedly defended the mission in Iraq, he said policy-makers were confronted with tradeoffs.

"Iraq has entailed huge cost. Our men and women in uniform have made enormous sacrifices: over 4,000 of them the ultimate sacrifice. And the expenditure has been very substantial in numerous other respects, including the strain on the overall force and the opportunity cost in terms of not being able to focus more elsewhere," he said.

"Having said that, there is no longer a ruthless dictator in Iraq who threatened and invaded his neighbors and who terrorized his own people. Beyond that, the seeds of a nation's democracy have been planted in an Arab country that was the cradle of civilization. And though the germination of those seeds has been anything but smooth, there has been growth," said Petraeus. "I recognize that the overall weighing of the scales is more than difficult, and believe it is best done, at this point, by someone up the chain with a broader perspective. Ultimately, it can only be answered by history, once the outcome in Iraq has been determined."

Feingold is so hawkish when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so clueless when it comes to the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

As is usual in the case of hearings like this, there's so much political posturing.

It's a shame that the quest for victory in Iraq is a partisan issue.

Barack Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Barack Obama doesn't like the liberal label.

At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done."

It is a promise that convinced 67 percent of all registered voters in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll, in late February, that Obama "would be the kind of president who would be able to unify the country" - far more than those who identified his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, that way.

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Also, and more immediately, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country's values?

Obama, in an interview, said that "a lot of these old labels don't apply anymore."

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.

I don't see that happening at all.

I don't think Obama can bring Republicans and Dems, or liberals and conservatives together.

There is no way that any staunch pro-life voter could ever support someone as extreme as Obama.

Read about where Obama stands on abortion and other issues of interest to people who care about the sanctity of life.

On abortion issues, Obama scores a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee.

A 0% is pretty extreme. Agreed?

And then we have the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.


(Chicago Sun-Times)

A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

“Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.”

“So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.”

In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama’s initial response, as stated in USA Today was “that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.” He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister.

Obama reminds me a lot of Russ Feingold when it comes to infanticide.

Like Obama, Feingold is rabidly pro-abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate in the Senate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme he is.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

That exchange is chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.

Does Obama really believe that he is the candidate capable of bringing all Americans together when he holds a position as extreme as being against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)?

About a month ago, Rick Santorum wrote a piece on Obama's extremism, "Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image."

This is a "must-read:"

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Obama has earned his liberal creds. No doubt about it.

Super-Liberals Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore

Do not doubt the Leftist extremism of Wisconsin Democrats Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore had the most liberal voting record in the House last year, sharing that distinction with five Democrats from other states, according to the National Journal's latest scorecard on congressional votes.

Other highlights from the non-partisan magazine's ratings, which come out every year:

Wisconsin had the 8th most liberal Democratic delegation in the House, after Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, California, Maryland and Vermont.

For two years, Baldwin and Moore have been pushing to pursue the impeachment of President Bush.

Yes, they are way out in left field. Even fringe Leftist Sen. Russ Feingold hasn't pushed for impeachment. He wanted to censure the President but not impeach him.

Speaking of Feingold...

In the Senate, Democrat Russ Feingold was rated the 10th most liberal (Barack Obama was number one), and Democrat Herb Kohl was rated the 22nd most liberal.

The magazine rates lawmakers based on 206 House and Senate votes, using an elaborate formula that weights votes and codes them as liberal or conservative.

...For example, it gives Feingold a liberal percentile score of 88.5, meaning he was more liberal than 88.5% of his Senate colleagues in 2007. Kohl’s score was 77.3.

Of course, Feingold is a liberal. We all know that. However, I think many Wisconsinites think of Kohl as at least being somewhat moderate. Obviously, being in the upper quartile of libs places Kohl out of moderate range.

Note that the magazine ranks Barack Obama as the number one lib in the Senate. NUMBER ONE!

That's not a great ranking for a presidential candidate.

I wonder if John McCain will declare that it's off limits to discuss Obama's voting record. Don't mention Obama's middle name Hussein and don't call him a liberal. Perhaps McCain will distance himself from the magazine's rankings and declare the list to be fear-mongering.

But I digress.

Another Battle in the War on Terror

The War on Terror has many fronts.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military attacked a "known al-Qaida terrorist" in southern Somalia, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

Spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters that the attack was launched on Sunday, local time, but he declined to provide any details, including whether the targeted individual was hit or whether there were any other casualties.

Whitman also would not identify or further describe the targeted individual or say how the attack was carried out.

It was not entirely clear whether the U.S. strike was aimed at a single individual. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters, "the action was to go after al-Qaida and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists," suggesting that it may have been designed to hit more than one person.

Like Whitman, Johndroe declined to provide any details.

Somali police said three missiles hit a Somali town held by Islamic extremists, destroying a home and seriously injuring eight people.

Whitman said the attack was launched in accordance with standard U.S. policy.

I'd like to hear Dems and others applaud the administration for keeping the pressure up on al Qaeda and carrying out this strike.

The critics, like Russ Feingold and Harry Reid, are so quick to say that the war in Iraq has been a distraction when it comes to tracking down terrorists.

Guess not.

Feingold Fails Again

Washington -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday pledged to continue trying to end the Iraq war, even though events of the day demonstrated that he still lacks the votes to force a troop withdrawal.

The Senate wrapped up its first round of debate on the war this year with little fanfare. After two days of discussion, Republicans refused to advance a withdrawal bill. As a result, Democrats were forced to shelve proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) that would have cut off money for combat and demanded a new strategy for defeating al-Qaida.

The procedural wrangling left majority Democrats defeated, even without a final vote cast on either measure.

"We'll be back," said Reid (D-Nev.), noting that this spring the Senate is to debate whether to approve an additional $100 billion for the war.

Feingold echoed Reid, saying: "I will continue this fight when the Senate takes up the supplemental soon. As long as the Iraq war continues, more Americans will be put at risk."

Senate Democrats planned to meet Wednesday to discuss their strategy on the war.

This week, Republicans agreed to extended debate on Feingold's legislation - not because they supported the measures, but because they said the debate would offer the opportunity to promote progress in Baghdad.

The hours of Senate speeches that followed included many by allies of President Bush who said Democrats had been wrong about the 2007 troop buildup.

The audacity!

How dare Republicans extend debate to give them the opportunity to highlight the progress our troops have made in Baghdad!

How horrible of those mean-spirited Republicans to point out that the surge has been successful! What an outrage to praise the troops!

Feingold keeps trying to cut off funds to the troops, but he just can't get it done.
_______________

Feingold's statement

Feingold "Highly Inclined" for Obama

Super delegate Sen. Russ Feingold is getting closer...closer....closer....

Super delegates, of course, get two votes in the primary race.

Feingold voted for Barack Obama in the primary election. Now, he says he's "highly inclined" to cast his vote as a super delegate for Obama.

Madison -- Sen. Russ Feingold voted for Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's presidential primary, and said today he would likely cast his ballot the same way as a super delegate at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Feingold, a Democrat from Middleton, said he voted for the Illinois senator over Sen. Hillary Clinton because of Obama's ability to motivate people and his long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq.

"It was a very difficult choice because they're both good," Feingold said. "They have different strengths, but in the end I just decided he seemed like a very interesting candidate who would be very exciting and also send a great message throughout the country and throughout the world."

So Feingold finds Obama very exciting. Sounds like he has Obama fever, too. Hope he doesn't faint.

Feingold said he was "highly inclined" to vote for Obama as a super delegate because he won the Wisconsin race.

...Feingold told the Journal Sentinel he recognized that Clinton had more experience than Obama and that he preferred Clinton's health-care plan. But he said he ultimately chose Obama, in part because of his opposition to the war.

Obama was not in the U.S. Senate when the war in Iraq was authorized in 2002, but he spoke out against it at the time.

"That's always been a huge point in his favor," Feingold said. "He could have stayed away from the subject as a candidate. He could have been less clear about it, but he was very clear about it, calling it a dumb war."

I think it's funny that Feingold isn't coming out and saying he WILL vote for Obama as a super delegate.

He's wishy-washy when it comes to declaring support for a candidate, yet he has no problem setting a specific date for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

How can he be so certain about such a date yet he goes a bit limp when it comes to setting his commitment for Obama in stone?

Maverick Feingold is hesitant to abandon Hillary. He's doing his best to be on both sides of the fence. It's not surprising that Iraq policy is an important factor for Feingold. That was what his big issue during his failed attempt to run for president. (I wonder if he regrets all those days he spent in Iowa.)

I love the quote that Feingold chooses to give the eloquent Obama's position on Iraq. Obama did indeed say, "This is a dumb war, ...and we shouldn't fight it." He said that at his October 2007 rally in Madison.

"Dumb war" sounds like something a child would say, not a wannabe commander-in-chief.

Would Obama refer to Iraq as a "dumb war" while addressing a room full of Gold Star Mothers who lost their sons and daughters in Iraq?

Really, why would the skilled speaker Obama refer to the war in Iraq in such childish terms?

I suppose he's trying to appeal to voters.

He seems to have won over Feingold, almost.

Feingold and Kagen and Obama

One more Wisconsin super delegate declared his support for Barack Obama -- Steve "Injun time" Kagen.

Russ Feingold still won't commit to Obama but he indicated that he might be inclined to support Obama maybe.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama picked up the support of Rep. Steve Kagen and the likely backing of Sen. Russ Feingold on Thursday, following the presidential candidate's victory in Wisconsin earlier this week.

Kagen, a freshman Democrat from northeast Wisconsin, followed through on his promise to back the candidate who won the most votes in his congressional district. Feingold, meanwhile, said he was "inclined" to support Obama because of the state primary results but withheld a final endorsement.

Obama carried Wisconsin over Hillary Rodham Clinton by 17 percentage points.

"As a strong believer in representative government, it is my responsibility to support the winner of Wisconsin's 8th district, and that candidate is Sen. Barack Obama," Kagen said in a written statement.

Obama has inspired a new generation of voters and "earned my strongest support," he said.

While Feingold declined to say definitively that he would support Obama, he seemed to be moving in that direction.

"It obviously was a very impressive win for Sen. Obama to win all of the congressional districts, and 62 out of 72 counties," Feingold said in a telephone interview. "It's quite a victory, and very helpful to him and his drive to the nomination."

..."As I've said, who won the state and how significantly they won it is a very important factor, and it does cause me to be inclined to support him," Feingold said of Obama.

The senator said he'll also consider "my general opinions about whether somebody is the right person to run for president, whether the person can win. But the largest thought on my mind is what the people of the state indicated."

If the "largest thought" on Feingold's mind is "what the people of the state indicated," then he should declare his support for Obama right now.

Maybe Feingold is having trouble deciding because his heart belongs to John McCain.

Wisconsin's Super Delegates

Voters in Wisconsin's primary gave Barack Obama 42 delegates. Add the Wisconsin super delegates committed to Obama and he has a total of 47.

Hillary Clinton has 34 delegates from Wisconsin, including the 2 super delegates in her corner.

Nine of Wisconsin's 18 super delegates remain uncommitted or aren't talking. Two will be named at the convention.

These super delegates have a sweet deal.

Other Wisconsinites had to make a decision before the polls closed at 8:00 PM on February 19. Oh, to be super!

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- After his commanding win in Wisconsin's primary, Barack Obama won the support Wednesday of an additional state superdelegate to widen his lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton five to two.

The superdelegates can back whoever they want, regardless of the primary vote, and could determine the party's nominee at this summer's convention if neither candidate has enough delegates to lock it up before then.

Wisconsin has 18 superdelegates. Nine said Wednesday they were uncommitted or weren't saying who they back. Two superdelegates will be named at the party's convention.

Before Tuesday's primary, which Obama won 58 percent to 41 percent, only six of Wisconsin's superdelegates had committed. Four were for Obama and two were for Clinton. After the primary, Obama gained the backing of U.S. Rep. Ron Kind.

Kind threw his support behind Obama after the Illinois senator won the popular vote in his congressional district Tuesday. U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen also had said he would back the winner in his district. But he remained uncommitted Wednesday even after preliminary totals showed Obama won handily in his northeastern Wisconsin district.

What is Kagen's problem?

Does he enjoy being courted? Does he have his hand out? Is it tough for him to do what he said he would do? Is being an uncommitted super delegate so much fun that he doesn't want it to end?

Two of the undecided superdelegates - Marquette University student Jason Rae and state Sen. Lena Taylor - did not immediately return messages seeking comment Wednesday. Another, Democratic National Committee member Paula Zellner, said her mind is made up but she's not going to announce her decision until the convention.

Why would Zellner declare that she has decided but she's going to keep her decision a secret until the convention?

It sounds like she doesn't want to give up the perks and attention of being uncommitted.

The six other undecided superdelegates are U.S. Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, state party chairman Joe Wineke, U.S. Rep. Dave Obey, caseworker Melissa Schroeder, University of Wisconsin-Madison student Awais Khaleel and Kagen.

In an interview with WisPolitics, Feingold said that he would listen to Wisconsin's voters to help him decide.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold said if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins Wisconsin with a "significant victory," it would help him to decide which candidate to back for the party's nomination.

"The next important piece of information will be what happens in Wisconsin," Feingold told WisPolitics. "That will be of significance to me, in terms of where I'm leaning."

I think Feingold is going to keep leaning as long as he can.

The Obama backers are Gov. Jim Doyle, U.S. Reps. Obey and Gwen Moore, former state Rep. Stan Gruszynski, and Kind. Clinton supporters are U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Democratic National Committee member Tim Sullivan.

Super delegates lead a charmed life -- perks, attention, power.

I guess I can understand why they are slow to commit.

Not Very Maverick Feingold

WisPolitics interviewed Sen. Russ Feingold.

The maverick senator from Wisconsin and former presidential candidate isn't ready to make an endorsement yet.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold said if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins Wisconsin with a "significant victory," it would help him to decide which candidate to back for the party's nomination.

"The next important piece of information will be what happens in Wisconsin," Feingold told WisPolitics. "That will be of significance to me, in terms of where I'm leaning."

Huh?

That sounds like something Herb Kohl would say.

In effect, Feingold is saying that he is waiting to endorse the winning candidate.

That's rather wimpy.

Are Hillary and Obama so similar that Feingold is on the fence about which one to endorse? Doesn't he prefer one over the other?

I think he doesn't want to burn any bridges. He's probably looking for a cabinet position or some other appointment.

Maybe he's even hoping to be on the candidates' short list for VP. That would certainly be a gift to the Republicans.

I think it's unlikely that Feingold would be tapped for the second spot on the ticket. Some other position in a Dem administration would be more likely.

Feingold as attorney general -- That's the best al Qaeda could hope for, the terrorists' dream appointment.

Feingold as secretary of defense -- Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, and Kim Jong-il would be thrilled.

Feingold as Supreme Court justice -- God help us all.
________________

Audio of the interview here.

Dems Exploit Bhutto's Death

Everybody knows It's a Wonderful Life. George Bailey, one man, learned how significant he was in the lives of so many people. The lives he touched were dramatically altered because he was there.

Now think of Benazir Bhutto. Think of how many lives she touched. Think of the millions and millions of lives that changed because of her assassination on Thursday.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Rioting and protests spread across Pakistan on Thursday night after the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, the charismatic yet divisive former prime minister considered by Western leaders and her many supporters to have been the best hope for bringing stability and full democracy back to Pakistan.

Her death plunged the troubled country into even deeper turmoil, raising questions about the possible postponement of parliamentary elections set for Jan. 8 and the future of embattled President Pervez Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the war on terror who already is deeply unpopular among Pakistanis.

Immediately after Bhutto was killed in the army garrison town of Rawalpindi—shot as she waved from her vehicle just before a suicide blast killed at least 20 people at a campaign rally—supporters began blaming Musharraf for her death and screaming slogans against him.

The death of Bhutto, a regal, dominating figure who had studied at Harvard, won fame as the first female leader of a Muslim nation and came from a family long associated with power and tragedy, also was a potentially huge setback for U.S. policy in a country the Bush administration depends on in its global war on terror.

Bhutto, 54, who twice served as prime minister, had returned from exile in October, largely with the backing of U.S. officials, who promoted a power-sharing deal between her and Musharraf. They believed her anti-militant stance and popularity would bolster stability in the world's only known nuclear-armed Islamic nation.

The significance of Bhutto's death is enormous.

Of course, the loss of this leader is a tragedy. She had the potential to make such a difference in nurturing democracy in the Muslim world.

But the murder of this accomplished, heroic woman matters far beyond that region.

It matters to us.

Read President Bush's statement, extending condolences regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and condemning violence.

Pakistan is a powder keg. It's a nuclear disaster waiting to happen; but politics can't wait.

Russ Feingold issued a statement:

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is terrible news for those who support a stabilized democracy in Pakistan, both in that country and around the world. Bhutto was a brave leader who was beloved by millions in Pakistan. The questions surrounding her assassination should have direct bearing on both the future of democracy in Pakistan and the relationship we will have with a country that is so critical in the fight against global terrorism.”

In spite of this relatively uncontroversial statement, Brian Maloney notes that Feingold took the low road in other comments he made yesterday.

He writes:

Descending instantly into political partisanship at a particularly sensitive moment, US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) used today's savage attack on Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto to blame President Bush and Iraq.

Given the emotional state of affairs in East Asia after an ambush that killed both a revered leader and dozens of others, isn't this a particularly reckless approach? By providing verbal ammunition for our enemies abroad, isn't Feingold pouring gasoline on an already- raging wildfire overseas?

In an interview on today's Ed Schultz Show, Feingold wasted no time taking the low road, folding his unfortunate words into what otherwise sounds like a calm and reasoned reaction.

It's one heck of a sneaky debate trick, especially how Feingold uses "in recent years" to refer to Bush, while cloaking the point slightly around the 2008 presidential race. But a close listen makes it clear he's going after Bush and Iraq.

After this many years as a senator, these kinds of rhetorical tricks are old hat to someone like Feingold.

From today's show:

FEINGOLD: The focus on Iraq has been a real disservice to focusing on this part of the world where a great, frankly somebody who had great leadership and following, has been killed.

Maloney points out that Feingold's official statement doesn't include the criticism he spewed on a lib talk show.

Feingold is such an embarrassment. How crass and opportunistic to seize on Bhutto's death to score political points! In other words, it's typical Feingold.

I guess Wisconsinites can be thankful for Chris Dodd.

Maloney says:

Making the earlier words of fellow Democrat Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) sound tame by comparison, Chris Dodd took a spin on the Unhinged Expressway this afternoon, laying blame for Benazir Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of President Bush.

During an interview with libtalker Ed Schultz that occurred two hours after Feingold's, Dodd didn't use the slightest bit of discretion in his uber- partisan attack on Bush:

DODD: It reflects once again the misdirection in my view of the (Bush) Administration on focusing on Iraq and Iran. I've been saying for months that Pakistan and Afghanistan deserve more attention.

It's still the epicenter of international terrorism, of where Osama bin Laden is, here. And yet the administration continues to focus its efforts, its resources, its time and effort on Iraq and Iran.

These Dems have no shame.

In addition to Feingold and Dodd putting their disgusting spin on Bhutto's assassination, we have her death being exploited by the presidential wannabes. (Yes, I know Dodd is technically a candidate but no sane person can consider him to even be a dark horse.)

The Dem candidates were falling all over themselves to use Bhutto's death to their advantage.

DES MOINES, Dec. 27 -- News of Benazir Bhutto's assassination came just hours before Sen. Barack Obama delivered what his campaign had billed as the "closing argument" in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday, forcing his campaign to scramble to incorporate the Pakistani opposition leader into his message of change.

For his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Bhutto's death helped underscore the line she has been driving home for months -- about who is best suited to lead the nation at a time of international peril. In her comments Thursday, Clinton described Bhutto in terms Obama (D-Ill.) could not: as a fellow mother, a pioneering woman following in a man's footsteps, and a longtime peer on the world stage.

The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two just a week before Iowans will decide the first contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

While aides said Clinton was anxious not to appear to be politicizing Bhutto's death, they nonetheless saw it as a potential turning point in the race with Obama and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"I have known Benazir Bhutto for more than 12 years; she's someone whom I was honored to visit as first lady when she was prime minister," Clinton said at a campaign event in a firehouse in western Iowa. "Certainly on a personal level, for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father, who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible tragedy," she said.

Three hours after news of Bhutto's slaying broke, Obama delivered a withering rebuke of Clinton's experience, depicting her lengthy political resume as a hindrance to solving big problems, including crises abroad. In an especially charged moment, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod would later tie the killing to the Iraq war -- and Clinton's vote to approve it, which he argued diverted U.S resources from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both al-Qaeda hotbeds.

"You can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it," Obama said. "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

His remarks came as part of the unveiling of a new stump speech meant to reinforce his change agenda to Iowa voters before the Jan. 3 caucuses. But at every stop Thursday, he started with a few words about the Bhutto assassination. "She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people," Obama said. "We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

..."I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem" in Pakistan, Obama said. "We were distracted from focusing on them."

It's sickening that Clinton and Obama are viewing Bhutto's death through the prism of U.S. presidential politics instead of as a crisis in terms of hope for stability in Pakistan and the region.

The Republican candidates engaged in some posturing of their own.

While I think it's completely legitimate for the candidates to address Bhutto's assassination, I don't like her death being exploited as part of America's presidential political games.

Feingold, Kohl, and Mukasey

Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey is on his way to confirmation.

WASHINGTON -- The Judiciary Committee voted to advance the nomination of Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey to the Senate floor Tuesday, virtually ensuring his confirmation before Thanksgiving.

The 11-8 vote came after two key Democrats accepted his vow to enforce any law Congress might enact against waterboarding.

However, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy called Mukasey's promise disingenuous. "Unsaid, of course, is the fact that any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this president," said Leahy, D-Vt..

Sen. Chuck Schumer, who suggested Mukasey to the White House in the first place, countered that the nominee's statements against waterboarding and for purging politics from the Justice Department amount to the best deal Democrats could get from the Bush administration.

"If we block Judge Mukasey's nomination and then learn in six months that waterboarding has continued unabated, that victory will seem much less valuable," he wrote in an op-ed in Tuesday's editions of The New York Times.

Announcements of support for Mukasey by Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., virtually assured the former federal judge the majority vote he needed to be favorably recommended by the committee. He was expected to win confirmation handily in the full Senate, where a vote is likely before Thanksgiving.

Both Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl voted AGAINST Mukasey.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Wisconsin's two Democratic senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, voted today to oppose the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be confirmed as the U.S. attorney general.

...Feingold had announced his opposition to Mukasey on Saturday, but Kohl was noncommittal until the vote. In voting against the nomination, Kohl said in a statement:

"It is with great reluctance that I cannot support Judge Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general. He is nominated to be this nation's top law enforcement official. His unwillingness to say what we all know - that waterboarding is torture - sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world, puts our own soldiers at risk, and harms our ability to win the war on terrorism.

"As Judge Mukasey's answers mirror the president's on this issue -- and defy common sense -- we are forced to question his independence as well. The attorney general's loyalties must be to the Constitution, to the American people and to the law. Too much doubt on this point is disqualifying."

Finally, Kohl arrived at a decision.

Feingold was waffling, too, though he did make known his intentions sooner than Kohl. Feingold released the following statement a couple of days ago:

"I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle."

Feingold's "King George" crap again. I don't think his vote is about Mukasey. It's about Bush.

Both Kohl and Feingold know that Mukasey will be the next attorney general. I'm convinced that the Dems intended to confirm him all along.

Chuck Schumer's op-ed piece in today's New York Times is part of the Dems' carefully choreographed dance.

Dems are dispatched with their marching orders -- oppose Mukasey, support Mukasey, rip Bush.

They got their pound of flesh from Mukasey and now they'll confirm him.

Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold Don't Sign

Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, where art thou?

Wisconsin's senators were among the few Democrats opting not to sign Harry Reid's letter to condemn Rush Limbaugh.

No Republican senators signed the letter. Not one.

Nine Democrats and one independent also chose not to put their names on Reid's smear.

Evan Bayh of Indiana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (the independent), Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Naturally, being the hacks that they are, I assumed that Kohl didn't sign because he was napping and Feingold was too busy blogging on Daily Kos to get to it.

I'm not really sure why Kohl hasn't fallen in step with his fellow Democrats.

We now know that Feingold did make a conscious decision not to sign.

From Politico's The Crypt:

UPDATE: Feingold weighs in with a statement.

“I did not sign the letter regarding Rush Limbaugh for the same reason I voted against the Cornyn and Boxer amendments regarding negative political advertisements. The Senate should not get in the habit of condemning political speech, even speech that is offensive. These issues sidetrack the Senate from the real issues, such as working to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Rush Limbaugh says a lot of things that I find deplorable and these recent comments are a perfect example.”

So Feingold didn't sign, but he's participating in the smear campaign.

Maverick man Feingold doesn't have the courage to be honest about what front group Media Matters and Reid, plus presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, and Barack Obama, as well as other Dems are doing to Limbaugh.

Noooooo. He agrees with them. He's on board with condemning Limbaugh. He just doesn't want to sign the letter.

I find that deplorable.

Would someone please wake Kohl and get a statement from him on the sliming of Limbaugh?
____________________

Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays responds.

In short, Mays respectfully tells Harry Reid and the Dems to lay off Limbaugh.

FEINGOLD DOES IT AGAIN!

When I heard that the Senate approved a policy bill authorizing $150 billion in war funding by a 92-3 vote, I knew right away. I didn't doubt it for a minute.

Five senators didn't cast a vote.

All five are presidential candidates-- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain, and Obama.

Three senators voted against the bill-- Byrd, Coburn, and, of course, Russ Feingold.

Surprised to find Feingold, embarrassment from Wisconsin, in the minority?

Roll call

WASHINGTON -- Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Feingold wasn't satisfied with that delayed gratification. He refused to support the defense authorization bill. While it's a shameful vote, at least Feingold is being more upfront than his Dem colleagues.

The other Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the bill would help repair the U.S. military "where our commander in chief has so badly mismanaged them."

"As President Bush's flawed Iraq strategy stretches our military to its breaking point, we are addressing troop-readiness problems and ensuring our troops and National Guard members have the equipment and training they need to do their jobs," the Nevada Democrat said.

Reid is touting Dem support for the bill as an indication of their commitment to provide troops with the equipment and training they need at the same time that he brags about "the next dogfight."

Reid is really a lowlife, so disingenuous.

So, for now the overwhelming majority of Dems voted for funding, but they're hoping later to vote against it.

That's so John Kerry.

...In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

The AP account clearly is biased, saying Kennedy's amendment would assist states in prosecuting attacks on gays.

While it says that the White House considers it unnecessary, it doesn't say why. The proposal would make "federal crimes out of acts that already are against the law and might violate the Constitution."

"I have trouble believing the president would veto a defense bill over hate crimes," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "I can't even fathom that."

Levin and his comrades should be ashamed of their game plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, has said the measure jeopardizes the entire bill, despite the popular programs it contains.

No U.S. president has ever vetoed a defense authorization bill.

The Dems are hoping to force President Bush to veto a defense bill.

It's political gamesmanship at its worst. In other words, it's typical Democrat stuff.

I wonder how the troops fighting in Iraq will react when they learn that a bill to authorize funds to protect them is being used by the Dems as a political football.

If I had a loved one serving in the military, I wouldn't appreciate any effort that might delay funding to help keep that loved one safe and jeopardize the success of the mission.

And what about the gay community?

Are they OK with the Dems exploiting them to do political damage to President Bush, and at the expense of our troops?

How does the gay community feel about Feingold's vote?

Is Feingold against Kennedy's amendment? Is he disturbed that he had to cast an anti-gay vote?

Bottom line: With the exception of Feingold and Byrd, the Dems want to appear to support the troops by providing them with funds for the equipment they need; but they don't intend to deliver.

Feingold and Byrd don't even pretend to be supplying the troops with necessary funding.
__________________

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On Offering Feingold-Reid to the Defense Appropriations Bill

October 1, 2007

Washington DC – Today, in advance of introducing an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill based on the Feingold-Reid legislation to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold released the following statement:

“Iraq is the most important issue we face and the Senate must address it when we take up the Defense spending bill this week. Now is not the time for half-measures or compromises that do nothing to end the President’s disastrous Iraq policy. If senators are serious about safely redeploying our troops from Iraq, passing Feingold-Reid is the surest way to do it.”

Really? Putting troops at risk is the best way to retreat from Iraq?

I don't think so.