Mark Udall, Rush Limbaugh, and "Phony Soldiers"

Democrat Rep. Mark Udall from Colorado is planning to introduce a resolution today to condemn Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark.

September 28, 2007

JOIN AS AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF A RESOLUTION

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES AND

CONDEMNING RUSH LIMBAUGH'S ATTACK

ON "PHONY SOLDIERS"

Dear Colleague:

On September 26, 2007 the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

On Monday I will introduce a resolution honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces and condemning this unwarranted attack on the integrity and professionalism of those in the Armed Forces who choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding U.S. military action in Iraq.

For more information or to cosponsor the resolution, please contact XXXXXXX in my office at xxxxx.

Sincerely,

Mark Udall

If this happens, I hope Republicans are prepared to introduce a resolution to condmen ABC's Brian Ross and Charlie Gibson.

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters writes:

Just days before Rush Limbaugh was attacked by a number of press outlets for discussing "phony soldiers" on the air, ABC's Brian Ross did a segment on "World News with Charles Gibson" dealing with "phony heroes...scam artists...posing as the war heroes they never were, claiming credit for acts of courage in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Marvelously, this story was aired on Monday, September 24, just two days before Limbaugh made his comments. And, as noted in a NewsBusters posting by the MRC's Brent Baker, the report even mentioned the same "phony soldier," Jesse Macbeth, that Limbaugh did on his program Wednesday.

Will media attack ABC with the same zeal they did Limbaugh? Maybe even more important, will House Democrats offer a resolution to condemn Ross, Gibson, and everyone involved in ABC's report?

Good questions.

Is there any doubt about the answers?

In addition to exposing this absolute farce, Noel Sheppard also supplies details on the group behind the smear campaigns being waged against conservatives in the media.

Last week, two of the leading conservatives in the media, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, were dishonestly and unprofessionally attacked by press outlets that cherry-picked out of context remarks from lengthy radio broadcasts in order to vilify outspoken personalities whose opinions they don’t agree with.

Unfortunately, as folks around the country saw this play out on their television sets and newspapers, few were at all familiar with the organization behind the smear campaigns, or that this same group started the firestorm which ended with radio host Don Imus being terminated by NBC and CBS in April.

Maybe more importantly, even fewer citizens are aware that this organization is linked directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as billionaire leftist George Soros.

For some background, John Perazzo wrote a column for FrontPage Magazine in July entitled “Media Matters: Hillary’s Lap Dogs,” that should be must-reading for all citizens interested in who's targeting America’s leading conservative personalities.

Udall really should reconsider introducing that resolution to condemn Limbaugh.

I can't believe that Hillary wants Media Matters, arm of the vast Left-wing conspiracy, to be scrutinized.

If the House moves forward with this phony "phony soldier" issue, Democrats should brace themselves for a hard fall.

Photos: Anti-War Protesters in Washington

What a beautiful Saturday to get ugly!

Thousands march in D.C. war protest

You can read about it, but I think a pictorial tells the story more effectively.

To quote Michelle Malkin: "[T]hey came, they spewed, they cursed."

Here are the anti-war protesters:


Anti-war protesters gather across the street from the White House at Lafayette Park Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Who are the imperialists occupying Iraq? Al Qaeda?

It's not the Americans. If we're imperialists, we aren't acting very imperial. When are we going to take over the oil fields? When are we going to start profitting from Iraq's natural resources? More importantly, where's the Starbucks?



Antiwar demonstrators rally at the White House calling for an end to the war in Iraq in Washington, September 15, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)

To do list:
1. Protest war
2. Rob bank
3. Shoplift more bandanas



Antiwar demonstrators rally in front of the White House calling for an end to the war in Iraq in Washington September 15, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)

The impeachment proponents need to get moving. Impeachments don't happen overnight, you know. The clock is ticking.



Anti-war protesters face counter-demonstrators as they march along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, September 15, 2007. REUTERS/Stelios Varias (UNITED STATES)

Note the sign just left of center reads: "TROOPS ARE DUPES FOR CORPORATE GREED."

Yes, the anti-war mob loves and respects the troops, also known as dupes.

Disgusting.



Antiwar demonstrators dressed as U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and Vice President Dick Cheney rally calling for an end to the war in Iraq in Washington, September 15, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)

Is that Russ Feingold under the George Bush mask? Tom Lantos dressed as Dick Cheney?



Anti-war demonstrator lie on the ground as they participate in a 'die-in' on the grounds of the U.s. Capitol, Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The ever popular "die-in" -- Protesting while napping.



A mock flag draped coffin in remembrance of Marine Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, from Randolph, Mass., is positioned across the street from the White House as anti-war protesters gather at Lafayette Park Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Does a "mock flag draped coffin" really do justice to Marine Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo's memory?

Does an upside down American flag appropriately represent his service and sacrifice?



Anti-war protesters march in Washington, DC. Thousands of angry protestors including the families of dead US soldiers marched in Washington Saturday demanding an end to the war in Iraq, the return of US troops, and the impeachment of President George W. Bush.(AFP/Nicholas Kamm)

"Abort Bush Now" -- This protester is multi-tasking, melding the pro-abortion and anti-Bush agendas. Very impressive.



An anti-war protestor yells at a Capitol Police officer in front of the US Capitol 15 September in Washington. (AFP/Getty Images/Brendan Smialowski)

Get this guy an Altoid.
________________________


Michelle Malkin was with counterprotesters Gathering of Eagles and liveblogging.

Some of her posts:

Update 5:45pm Eastern. Here’s the AP’s dispatch mentioning some of the arrests of demonstrators who jumped the fence at the base of the Capitol. We were up the steps in the middle of the crazies who started barking “Fascism!” when the police took away the fence-jumpers.

Update 5:00pm Eastern. Well, they came, they spewed, they cursed. Several thousand Soros marchers descended on the Capitol yelling “Fuck Bush” and “Fuck you” at Gold Star Families. As Capitol Hill police arrested the “die-in” participants, young peaceniks shouted “What does a pig look like? The Capitol police” and “Oink! Oink! Oink.” Others shrieked about “Fascism!” and gleefully performed “Sieg Heil” salutes.

Update 3:17pm Eastern. I’m hearing that the peaceniks are throwing eggs at the Eagles.

Naturally, by the way, the Yahoo! News photo gallery is full of anti-war protest photos, but none I see so far from the Walter Reed Freeper/Eagle rally last night or the Eagles’ gathering this morning.

The Associated Press left this stuff out of its reports.

Wonder why?

Obama's Joke

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) walks from a press conference before a rally at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, February 11, 2007. Obama formally announced his campaign for U.S. President in the 2008 election during a rally in Illinois February 10. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES)

Barack Obama has got to be kidding!

Obama who?

IOWA FALLS, Iowa -- Barack Obama said Sunday that name recognition would be his toughest challenge in his 2008 presidential campaign.

His leading rivals for the Democratic nomination are far better known to voters, the Illinois senator said in an Associated Press interview the day after announcing his candidacy.

"At least two of my fellow candidates have been campaigning for years," Obama said, referring to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"They have an infrastructure and name recognition that are higher than mine so there will probably be a higher burden of proof for me," the first-term senator said.

It's true that Hillary Clinton has been planning to be America's first woman president since before she became a New Yorker and was elected to the Senate.

John Edwards, enlister of disgusting, bigoted bloggers, has been campaigning to be president for years as well.

The Clinton politicial machine cannot be underestimated, and neither can Edwards' fortune.

But how can Obama claim that he'll struggle when it comes to name recognition?

His mug is everywhere!

He's all over TV -- the Sunday talk shows, network late night talk shows (here and here), cable news, cable entertainment.

He's been on the covers of TIME and Newsweek.

Rolling Stone has slobbered all over Obama.

Oprah, too.

Then there was this, from People magazine:



And Obama thinks that he has a name recognition problem?

That's nuts.

This weekend has been an Obama Fest.

Cameras and reporters are documenting his every move from Springfield to Iowa, and they'll follow him to New Hampshire.

It's Obama-mania.

How can he say with a straight face that he has to battle for name recognition?

Even the Australian Prime Minister John Howard considers Obama significant enough to take time out to criticize Obama's foreign policy positions.

Howard said:

"If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

I bet Hillary is jealous.

In addition to all of that attention, Obama has wooed Hollywood to jump on his bandwagon, including George Clooney.

Moneybags George Soros is on board with Obama.

Simply put, Obama wants to be seen as an outsider, an underdog, a man of the people rather than a man owned by special interests and indebted to the glitterati and big money contributors.

What a joke!

Very funny.

Obama: The Bug in the Clinton Machine

While Barack Hussein Obama is in New York, out to make friends, he may actually be making enemies.

It's pretty risky. History shows that no one crosses the Clintons without paying dearly.

I'm sure Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and company originally considered Obama's dreams of the presidency to be strictly a publicity stunt tied to his book tour, a harmless flirtation.

Obama's flirtation has moved out of the talking stage and into some heavy duty close contact.

Could Hillary be getting nervous?

From The New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama treaded onto Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home turf last night to meet with prominent Democratic donors and feel out those who might prefer the sound of President Obama to President Clinton (as in Hillary, not Bill).

Amid intensifying presidential musings by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama met with George Soros, the liberal billionaire philanthropist, and then some other donors last night at Mr. Soros’s offices.

One of the donors who met with Mr. Obama, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to offend Mrs. Clinton, said that he and several others had supported Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns but were not committed to her as a presidential candidate.

That's so funny!

Now donors are leaking to The Times.

This donor needs to remain anonymous for fear that running to The Times might upset Hillary.

Hell hath no fury like Hillary scorned.

“I like Hillary a lot, but I’m also impressed with Obama — his message, the way he connects to people,” said the donor, a prominent New York business person. “It’s a little too early for Democrats to be certain that Hillary is the strongest bet for 2008. There are a lot of good people interested in running.”

Is this for real?

Are the big donors really ready to trust a man who has served in the U.S. Senate for only two years to be the Democrat Party's nominee?

It seems like quite a gamble.

Speaking to reporters last night after those meetings and a speech to a charity dinner, Mr. Obama called Mrs. Clinton a friend and ally and said that if he decided to run for president, it would not be based on his assessment of her.

“I think she is tough, I think she is disciplined, I think she is smart, and I’m not one of those people who believe she can’t win,” Mr. Obama said. “I recognize it’s fun to set these things up as a contest between the two of us. I would say half my colleagues in the Senate think they’re going to be the next president.”

While Obama speaks glowingly of Hillary, he seems to think that he's tougher, more disciplined, and smarter than her.

And although half his colleagues may be delusional about their presidential possibilities, they don't have the national media and late night talk show hosts fawning over them and encouraging them the way Obama does.

Mr. Obama’s reconnaissance mission came as Mrs. Clinton was accelerating talks about 2008 not only with New York elected officials, but also with some prominent donors whom she would like to lock in for a possible White House bid.

John Catsimatidis, a loyal Clinton donor, said he had recently received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton asking to have dinner before the holidays. He believes she wants to run for president and is moving to ramp up her Senate fund-raising operation for a White House campaign.

“I think they have a phenomenal political machine set up that’s far superior to any of the other candidates, or theoretical candidates,” Mr. Catsimatidis said. “Now they’re getting ready to put that machine to use.”

I bet Hillary is ticked off that Obama is the bug in the Clinton machine.

To that end, the Clinton team disclosed yesterday that they had a new national finance director lined up in case the senator decided to run. Jonathan Mantz, a fund-raiser for Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and a former finance official for the Washington-based operations to elect a Democratic House and Senate, has agreed to work for her if she becomes a candidate. The senator is expected to make a decision this winter.

The Clinton team also announced that Phil Singer, a communications strategist for the Democrats’ successful takeover of the Senate last month, had agreed to play a similar role for Senator Clinton, should she run. Mr. Singer is a protégé of Senator Charles E. Schumer and was an aide on Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

I'm so sick of these games.

There is no "if" Hillary becomes a candidate.

She's been a candidate since the day she decided to carpetbag her way into the Senate.

Derek Shearer, a former ambassador, a donor to President Bill Clinton’s campaigns and a supporter of Senator Clinton, said he believed Mrs. Clinton’s moves did not reflect concern about financial or political competition from Mr. Obama or others, but rather an orderly process of consultation.

“She’s very deliberate about these things,” Mr. Shearer said. “What most concerns her is, does she think she could win and really make a difference in the country.”

Yeah, right.

What concerns Hillary most is achieving her personal political goals.

She's not the Mother Teresa of Washington.

Supporters of Mr. Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, described his New York visit as a combination of fact-finding and meet-and-greet as he considers whether to seek the Democratic nomination. They said, and political analysts echoed, that Mr. Obama acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s home-state advantage in New York, but that there was surging interest and curiosity about Mr. Obama, an eloquent antiwar Democrat who, if successful, would be the country’s first black nominee for president.

Wait a minute--

Obama wouldn't be the country's first black nominee for president.

I thought Bill Clinton had that honor. He was the country's first black president, right? No?

I really find it stunning that this man, with only two years of U.S. Senate experience, is being touted as the Second Coming at this stage in his political career.

What has he done to warrant such attention?

It seems crazy to me that Obama is being considered to take the top spot on the Democrat Party's ticket.

The "surging interest and curiosity" is so superficial.

True, technically speaking, Hillary only has four more years of experience under her belt; but it can't be dismissed that she did play a major role in the Bill Clinton administration.

Although she's also a freshman senator like Obama, Hillary has done more than write a couple of books and deliver one important national speech.

Mr. Soros, an early supporter, was the host of a fund-raiser during Mr. Obama’s campaign for the Senate in 2004, but he has not publicly committed to any candidate for the 2008 race, said Michael Vachon, an aide to Mr. Soros. Mr. Obama’s staff asked to use the Soros space for last night’s meetings since it was near the Midtown hotel where the senator spoke at a fund-raiser for K.I.D.S. (Kids in Distressed Situations), which assists children living in poverty.

Soros is scary. He's a one man special interest group.

Why is his commitment to any candidate so newsworthy?

He has tons of money and he's willing to part with it to influence the American political scene and, in effect, the future of the Free World.

The fact that Obama's meeting with Soros is considered to be so significant exemplifies just how screwed up our system is.

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform is a joke.

So is wanting to elect someone as inexperienced as Obama to be president.

Left Nuts: John Kerry and George Soros

During a speech in New Hampshire last week, John Kerry referred to Kim Jong Il's developing nuclear arsenal as the "Bush Bomb."

Here's a treat!

John Kerry is so proud of that speech that he wants YOU to see him deliver it.

Watch the entire New Hampshire speech here.

That link was included in an October 16 e-mail message from the man himself, John Kerry.

It arrived in the mailboxes of the 3 million members of the Kerry community.

Here are some excerpts from John Kerry's message:

Dear Mary,

In the last week, I've traveled hundreds of miles, spoken to thousands of voters, campaigned for dozens of candidates. And let me tell you this: There is something big taking hold out there.

It's something that the Rove Republicans can't stop -- no matter how shameless they are, how much fear-mongering they do, or how many vicious attack ads they launch.

None of it will work. Not if we hold our ground.

...Over the next 10 days, I'm going to be alerting you to crucial ways in which you can have a powerful impact in the closing weeks of this campaign.

I will be telling you about an amazingly important project to expose the people behind tens of millions of dollars of deceptive last-minute advertising.

I'll be inviting you to jump into the action as our three-million-person johnkerry.com community works side-by-side with MoveOn.org Political Action on a large-scale grassroots campaign that will have volunteers calling voters.

And I will be telling you which House and Senate candidates need our last minute support as the Republicans try to use money, lies and fear-mongering to stave off defeat.

It's a typical partisan message, not unusual in the final weeks before an election.

"Shameless," "vicious," "Rove Republicans," blah, blah, blah.

What is noteworthy about the message is Kerry's vow to work "side-by-side with MoveOn.org Political Action on a large-scale grassroots campaign."

MoveOn.org is a far Leftist radical group and Kerry is eagerly hitching his horse to the MoveOn wagon.

The guy is out of touch with most Americans. He is not mainstream. He's not moderate. He's a liberal extremist.

Although Kerry does not speak for mainstream America, he certainly does speak for what has become the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

The Dems are extreme.


Kerry is in bed with radical George Soros. Because of his wealth, Soros is able to pull the strings of the Democratic Party.

Soros bankrolls MoveOn. It's his baby.

Last week, Soros was interviewed by Charlie Rose. He was hawking his new book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.

Here are some of the pearls of wisdom that Soros offered during the interview:


"The main source of terrorism in my opinion is occupation and humiliation."

"Abu Ghraib turned them into terrorists or insurrectionists."

"They were not terrorists when they went in there, but they were terrorists when they came out."

This is how Soros explained the fortune he spent trying to get Kerry elected in 2004:

"If we could possibly remove George Bush from the White House, the world would greatly benefit."

"People don't realize how much power and influence we have lost in so short a time."

"It could have been avoided with a different leadership."

"It would have made a tremendous contribution to mankind."

In short, Soros is a Leftist nut, a very wealthy nut.

He draws parallels between President Bush and Hitler.

"The Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear ... Indeed the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries."

Kerry has no qualms about being very public in regard to his connection to Soros' MoveOn.

There is nothing moderate about Kerry.

Increasingly, there is nothing moderate about the Democratic Party.

Dems cannot take control of the House or Senate.

It is crucial that conservatives get out and vote to keep the extremist Dems from assuming power and blocking the President's agenda and putting our safety in the hands of the Party of Appeasement.

George Soros is not mainstream America.

John Kerry is not mainstream America.

The Democratic Party is not mainstream America.

Feingold: MoveOn Darling

If there's any doubt about where Russ Feingold stands on the spectrum of liberalism, all doubt should be put to rest.

Feingold continues to suck up to the radicals on the far Left. It makes sense. That's where he finds his support.

However, he is severely marginalizing himself by cozying up to fringe groups and online communities.

On Thursday, MoveOn.org announced a speech to be delivered by U.S. presidential candidate Russ Feingold.

(Did you know he's Wisconsin's senator? It's understandable if you wouldn't know that. He's been shirking his duties to his constituents to focus on his personal goals and quest for power.)

Press Release

News Advisory:

-- Speech at National Constitution Center, Monday at noon EST.

-- Sen. Russ Feingold to "Present Vision for Restoring Democracy."

-- Address Will Build MoveOn's GOTV Effort by Energizing Members.

-- Progressive Vision Series Promotes a Positive National Agenda.

Senator Russell Feingold will outline critical steps needed to defend our Democracy, including making all elections secure against vote suppression and tampering, ending the influence of big money on politics, preserving checks and balances in government and defending the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The speech, sponsored by MoveOn.org Political Action, is the third and final in a series of events aimed at promoting a positive national agenda and at mobilizing the organization's volunteers and voters in the upcoming congressional elections.

..."MoveOn members care passionately about restoring democracy," said Ben Brandzel, advocacy director for MoveOn.org Political Action. "Senator Feingold's leadership will motivate members to work hard so we can win big in November and achieve these critical goals," he added.

"We now have an election system badly in need of repair, and a President who thinks he is above the law. As a consequence, we've seen the checks and balances built into our constitution weakened and many of our citizens' rights eroded. This fall we have an opportunity to say enough is enough and begin restoring our democracy," said Feingold.

At the Obama and Feingold events and online, members are encouraged to sign up for Call for Change, a volunteer phone bank designed to increase Democratic turnout for the mid-term elections. The program allows MoveOn's tens of thousands of volunteers to instantly mobilize and make GOTV calls to Democratic voters in the most competitive races.

WHO: Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)

WHAT: Speech: "Reclaiming our Democracy"

WHERE: National Constitution Center, Kirby Auditorium, 2nd floor in the Annenberg Center, 525 Arch St., Independence Mall, Philadelphia, Pa.

WHEN: Monday, Sept. 25, at Noon. Doors open at 11 a.m. The speech will be broadcast nationally and starts promptly at noon

How: To R.S.V.P. contact alex@fenton.com

Broadcast nationally?

That could prove to be embarrassing. If Feingold gives his MoveOn audience what they want, an extreme Leftist rant, he will be driving away moderates.

Feingold cannot uphold this maverick facade much longer.

It's clear that he's a puppet of the radical Left, and George Soros is pulling his strings.

MoveOn likes to boast about being a grassroots network of millions of Americans, the little guy empowered.

That's deceiving. MoveOn is propped up by wealthy donors, like George Soros.

Read about Soros' influence on American politics.

Read more in The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party, written by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

It's ironic that Feingold is whining, "We now have an election system badly in need of repair, and a President who thinks he is above the law."

Blah, blah, blah.

His speech, "Reclaiming our Democracy," is being sponsored by a group that has hijacked the election system and effectively privatized the Democratic Party.

He and his partner John McCain didn't fix the campaign process.

Feingold, the crusader for campaign reform, is actually part of the problem, not the architect of its solution.

He's become the lapdog of the rich, liberal elite.

What does Feingold know about "Reclaiming our Democracy"?

He knows what it takes to grab power. He knows that he has to cater to the Left, so he does so willingly.

Rather than giving a speech on "Reclaiming our Democracy" to an adoring MoveON crowd, Feingold should listen to a speech about reclaiming his integrity.

DAYS OF OUR DEMS

There is mutiny in the Democratic Party. It's a family feud. It's a soap opera. It's a mess.

Hillary has her hands in George's pockets, and the DNC isn't happy about it.

Dr. Dean must be having a fit. I hope he doesn't start drinking again.

The Washington Post's Thomas B. Edsall writes:

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

Hmmm. Data mining.

Weren't Dems bent out of shape about that sort of thing? Haven't they been whining about the government snooping into the private lives of Americans?

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A DOMESTIC SPY PROGRAM!!!

What a headline! -- "HILLARY ERODES CIVIL RIGHTS IN POWER GRAB"

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.



Icky certainly knows how to stir things up.

Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.

It's only early 2006 and Soros is already pouring millions into an effort to take the White House away from the Republicans in 2008.

That's not surprising. Soros is obsessed with trying to buy defeat for Republicans.

What's significant is that Moneybags Soros has been courted by Icky to sidestep the inept Democratic National Committee.

The Clinton Machine is chugging away and leaving Dr. Dean in the dust. Icky is even willing to admit that his private plans for a data mining scheme are in motion because the mad Dr. can't be trusted to deliver for the Dems.

What intrigue!

...Ickes's effort is drawing particular notice among Washington operatives who know about it because of speculation that he is acting to build a campaign resource for a possible 2008 presidential run by Hillary Clinton. She has long been concerned, advisers say, that Democrats and liberals lack the political infrastructure of Republicans and their conservative allies. Ickes said his new venture, Data Warehouse, will at first seek to sell its targeting information to politically active unions and liberal interest groups, rather than campaigns.

"Washington operatives who know about it"?

Now, everybody knows about it. I guess the Post will need to publish more chapters in this drama.

It's clear that Hillary is calling the shots. She snaps her fingers and the Clintonistas carry out her wishes.

I bet Kerry and Gore are fuming. Gore is probably also foaming.

As it stands now, the DNC and Data Warehouse, created by Ickes and Democratic operative Laura Quinn, will separately try to build vast and detailed voter lists -- each effort requiring sophisticated expertise and costing well over $10 million.

"From an institutional standpoint, this is one of the most important things the DNC can and should do. Building this voter file is part of our job," Communications Director Karen Finney said. "We believe this is something we have to do at the DNC. Our job is to build the infrastructure of the party."

Finney should be ticked off. The Clinton Machine and the DNC will be competing. It's not supposed to work that way.

Hillary doesn't seem to understand the concept of "divide and conquer." She's dividing her own Party.

...Ickes has quietly raised an estimated $7.5 million in start-up money for Data Warehouse. A prospectus said the company will need at least $11.5 million in initial capital.

In addition to Soros, Ickes and Quinn have the financial backing from some of the wealthy participants in a new fundraising group called the Democracy Alliance. He and Quinn, who will be chief executive of Data Warehouse, have hired technology specialists from internet retailer Amazon.com and a Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer project.

Quinn had worked on the voter file program under McAuliffe, but he brought in his own people after Dean took over in early 2005. These included former Dean presidential campaign workers who formed a company called Blue State Digital, now under contract with the DNC.

Huh?

Someone explain that last paragraph to me. When did Quinn part ways with the DNC? Are the former Dean campaign workers still under contract with the DNC?

That's not clear. Typical Washington Post stuff. No matter.

What matters is that Hillary and Co. have initiated a schism in the Democratic Party.

I question Hillary's wisdom in alienating the DNC and Howard Dean. Then again, I often question Hillary's wisdom.

I can't see her getting close to achieving her goal without the Dem base in her corner. Apparently, she believes that Icky and Soros and some well-connected Dems are enough.

This is just another example of Hillary taking the Dems for granted. She assumes that she'll have their support no matter what she says or does.

Disloyalty, selfishness, deceit, and unfaithfulness are Clinton family hallmarks.

Ronnie Earle: Matinee Idol

There is so much to talk about when it comes to Ronnie Earle. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

At a May 12, 2005, Democrat fund-raising event, Earle said:

Integrity is not the sole possession of either party, but it is symbolic of the great division in our country now. That division is between those who would take more than their share from the rest of us and those who believe we’re all in this together.

The real division is between these two sets of values. The problem lies in the ethical behavior that is based on those values. The spirit of partisanship is not compatible with we’re all in this together.

It turns out that this man, obsessed with ethics, allowed a film crew to follow him around for two years and document his investigation that led to Tom DeLay's indictment.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the supposed non-partisan D.A. Earle may be brought up on some ethics charges himself.

Byron York writes about Tom DeLay: The Movie.


Entitled The Big Buy, I think it's destined to receive a ten minute standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival. I imagine Barbra Streisand will have a screening of the film at her mansion, with A-list Hollywood liberals in attendance.

Poor Michael Moore must be green with envy right now and finding comfort by downing a tub of Ben and Jerry’s.

York writes:

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

Birnbaum and Schermbeck showed a work-in-progress version of The Big Buy last month at the Dallas Video Festival. At the moment, they do not have a deal for the film to be shown anywhere else. Their last film, Larry v. Lockney, was shown on PBS, and they hope that perhaps a similar arrangement might be made for the new picture. Whoever ends up showing it, the film has so far been funded entirely by its makers. "We tried really hard to get it funded," Birnbaum says, "but we didn't get any takers."

Birnbaum and Schermbeck must have failed to contact George Soros when they went on their hunt for funding. I can’t believe that Soros would have failed to bankroll a hit piece on DeLay, if given the opportunity.

Schermbeck told National Review Online that the film was an irresistible Texas story. "I've been pretty interested in watching Tom DeLay work," Schermbeck says. "I thought he was a fascinating guy, certainly the most powerful Texan to emerge on the national scene in some time, a kind of Republican Sam Rayburn type, with that kind of mastery of the machinery and the will to do it."

But DeLay did not cooperate with the filmmakers, and neither did a number of DeLay allies. Earle, on the other hand, did. "I had known about Ronnie Earle for a very long time," Schermbeck says. "I thought that would be an angle to approach the whole story, telling something about Tom DeLay, even though
Tom DeLay wouldn't grant us an interview."

Earle "allowed us behind the scenes when the indictments came down last year, the first wave of indictments," Schermbeck says. "We got to follow him back to his home a couple of times, which I understand he doesn't allow anybody to do." Schermbeck says the film includes interviews with some critics of Earle, as well as lawyers who are representing some of the targets of the investigation.

So far, The Big Buy has received almost no attention in the press. With DeLay's indictment, and increased attention to Earle as well, that situation seems likely to change. (The filmmakers say they will be back at work next week, filming a new ending to the picture.) "We're pretty low on everybody's radar," Schermbeck says. "We kind of took a gamble three years ago. We didn't know what was going to happen. We feel like, as documentary filmmakers, we gambled and it paid off."

Birnbaum's website describes The Big Buy as the tale of a "bloodless coup with corporate cash" and a "political crime story."

Gee, I don't know, but I get the feeling that the filmmakers might have an anti-DeLay agenda.

Just a hunch.

Yes, Ronnie Earle is a real stand-up guy, playing to the cameras during an investigation, giving "extraordinary access" to the film crew.

This part kills me:

Earle "allowed us behind the scenes when the indictments came down last year, the first wave of indictments," Schermbeck says. "We got to follow him back to his home a couple of times, which I understand he doesn't allow anybody to do."

Why would Earle make an exception and allow the filmmakers to follow him to his home?

Apparently, Earle felt his "moment of glory" was so historically significant that it had to be captured on film.

Right.

All of this and we're supposed to believe that Earle is not an out of control, egomaniacal, partisan hack.

That's impossible for me to do.

Russ Feingold

Wisconsin's junior Senator Russ Feingold, the maverick, is getting attention for his latest statements on Iraq. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but he wants to be the President of the United States.

Who is Russ Feingold?

The name is probably familiar to many because he is John McCain's partner. Does the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act ring a bell?

Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 bans soft money contributed to candidates and parties, "thus closing the loophole that has significantly affected our national political priorities for the past decade."

Sure it does.

The bill is unconstitutional, squelching free speech. In addition, it proved to be completely ineffective.

Case in point: Election 2004.

Feingold intended to blunt the influence of "larger moneyed interests." That worked out well, didn't it?

The highly touted Reform Act didn't have much of an impact on George "Moneybags" Soros.

The McCain-Feingold Act is most likely the only reason Russ Feingold sounds familiar to many Americans. After all, he doesn't show up on TV every other day like McCain, nor does he appear on Late Night talk shows, nor has he hosted Saturday Night Live.

Familiarize yourself with the Senator from Wisconsin.

Among Feingold's Senate "accomplishments":

1) He was the ONLY senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act.

2) In 2004, he voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

3) In 2003, he voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

4) In 1999, he voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.

5) In 1996, he voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

6) In 1995, he voted NO on an Amendment to prohibit flag burning.

7) In 1999, he voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses.

8) In 2002, he voted NO on requiring photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

9) In 2003, he voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

10) In 2001, he voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.

11) In 2002, he voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

12) In 1999, he voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo.

This sampling of Russ at work provides an overview of where he stands on the issues. Clearly, Feingold stands with the radical far Left.

The latest from Russ: He wants a deadline set for troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting the end of 2006.

CRAIG GILBERT of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writes:

Stepping up his criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq, Sen. Russ Feingold has begun calling for an end-of-2006 deadline for the completed pullout of American troops. Feingold said he was proposing a target "end date" for withdrawal because "I think what we're doing now is feeding the insurgency."

Feingold's position goes beyond what virtually any other senator has explicitly proposed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Democrat said he was also trying to break what he called a "taboo" in the Senate on the discussion of specific dates for bringing troops home. He said lawmakers, especially Democrats, need to be less "timid" on the subject.

..."The situation is becoming more and more untenable because of a lack of a clear plan to finish the task and leave," Feingold said in a telephone interview while he traveled between listening sessions in northern Wisconsin.

...The Bush administration and even some critics of the war have argued that setting target dates for the withdrawal of troops would be artificial and would embolden insurgents in Iraq.

Feingold said he rejected that argument because he was convinced that the indefinite presence of troops and the lack of a withdrawal plan fueled the insurgency.

Feingold said a deadline for full withdrawal - he proposed Dec. 31, 2006 - should be flexible and subject to changing conditions. But he contended that setting even a target date would "help us to undermine the recruiting efforts and unity of the insurgents, encourage Iraq ownership of the transition process . . . and reassure the American people our Iraq policy is not directionless."

The lawmaker, who voted against the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, said he has been disappointed that more senators haven't spoken out about timetables for withdrawal.

He predicted that would change after the August recess.

"I think there's a groundswell of dissatisfaction with what's happening in Iraq. I'd be very surprised if people didn't come back (from recess) with much more of a sense of urgency," Feingold said.

Setting a deadline for troop withdrawal is absolutely idiotic.

Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has said that such a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq would have dangerous consequences.

“We would like to see the withdrawal of American forces as quickly as possible, because the presence of any foreign troops on our land means there is a weakness that we cannot by ourselves control the security situation,” Jaafari said.

According to Jaafari, setting a deadline for the withdrawal would “play into the hands of the terrorists.”

Feingold obviously disagrees. He doesn't have a problem with leaving Iraq before it is stabilized and putting the Iraqi people at risk. He doesn't hesitate to aid our enemies by trying to chip away at American public support for the mission of our troops in Iraq. He doesn’t care about undermining the U.S. military and emboldening the terrorists by handing them a victory.

Feingold is of that radical far Left fringe "cut and run" mindset, EXCEPT when it comes to Kosovo. Feingold hasn't set any deadlines for troop withdrawal from that “quagmire.”

Do you wonder about Feingold's timing in making his proposal?

I think he's hoping to garner attention for himself by seizing on the current media frenzy over Cindy Sheehan and the radical far Left's anti-war protest. I think he's hoping to get the MoveOn/Democrats for America/True Majority axis of extremists to claim him as their own. I think he's very shrewd.

So--

What is Feingold REALLY doing by proposing the December 31, 2006, deadline?

He is announcing that he intends to run for the U.S. Presidency.

Without question, Feingold has what it takes to be embraced by the radical Left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Simply put, that means he has what it takes to run America into the ground.

Patrick "Litmus" Leahy

In the 1990s, Sen. Pat Leahy criticized litmus tests on judicial nominees:

Leahy: "I would like to believe ... that no senator is imposing an ideological litmus test on judicial nominations." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/10/97, p. S7207)

Leahy: "Partisan and narrow ideological efforts to impose political litmus tests on judicial nominees and to shut down the judiciary must stop." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 3/2/98, p. S1199)

Leahy: "[Y]ou cannot have a small clique decide they want to know exactly how judges are going to rule before they go on the bench, or they're not going to confirm them." (PBS' "The NewsHour," 10/14/99)

Contrast these statements with what Leahy said this morning on VPR. He no longer is against litmus tests for judicial nominees. In fact, he embraces them.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts if the judge seems likely to pursue an "activist" philosophy. Another Democrat said Roberts assured him he is no ideologue.

In an interview broadcast Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard" program, Leahy said he would vote against the appeals court judge if it seemed as if he would pursue an activist agenda on the court. In selecting Roberts, President Bush emphasized that he was looking for someone who would not legislate from the bench.

Leahy said he's worried that Roberts might try to unravel matters that should be settled law.

Denouncing conservatives on the current court, the Vermont senator said in the interview: "They have struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, environmental acts, child safety legislation."

"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this — as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, `Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."

Leahy, like the good liberal that he is, makes absolutely no sense.

He condemns activist judges while promoting them.

He decries legislating from the bench while demanding that such acts be upheld.

I say this with all due respect--What a complete and utter fool!

Simply put, Leahy will not vote for Roberts' confirmation unless he promises to rule in a manner that casts no doubt whatsoever on the legitimacy of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

From U.S. Newswire:

Today, Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, responded to Senator Patrick Leahy, who indicated that he would vote against Judge Roberts should he not voice support for Roe. "Senator Leahy's comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Constitution and a Supreme Court Justice."

On a Vermont radio program, Sen. Leahy became the first Democrat to say outright that he would have a Roe litmus test for Judge Roberts. His comments confirm much of what Roberts' supporters had expected, that Senate Democrats could not stop a nominee with such impeccable credentials by evaluating his entire record.

"What Senator Leahy said in effect is that Supreme Court precedent has become part of the Constitution. While precedent certainly has an important role, Supreme Court Justices must be able to restore the Constitution when they find that a previous decision has ignored its text and intent. Either Senator Leahy is suggesting that in the wake of Dred Scott he would have opposed nominees who thought that it was wrongly decided, or he is not really concerned with a judge's willingness to adhere to precedent and is simply trying to appease radical special interest groups that oppose even the ban on partial-birth abortion. I would like Senator Leahy to say which of these is the case."

Fr. Pavone continued, "It is more than a little troubling that the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee wants to ensure that a Supreme Court nominee swears allegiance to a decision that has been criticized repeatedly by people on both side of the abortion issue as having no grounding in the Constitution. I hope that he is the only Senator who thinks that seven Supreme Court Justices have the right to unilaterally amend the Constitution and that there is nothing subsequent Courts can do to restore the Constitution."

Priests for Life will conduct a special educational effort in the next two months on the Roe vs. Wade decision to educate the public that this decision legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. "No poll has ever shown the American public supporting such an extreme policy," Fr. Pavone concluded.

Fr. Pavone's press release clearly illustrates that Leahy is frighteningly irrational.

Again, with all due respect, Leahy is a blathering idiot.

John Roberts' confirmation hearing promises to be a total sham. Leahy already knows he will oppose President Bush's nominee and trash him in every imaginable way.

Why do this to such a good, qualified nominee?

He and many Dems are held hostage by the fringe Left. They have no choice but to carry water for them, because the radical liberals run the Democratic Party.

The party is completely out of the mainstream.

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans want John Roberts to be confirmed.

The Question:

As you may know, John Roberts is the person nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you like to see the Senate vote in favor of Roberts serving on the Supreme Court, or not?

The Results:

59% Yes, vote in favor

22% No, would not

19% No opinion

I don't trust polls.

However, the numbers are so dramatic that the results should cause Leahy, his Dem colleagues, the liberal media, George Soros, NARAL, and assorted radical Leftist groups to step back and reflect on how terribly out of touch they are with America.

Dr. Dean Has Issues

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean speaks to students at the annual convention of the College Democrats of America, gathered at the Washington Court Hotel on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, July 22, 2005.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.

"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."

Dean's approach echoed similar arguments advanced in recent months by former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party," said Dean.

The effort to attract such voters comes as Senate Democrats are preparing for confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts' views on abortion are already being intensely scrutinized.

Dr. Dean really is nuts, isn't he?

How could any sane person think it's possible for the Dems to court pro-life voters at the same time they are waging a "war" against John Roberts based purely on concerns about his views on Roe v. Wade?

Does he really believe that the MoveOn, NARAL, NOW, PFAW, George Soros types of the Dem party, the ones that are sliming John Roberts because his wife is a member of Feminists for Life, have the same agenda as pro-life voters? There is NO common ground.

Dean has been delivering that same stale schtick for months now. Changing the approach Dems use in the abortion debate means nothing.

In the end, his party caters to groups that shuddered at the thought of Laci Peterson's unborn child being called a baby. The Dems have to bow down to people who believe that partial-birth abortion is an acceptable procedure.

The Dems have a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. If there is any indication that the nominee might believe that abortion is wrong, or if a family member of the nominee might hold that view, then the nominee is considered unfit to serve on the Court.

We are about to see the Dems trash John Roberts because they fear he's not a pro-abortion Sandra Day O'Connor clone; yet Dr. Dean wants pro-lifers to think that they have a place in the Democratic Party.

It's insane. Seriously.


Partial-Birth Abortion

Abortionists sometimes refer to these or similar types of abortions using obscure, clinical-sounding euphemisms such as "Dilation and Extraction" (D&X), or "intact D&E" (IDE) which mask the realities of how the abortions are actually performed.

This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.

Dr. Dean has some serious issues if he is under the impression that pro-life voters and radical pro-abortion voters can coexist in the same party.

In issues of life and death, passions run high.

Contrary to what the demented Dr. Dean thinks, there is no tent on earth that is big enough to accommodate pro-life voters while simultaneously sheltering the pro-death crowd.

Give it up, Dr. Dean!

Joe Wilson's Credibility Problem

If you're familiar at all with the facts of the Rove non-scandal scandal, among the things that you know with metaphysical certitude, is this:

Joe Wilson is a serial liar.

To put it a bit more gently, he has a serious credibility problem.

Joel Mowbray has a great column about what he calls Rove's saving grace, the "quicksand known as Joe Wilson."

Mowbray writes:


The virtual vigilantes circling Karl Rove have everything lined up for the brand of justice they see fit for “the Architect”: public humiliation, all-out character assassination, firing, near-fatal damage to the White House, and if they get the cherry on top, “frog-marching” the President’s closest advisor from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a federal prison.

There’s just one hitch: their entire political case rests on the quicksand known as Joe Wilson.

As part of the cynical campaign to destroy the man who guided Bush to four straight electoral victories, the Left has hailed Wilson as a hero. At first blush, the idiocy of exalting the man with a well-documented credibility problem would seem to rival the decision to roll the cameras as Dukakis gave the thumbs-up while riding in a tank.

But the Left’s entire rationale for the “Fire Rove” tidal wave is that revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee was nothing more than a “shameful,” “despicable,” and “disturbing” act of “retaliation,” “retribution,” or “revenge.” If they admitted that Wilson layered lies upon lies, then logic dictates that Rove did no more than encourage a reporter not to be hoodwinked.

...Just over one year ago, the man married to the retired CIA operative formerly known as Valerie Plame was exposed as an opportunist who lied at almost every turn in an audacious bid to grab his 15 minutes—and a seven-figure book deal.

He was outed not by Rove, the White House, or some right-wing outfit, but by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

According to the report, Plame “offered up” the services of her husband. She believed that intelligence surrounding Niger and yellowcake was bogus—she called it a “crazy report”—making it highly likely that her husband went there looking to confirm that conclusion. He did.

Or did he? The bipartisan conclusion of the committee was that Wilson's findings, if anything, served to support the belief that Saddam was actively seeking uranium for a nuclear program.

But Wilson revealed himself as the headline whore he is by grabbing the spotlight when the story first emerged about Niger and forged documents purporting to show illicit sales to Saddam. From the July 10, 2004 Washington Post:

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents—purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq—were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Obviously, Wilson’s apologists don’t much like the bipartisan report.

Mowbray nails the problem facing the Left Rove lynch mob:

"[T]hey need Wilson to be credible. He’s not."

Nevertheless, the Left remains in denial about Wilson, at least publicly. That's understandable. Rove's critics have no choice but to consider Wilson reliable and truthful.

The entire Rove matter has become such a circus that it's really an embarrassment for the Left on so many fronts. So many Democrats and members of the press have sacrificed their own credibility by ignoring Wilson's lack of it.

More on Wilson's history of falsehoods and mischaracterizations, or if you prefer, LIES--

Read the NewsMax story on Wilson's July 17 Face the Nation appearance.

Read Mark Levin's fantastic analysis.

It crushes Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame's claims that they have been victimized and discusses their unholy alliance with the liberal media.



To this day, despite all this evidence, the media embrace Wilson's story, evidence be damned. The media outlets that were used by Wilson, and published or repeated his lies, are very forgiving. They portray Wilson as he demands to be portrayed, not as he is. And they regurgitate the rhetoric about poor Valerie Plame — a patriot and victim endangered and ruined by politically motivated leaks and a powerful White House bent on discrediting her husband. Even Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, who fancies himself a hard-nosed interrogator, could not have a done a better job of misinforming the public and smearing the White House — cutting and pasting statements and video clips, and throwing softballs to, of all people, Bill Clinton’s (and now George Soros’s) hatchetman, John Podesta. Plame’s central and aggressive role in promoting her husband, who in turn hoped to damage the credibility of the president in the midst of a war — from her CIA perch — doesn’t even merit a mention. (Also, see Cliff May's excellent reporting about the Plame/Wilson/David Corn connections.)

And in an Alice In Wonderland-like storyline, the same media that demand confidentiality for their sources as a First Amendment right, also demand the identity of Bob Novak’s sources and the names of administration officials who’ve spoken to the media. They cheer the very criminal investigation they once claimed endangered their profession. Meanwhile, who’s under investigation? Not Plame and Wilson, who appear to have hatched this scandal, but those truly victimized by it — administration officials who, it appears, sought to correct Wilson’s lies. Their phone conversations with reporters and e-mails to colleagues are now scrutinized by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury as if they’re war criminals. No wonder Plame is the toast of the Washington establishment and appears in publicity shots in Vanity Fair with a big grin. Look what she’s wrought.

Is Liberal a Synonym of Democrat?

The uproar continues over Karl Rove's recent speech to the New York state Conservative Party. It's silly. I understand why the Democrats are drooling over the chance to demand an apology from a Republican after weeks of bad press and dealing with calls for Mad Dr. Dean and Dick Durbin and others to accept responsibility for their WAY over the top rhetoric.

However, the thing that makes their outrage look like nothing more than payback is the fact that Rove's comments were accurate. It's possible he could have qualified his assessment of the behavior of liberals after 9/11. If he is to be faulted for anything, it can only be for the possibility of his comments being interpreted to refer to ALL members of the Democratic Party.

I would say that anyone fluent in English would understand he was speaking about a particular group of people whose philosophy he described quite accurately.

Chuckie Schumer and head-shaking Hillary were horrifed that Karl Rove told the truth about a very vocal and powerful force within the Democratic Party. All the outrage in the world can't change those facts. History cannot be rewritten to suit the whims of some opportunistic politicians.

It cannot be denied that the MoveOn/Michael Moore/George Soros Complex responded to the 9/11 attacks precisely in the way Karl Rove suggested.

Rove said:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

"MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9-11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see...Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

"Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot -- three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

"Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Sen. Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Rove is citing specific instances of liberal responses by specific liberals. These liberals DID blame America first and urged restraint in any military reaction.

For example, out of MoveOn, posted 9/13/01:

The Petition

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.

Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. It follows that the government of a particular nation should not be condemned for the recent attack without compelling evidence of its cooperation and complicity with those individuals who actually committed the crimes in question.

Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.

Lastly and most emphatically, we demand that there be no recourse to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or any weapons of indiscriminate destruction, and feel that it is our inalienable human right to live in a world free of such arms.

The Media Research Center notes what Michael Moore posted on his website on 9/14/01:

"Am I angry? You bet I am. I am an American citizen, and my leaders have taken my money to fund mass murder. And now my friends have paid the price with their lives.

"Keep crying, Mr. Bush. Keep running to Omaha or wherever it is you go while others die, just as you ran during Vietnam while claiming to be ‘on duty’ in the Air National Guard. Nine boys from my high school died in that miserable war. And now you are asking for ‘unity’ so you can start another one? Do not insult me or my country like this!

"Yes, I, too, will be in church at noon today, on this national day of mourning. I will pray for you, and us, and the children of New York, and the children of this sad and ugly world."

And from George Soros' The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18:

"War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering - all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process."

Clearly, Rove's statements were grounded in fact.

It does seem that the Dems have taken the term "liberal" to be synonymous with "Democrat," something they usually refuse to do. Certainly, not all Dems reacted to the 9/11 attacks in the manner Rove described. The left fringe libs did.

Without question, the Dems should quit demanding an apology from Rove. If they don't like what MoveOn and Michael Moore and George Soros had to say in response to the terrorist attacks, they should take it up with them, not Karl Rove.

Here We Go Again...It's Bolton's Turn

Another confirmation hearing, another display of Democrats foaming at the mouth.

Same old, same old on Capitol Hill.

Very unbecoming.

It will take a long time before Barbara Boxer lives down her performance at Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing.

When will they learn that stuff doesn't play well with reasonable Americans?

They may be pleasing their base, but that's not enough if the Democrats hope to gain ground on the Republicans.

According to AP:

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, expressed his "grave concern" about Bolton's nomination, citing doubts about his "diplomatic temperament," his statements about the U.N. and international laws and treaties, and his leadership on weapons threats in places like North Korea and Iran.

"In my judgment," Biden said, "your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful."

...Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had serious questions about Bolton's "commitment to the U.N."

"It is critical we have someone with respect for diplomacy, who believes in the United Nations despite its flaws," he said.

"I'm surprised the nominee wants the job he's been nominated for, given the many negative things he's had to say about the U.N.," Biden said.

..Bolton retains a go-it-alone attitude about U.S. foreign policy that is out of step with Bush's second-term pledge of international cooperation, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

"My overall assessment is that you have nothing but disdain for the United Nations," she said.

"You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line," Boxer said. "It's hard for me to know why you'd want to work at an institution that you said didn't even exist."

...Much of Monday's hearing focused on his record as a boss and his use of intelligence for what Democrats suggested were partisan ends. They have raised the question of alleged retaliation against an analyst who crossed him.

Bolton said the analyst, Christian Westermann, had overstepped his authority in questioning Bolton's characterization of intelligence about Cuban germ warfare.

Moreover, Bolton said, "he was not straight with me."

During a heated back-and-forth with Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Bolton denied he tried to get Westermann fired, but said he did want the analyst transferred elsewhere in the State Department. That did not happen.

And once again a RINO, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, offers lukewarm support, his spokesman saying the Chaffee was leaning toward voting for Bolton "unless something surprising shows up" at the hearing.

These confirmation hearings have become little more than bizarre seminars in partisan grandstanding.

The spectacle is growing tiresome.

Bill Kristol offers a reasoned analysis of why Bolton is the man for the job.

He concludes:

"The case against Bolton is silly and weak. Democrats want to embrace it. Let them do so, and let Republicans make them pay a price. When Bolton is reported out of committee, Senator Frist should schedule floor debate without a time limit. Republican senators should challenge their Democratic counterparts to debate John Bolton's record, and the U.N.'s record, every day, for as long as the Democrats want. The Bush administration should put senior spokesmen on TV every night to engage in an argument over whose foreign policy is preferable for the country--George Bush's or George Soros's. Republicans should welcome a discussion of whether the U.N. is just fine as it is, or requires tough-minded reform. In stimulating such a debate, Bolton would be doing yet another service to this country."

Yes, keep up the good work Democrats!

Tom DeLay as the New Newt

The Democrats are pulling one out of their old playbook. They are turning to a strategy that proved to be successful for them in the 1990s--pick one of the enemies, then demonize nearly everything that person has ever done.

After being emasculated by the historic Republican victory in November, 1994, when the Democrats lost the House after forty years of being the party in power, Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces needed to exercise some muscle.

Losing control of the House was a devastating political, as well as psychological, blow to the Dems. They needed to score a victory, so they chose to go after a prominent Republican. What better target than the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, mastermind of "The Contract With America"? With the mainstream media as their messengers, the Dems turned Gingrich into the Great Satan.

In the 1996 elections, it seemed as if every Democrat in America was running against Gingrich. I remember thinking what does Gingrich have to do with my state's senate race? Even in the presidential race, it looked like Clinton's opponent was Gingrich rather than Bob Dole.

Now, all arms of the Democratic party are swinging at Tom DeLay.

From Robert Novak:

MoveOn.org, the left-wing activist group leading the fight against Rep. Tom DeLay, has claimed there is a Republican clamor to replace him as House majority leader that does not actually exist.

"Now," said an e-mail dispatched by MoveOn, "some Republicans in Congress are speaking out against DeLay." In fact, however, no Republican in Congress has criticized DeLay publicly, not even on an off-the-record basis.

The e-mail also declares unequivocally that "DeLay illegally used corporate funds in support of his plan to redistrict Texas." Actually, DeLay has not been convicted, tried or even formally accused of breaking the law.

From Rich Lowry:

For the old-fashioned, the definition of a "news story" is a story that is new — hence the name. But the newspeople at the newspapers the Washington Post and the New York Times have an updated definition — anything that hurts Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay on any given day.

The Times just ran a front-page article reporting that DeLay's wife and daughter receive payments from his political operations. This story might have been news if it hadn't been known for years and been the subject of a detailed report in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call on May 5, 2003 — meaning the Times did a follow-up 702 days later. And this story might have been scandalous if it weren't for the fact that having family members on the pay-roll is a common, bipartisan practice, accepted as legitimate so long as they actually do work (DeLay's daughter runs his congressional campaigns). This story can only be explained if some editor at the Times is not barking at reporters, "Get news on Tom DeLay!" but instead simply, "Get Tom DeLay!"

The same day as the Times front-pager, the Washington Post ran its own front-page article on a trip DeLay took to Russia that was ostensibly funded by a Washington think tank, but that really might have been funded by a Washington lobbyist, in violation of House rules. This might have been news if that trip hadn't taken place in 1997 and been reported in the National Journal on Feb. 25, 2005 — meaning the Post did a relatively brisk follow-up after 39 days.

...The independent ethics groups that have been decrying DeLay's practices, such as Democracy 21 and Common Cause, are allies in this partisan push. Their contributors are hyper-Democrats like George Soros, and their staffers are often former Democratic politicos. They identify ethical government with Democratic government, and get the cooperation of the press, which would have no use for DeLay even if he were the reincarnation of Mr. Smith. This is why House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can secure a federal grant for a nonprofit that contributes to her political action committee, as The Washington Times recently reported, and the story barely causes a ripple, let alone gets recycled every 39 days.
________________________________

I don't know if DeLay will survive.

Lowry describes what's happening to him as a "ritual with all the carefully scripted but irrational rules of an Aztec sacrifice ceremony. First, the target is deemed 'dogged by ethics questions.' Then, every scrap of negative information is splashed on the front pages, until out of exhaustion the target's supporters abandon him."

It will be a test of the New Media's growing influence and power. Can they effectively counter the orchestrated Dem onslaught?