Biden and Giffords: 'Cracked Head Club'

I can't believe Joe Biden is the vice president of the United States.

From USA Today:

Count Vice President Biden among those excited to see Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at the U.S. Capitol yesterday.

Biden, who got advance notice from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that Giffords would show up, said the Arizona Democrat called him "Joe" when she saw him.

"I said, 'Now we're both members of the Cracked Head Club,'" Biden is quoted as saying in The Boston Globe.

Giffords was shot in the head Jan. 8 in a rampage during one of her constituent events in Tucson. Six people died.

The vice president has survived two craniotomies to remove brain aneurysms. His comment to Giffords yesterday was reported by The Washington Post, ABC News and others.

Joe Biden.

Need I say more?

Biden and Dinner with Obama

Team Obama is still pushing the "Dinner with Barack" fundraiser.

The latest e-mail hawking the event comes from Joe Biden.

It plays off his image as a buffoon.

Friend --

The President and I have a routine -- we get lunch together almost every Friday.

But all I get is lunch. You could be one of four supporters to have dinner with him soon.

Donate $5 or more today to have your name automatically thrown in the hat here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-Barack

I'm reminded every week that sitting down for a meal with the President of the United States -- without TV cameras or a big crowd -- is something only a few people will ever get to do.

You're not going to want to miss this chance.

I wish you luck,

Joe

Poor Joe. All he gets is lunch.

At least he gets lunch. During Election 2008, he claimed to be hanging out at Katie's Restaurant on Union Street in Wilmington.



The problem: Katie's closed decades ago.

All that's left of Katie's is the faded sign.



Joe, Joe, Joe.

I bet Biden does appreciate his lunches with Obama.

Obama and Kenneth Clarke

Here we go again.

When Obama speaks, people sleep.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke dozed off during Obama's speech at Westminster.

Video.



Funny.
________________

Related post:

I understand why someone listening to Obama drone on and on would fall asleep; but you'd think Joe Biden, vice president, could manage to stay awake while the president delivers an important, albeit horrible, speech.

Alas, Biden either couldn't or wouldn't remain alert as Obama spoke Wednesday afternoon.

Video, from ABC News:



This isn't the first time Biden has been caught napping as Obama read from the teleprompter.

It happened in September 2009 during Obama's nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress.

Obama has this effect on Biden. Other people have similar reactions, also falling asleep when Obama talks.

Last year, a student at Kalamazoo Central High School dozed off during Obama's commencement address.



In 2009, Obama put cadets asleep at West Point during a prime time televised address.



ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
______________

Since we're on the topic of sleeping during a speech...

Here's a funny video - Bill Clinton nodding off in 2008, at Harlem's Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem during a Martin Luther King, Jr. event:

Obama Tax Returns, 2010

The White House released Obama's tax returns on Monday.

He and Michelle made $1.7 million last year. That's dramatically less than the year before.

From the Associated Press:

He and wife Michelle reported income of $1.73 million last year, mostly from the books he's written, according to his just-filed tax return. That was down from the $5.5 million of a year earlier.

The president, who has been campaigning to raise taxes on the wealthy, paid the government $453,770 in federal taxes, about a quarter of the income. Just last week, he renewed his push to end Bush-era tax cuts for households with annual incomes above $250,000 — noting that that would include him.

The White House released tax returns for the Obamas and for Vice President Joe Biden and his wife on Monday, the deadline for Americans to file.

The president for the first time drew his full $400,000 salary in 2010, since in 2009 he didn't start drawing pay until after his inauguration in late January.

Through withholding and estimated tax payments during the year, the Obamas paid $466,104 to the Internal Revenue Service. That was an overpayment, so they are getting a $12,334 refund.

The first family's adjusted gross income for 2010 was $1.728 million. Their taxable income after deductions was $1.34 million.

TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH!

Spread Obama's wealth around. Why should he get to have all that money?

Obama's class warfare rhetoric is at odds with his personal wealth.

When he demonizes the rich, he's demonizing himself.

He should volunteer to give the government more of his money, more than he owes.

He should set an example by showing Americans how great it is to pay more in taxes. He should refuse to accept his refund. Instead of pocketing the $12,334, he should let the government have it. Let the government spend it.

What were Obama's charitable donations in 2010?

They were much more generous than they were before Obama became a national figure.

In 2009, the Los Angeles Times reported:

The Obamas have only recently dug deeply into their own pockets to support charitable causes. In 2002, the year before Obama launched his U.S. Senate campaign, the couple reported income of $259,394 and $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, below the national average of $1,872.

So the Obamas gave well below the national average to charities even when their income placed them among rich Americans, by Obama's own definition. Not good.

The Obamas' charitable giving seems to be much more of a political move than a choice based on values.

The president and first lady donated $245,075 — about 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income — to 36 different charities. The largest was a contribution of $131,075 to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides humanitarian support to members of the United States Armed Forces and their families.

They also made a $15,000 contribution to the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund and a $10,000 gift to the Boys and Girls Club of America.

Their contributions were below the $329,100 they gave to charities in 2009. That year, Obama also donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize award, which wasn't counted as income since it went directly to 10 charities.

Download the Obamas' tax returns.

Check out the Bidens' tax returns.

Joe Biden and his wife, though paupers compared to the Obamas, are rich.

Vice President Biden and his wife, Jill, reported more modest earnings, a combined adjusted gross income of $379,178, on which they paid $86,626 in federal taxes for 2010.

Withholding from their salaries came to just $79,446 — so they had a tax bill of $7,180 to settle.

In all, the Obamas paid 26 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The Bidens paid 23 percent.

The Bidens paid $14,479 in Delaware income taxes and $3,515 in Virginia income taxes. Jill Biden is an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College. The Bidens contributed $5,360 to charities.

I'm glad to see the Bidens giving more to charities than they did in the past.

Their record of charitable contributions is pathetic.

Take a look:

1998 - $215,432 - $195

1999 - $210,797 - $120

2000 - $219,953 - $360

2001 - $220,712 - $360

2002 - $227,811 - $260

2003 - $231,375 - $260

2004 - $234,271 - $380

2005 - $321,379 - $380

2006 - $248,459 - $380

2007 - $319,853 - $995

Total - $2,450,042 - $3,690

That's embarrassing.
__________________

Video, from the Associated Press:

Biden Sleeps, Obama Speaks

I understand why someone listening to Obama drone on and on would fall asleep; but you'd think Joe Biden, vice president, could manage to stay awake while the president delivers an important, albeit horrible, speech.

Alas, Biden either couldn't or wouldn't remain alert as Obama spoke Wednesday afternoon.

Video, from ABC News:



This isn't the first time Biden has been caught napping as Obama read from the teleprompter.

It happened in September 2009 during Obama's nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress.

Obama has this effect on Biden. Other people have similar reactions, also falling asleep when Obama talks.

Last year, a student at Kalamazoo Central High School dozed off during Obama's commencement address.



In 2009, Obama put cadets asleep at West Point during a prime time televised address.



ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
______________

Since we're on the topic of sleeping during a speech...

Here's a funny video - Bill Clinton nodding off in 2008, at Harlem's Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem during a Martin Luther King, Jr. event:

Obama Pulls a Joe Biden in Milwaukee

I thought Barack Obama wants to change politics.

I thought he promised to be different.

Instead, I discover that Obama is a Joe Biden.

These latest revelations about Obama have crushed my hopes!

From the New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama adapted one of his signature arguments — that his oratory amounts to more than inspiring words — from speeches given by Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign.

At a Democratic Party dinner Saturday in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, responded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has criticized him for delivering smooth speeches but says they do not amount to solutions to the nation’s problems, by ticking through a string of historic references.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Mr. Obama said, to applause. “ ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?”

Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor’s race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.

“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? Just words?” Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. “ ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?”

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

Obama's campaign is scrambling to keep this plagiarism from derailing Obama's momentum.

Plagiarism killed Joe Biden when he ran for president in the 1988 election.

Just because Patrick says it's OK for Obama to lift his "just words" lines, does that mean it's OK?

Would a college professor buy that excuse if a student used lines from another student's essay?


Obama will say that Hillary is going negative, that the charges of plagiarism are typical Washington politics at its worst.

I don't think of it that way.

I'm glad that I'm getting a glimpse into where Obama draws his inspiration.

At the very least, Hillary has given Deval Patrick the credit he is due.

Maybe Patrick is an inspiring enough speaker to become president someday.

Biden Plans to Break Through

Joe Biden can't be that detached from reality.

He can't really think that he can pull an upset in Iowa.

Oops! I was wrong. He is that detached.

From Politico:

Joe Biden is talking. “Barack does a room, Hillary does a room, I do the same room and I win,” he says. “I have absolute confidence in that. The question is: Do I get in enough rooms?”

Biden is sitting at a table in a Starbucks, a cup of coffee rapidly growing cold in front of him. We talk for thirty minutes and in that time I manage to fit in exactly two questions. I am not complaining.

Biden is charged up and telling me that if he could trade places with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards in Iowa right now he would not do it. Would not!

“I am not being a wiseass,” he tells me, nudging my arm for emphasis. “I am not joking. The guy with the most money and the woman with the biggest buzz, beaten by the man with the right message! Who people think is honest!”

Though beating them, in Biden’s view, does not mean actually coming in ahead of them in the tally for delegates on Jan 3, the night of the Iowa caucus. He means he will beat them when it comes to expectations.

He poses a possible outcome for caucus night. He says he is just making the numbers up, but it seems clear he has thought about them.

“Let’s say I end up with 15 percent, Barack is at 20 percent, Edwards is at 22 percent, and Hillary is at 26 percent,” Biden says. “That would be a big victory for me.”

He savors that for a moment. “Barack spends as much as Hillary and has all that organization and all that hype! And he gets beaten by Hillary by six points!” Biden says as if his fictional numbers were not fictional.

...At Starbucks, Biden says: “I tell my contributors - - the few we have - - and I tell my staff, ‘I cannot show you anything until Jan. 3.’ Then you guys (i.e. the media) will cover me and I will finally get to the front page of the New York Times, as reluctant as they are to do that.”

To Biden it is just a matter of getting in front of enough people.

“I am confident in my message and I am confident in breaking through and the only thing I am not confident about is have I been to enough places?” he asks with a shake of his head and then immediately brightens. “But I promise you, I am totally, completely at peace with the way I have done it.”

Is Biden sincere?

Is his ego so massive that he actually believes he can break through?

Is this part of a "Corporal Klinger" act, an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Is it caffeine talking?

I don't know.

People do say some weird things at Starbucks.

Look for Biden to slip some of Starbucks' "The Way I See It" sayings into his speeches.

I hope he's learned his lesson when it comes to plagiarism and gives credit where credit is due.

Iran and Democrats Claim Victory

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the lib media are all on the same page.

They are all declaring victory, claiming to have defeated President Bush by proving him wrong.

They are slobbering all over themselves.

What did Bush know and when did he know it?

TEHRAN, Iran -- A new U.S. intelligence review concluding Iran stopped developing an atomic weapons program in 2003 is a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

The U.S. intelligence report released Monday concluded that Iran had stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and shown no signs since of resuming it, representing a sharp turnaround from a previous intelligence assessment in 2005.

"This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people during a visit to Ilam province in western Iran.

"This was a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons ... Thanks to your resistance, a fatal shot was fired at the dreams of ill-wishers and the truthfulness of the Iranian nation was once again proved by the ill-wishers themselves," Ahmadinejad said, drawing celebratory whistles from the crowd.

Iran has touted the new U.S. intelligence report as vindication of its claims that its nuclear program is peaceful and Iranian officials insist that Washington should take a less hawkish stance and drop attempts to impose new sanctions in light of the report's surprise conclusions.

President Bush defended his approach Tuesday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it would be a "big mistake" to ease any diplomatic pressure on Iran despite the new U.S. findings.

Ahmadinejad calls the report a final and fatal shot to Bush's policy of diplomatic pressure on Iran.

Not surprisingly, the Democrats, ever useful idiots, are echoing Ahmadinejad.

From the LA Times:

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration's approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

"I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing's changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change," said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson."

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

"It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier," Biden said. "Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we've made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?"

...Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

"What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time," Edwards said. "We know that they've prepared contingency plans for a military attack."

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

"What I've been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again," Obama said. "We can't keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence."

It really makes me sick that these Dem candidates prefer to bash Bush and the "neocons" for saber-rattling rather than holding Ahmadinejad accountable for his defiance of the world community and his threatening, inflammatory rhetoric.

They treat the U.S. president as more of an enemy and threat to peace in the Middle East than Iran under Ahmadinejad.

While I think it's fair to question the President on Iran, it's reckless and irresponsible of them to take the emphasis off of the danger of Ahmadinejad.

He already has the blood of American troops on his hands.

Are Ahmadinejad's allies, the Dems, really serious about long term U.S. national security and the importance of stability in the Middle East?

They aren't acting like it.

If they are, how can they discount these words from Ahmadinejad?

"The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan."

"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

"Israel is destined for destruction and it will disappear soon."

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

Do they think he's just kidding?

Are his statements kind of like those made by James Buss about the Columbine shooters as heroes and the need to take out West Bend teachers "one shot at a time"?

Just silly comments and not meant to be taken seriously?

Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean what he says. He just the master of parody, taking shots at the Bush administration's saber-rattling.

Clever guy.

The Hillary Obsession

Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is seen before a Democratic candidates' debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania October 30, 2007. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

So I tune in to the Dem presidential debate tonight, and Hillary Clinton is talking.

She says that in a perverse way the Republicans are obsessed with her.

Good grief.

She's talking about how experienced she is.

She's rolling her eyes. She looks pissed, like she wants to throw a lamp.

Now Barack Obama is talking.

He said Republicans are obsessed with Hillary because it's the fight they want to have. He said the last thing we need is to revisit the 90s and have eight more years of bickering.

Now John Edwards is yapping. He says Hillary is the status quo candidate. He says he believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy but he doesn't believe that Hillary can deliver change.

Tim Russert gave Hillary a chance to respond. She said that she she thinks we were making progress in the 1990s and then, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush.

Bill Richardson is now sucking up to Hillary. He's chastising Obama and Edwards for personally attacking her. He wants to be her VP.

Joe Biden sounded drunk and he looked drunk. He blasted Rudy Giuliani. He said that he's the least qualified person running for president since George W. Bush. Biden said that Giuliani has three things in every sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11.

Dennis Kucinich said it's time to act on his bill and move to impeachment. Kucinich is not a top tier candidate by any stretch but he's on stage as a Dem presidential candidate and he's talking about impeaching Bush. What a loon!

Brian Williams is trying to act like this debate is serious, serious business. By the way, he's hosting Saturday Night Live this weekend.
_____________________

From MSNBC:

Sen. Hillary Clinton came under a gang assault Tuesday night from the rest of the Democratic presidential field, led by her closest rival, who was closely studying the playbook of the master — Clinton’s husband, the former president.

"A gang assault" -- very dramatic.
______________________

During the "lightning round," with a 30 second clock ticking down game show-style, the candidates kept going over their allotted time. Williams tried to get them to stop but they wouldn't.

I recommend that an orchestra, like at awards shows, be used to play over the candidates to get them to shut up.

Joe Biden Gets Another Pass

You can tell that Joe Biden isn't a top tier conservative candidate.

If he had a spot there, the comments he made yesterday would be big news.

In an interview with the Washington Post's Editorial Board, Biden stumbled, badly.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In what the Washington Post is describing as a "stumble," Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in an interview with the paper Wednesday that Washington's high minority population is one of the reasons for the city's education problems.

Explaining why schools in Iowa are performing better than those in Washington, D.C., Biden told the Post, "There's less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."

"When you have children coming from dysfunctional homes, when you have children coming from homes where there's no books, where the mother from the time they're born doesn't talk to them — as opposed to the mother in Iowa who's sitting out there and talks to them, the kid starts out with a 300 word larger vocabulary at age three. Half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom," the Delaware Democrat added.

The paper reports Biden's campaign quickly sought to clarify the remarks, saying in a statement that the senator was not making a "race-based distinction" but rather a "socio-economic" one.

I don't believe that Biden thinks African-Americans in Washington are less intelligent than Iowa's overwhelmingly non-minority population.

I buy the explanation that Biden was making a socio-economic distinction.

However, for a politician with his experience, you'd think the guy would stop stepping in it.

He's made a number of awkward, racially-charged remarks.

For example, Biden said about Barack Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

On FOX News Sunday, when discussing his "Northeast liberal" label:

"You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state."

At an appearance, shaking hands with a man and boasting about his support among Indian-Americans:

"You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Biden gets to explain away his comments and the lib media move on.

If a conservative said this stuff, he or she would be toast.

The libs are untouchable.

Shameless Harry Reid and the Clear Channel Letter

Harry Reid is truly shameless.

He has the audacity to try and take some credit for Rush Limbaugh's auction of the Clear Channel letter.

"Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature."

He's got to be kidding!

Reid is acting like he and the signatories of the letter are players in raising more than $2 million for the Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation.

On the floor of the Senate today, as usual, Reid spoke in somewhat fractured English and slurred.

Transcript of his remarks:

Madame President,

Earlier this month, I came to the floor to discuss some comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I co-signed a letter to the Chairman of Clear Channel Mark May [sic], telling him that we wanted him to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made.

I’ve since spoken to Mark May [sic] about this. Mark May [sic] in fact called me regarding this letter.

This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay.

Ms. (slur) President, we didn’t have time, or we could have gotten every Democratic senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

What is the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation?

It provides scholarship assistance at children (slur) of federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause?

And I think it’s really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose.

When I spoke to Mark May [sic], I think that he and I thought this probably wouldn’t raise much money – a letter written by Democratic senators complaining about something.

This morning the bid is more than $2 million for this. We’ve watched it during the week. It keeps going up and up and up. And there’s only a little bit of time left on it. But it’s certainly going to be more than $2 million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature.

And for the cause, Madame President, extremely good.

Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life, and maybe that's kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May [sic], the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh on it, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a, really a worthwhile cause.

I don’t know what we could do more important to help to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.

Think about this. More than $2 million. This is gonna really help, and that’s, again, an understatement.

There’s only a little bit of time left, and so I would ask those that are wanting to do more, that they can go to Harry Reid at, search…, they actually go and say Harry Reid letter, and this will come up on eBay. I encourage anyone interested in this with the means to do so to consider bidding on this letter and contributing to this worthwhile cause.

I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that; and try to accomplish good things for the American people, and this does that, Madame President. More than $2 million for a letter signed by this Senator and my friends.

That's really pathetic.

Reid wants some thanks for writing a despicable smear letter and getting his colleagues to sign on to the hit job?

Sorry.

It was Rush Limbaugh who used Reid's disgrace to raise an enormous amount of money for a worthy cause.
__________________

And the winner is...

Betty Casey.

From Drudge:

EXCERPT FROM RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW:

Our winning bidder, subject to the receipt of funds... is a wonderful woman named Betty Casey, as trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation. She gives significant sums to hospitals, hospices, colleges, and private schools. These include the Eugene B. Casey Diabetes Education Center, The Eugene B. Casey Swim Center and the Eugene B. Casey Academic Center , and The Casey Home hospice. She has also donated tens of millions from the foundation and her personal funds to the Washington Opera.

Betty has been a listener to my program since it's inception, and we can't thank her enough for her support. We'd also like to thank Ebay Giving Works for allowing us to break their website in the closing moments of the auction, and Auction Cause, who was our consultant in prequalifying bidders and developing the auction.

$2,100,100.00

Rush Limbaugh is personally matching her winning bid.

Are the Democrats prepared to pony up with a matching donation?

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

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.

Harry Reid's Letter to Clear Channel

October 19, NEW:

Spinmeister Harry Reid addresses the Clear Channel letter auction.

He has the gall to try and take credit for raising more than $2 million for the Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation.

The guy is so slimy.

Read the text of Reid's comments here.

__________________

October 12, NEW:

Bid on the letter.

100% of the final sale price will support Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation

Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.

The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million....

As winning bidder, you get:

- The original and infamous "Harry Reid Smear" letter, signed by 41 Democat senators
- The Halliburton briefcase in which this letter is secured 24 hours a day
- A personal letter of thanks from the Man Who Runs America, Rush Limbaugh
- A photograph of Rush displaying the letter on stage in Philadelphia on October 11th

____________________

October 2, NEW: The signatories

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

________________________

From Harry Reid's website:

Press Release of Senator Reid

Senate Democratic Leaders To Call On Clear Channel To Renounce Limbaugh's Attack On Our Troops

Democrats Ask Colleagues to Join in Condemning 'Phony Soldiers' Comment

Friday, September 28, 2007

Washington, DC—Senate Democratic leaders will send the following letter early next week to Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of troops who speak out against the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” The leaders are waiting to send Clear Channel this letter in order to give their colleagues – including those who have recently spoken up against attacks on our troops’ patriotism – the opportunity to sign this letter and join in expressing outrage at Mr. Limbaugh’s indefensible comments.

Below is the text of the letter:

Mr. Mark P. Mays
CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.
200 East Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209

Dear Mr. Mays,

At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.

Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.

Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.

Sincerely,

Senator Harry Reid
Majority Leader


Senator Richard Durbin
Assistant Majority Leader


Senator Charles Schumer
Vice Chairman
Democratic Conference


Senator Patty Murray
Secretary
Democratic Conference

_________________________

What a bunch of quacks!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate to smear Rush Limbaugh today.

He lied.

The senator from Nevada is a liar.

REID: Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, [sic] until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, "phony soldiers." [sic] This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone. And yet he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, who was a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps, combat veteran.

Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines. And what's worse, Limbaugh's show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, which means that thousands of troops, overseas, and veterans here at home, were forced to hear this attack on their patriotism. Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology.

...Mr. President, just as patriotism is exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to both parties, all of us. I'm confident we will see Republicans joining with us in overwhelming numbers. "Confident" is the wrong word, Mr. President. "Hopeful" is the right word. I so I asked my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriot[ic] attack by calling on Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve -- and I hope that all would sign this letter.

For his part, Limbaugh has apologized.

RUSH: I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States Military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America. They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them. As all of you military personnel know, I, since of beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago, have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform -- including those who disagree with the mission. I found a couple of them when I was in Afghanistan on a troop visit. I went over to five base visits in Afghanistan, and did Q&A, sometimes for two hours with assembled troops at the various bases. Not all of them were happy with me in terms of my politics and so forth, but I told every damn one of them that I was in awe of them and that I wanted to come speak to them, and I purposely asked to go on this trip, and I'd been asking for a long time. This is the first time I've been granted permission. But I wanted to go on this trip because at the time this was all happening, Afghanistan had sort of cooled off and there wasn't much news coming out of there, but Iraq was roiling, and the news out of Iraq was -- well, you know what it was.

It was bad. "We can't win. We're losing, too many deaths," and all this sort of thing. I wanted to go tell them personally, as an American, how small of a minority those thoughts about them were, that there was love and respect and adoration for all who wear the uniform in this country, active duty or not, but I was specifically referring to people in combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. I stood up before them, and I said -- even to the ones who let it be known that they disagreed with me politically, not on the war, but politically -- they all wanted victory, and they all were doing their victory, and they all said they were there to protect their country. This is what they chose to do after 9/11 happened, and I stood before them and I said -- and there are a lot of people, by the way, who were thanking me and all of that. It ran the gamut. I said, "I don't care who you are. I stand before you, and I feel six inches tall. Compared to what you're doing, I'm just, you know, uttering words here. I just wanted to come convey support because you're not getting a whole lot of it in the mainstream media in our country, and the attitudes toward you of the American people are being misrepresented to you in droves."

I said, "When you get back and walk into most airports in this country, you are going to be given standing ovations and applause." Of course, the story coming out of Oakland -- and I guess there's some controversy about it, but -- apparently some Marines getting home, landing at Oakland, were spit on by people in the Oakland airport. Now, I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's on a couple blogs and apparently there are some witnesses that say that they did see it. The bottom line to all this... I've described to you that the visit I took to Washington to Walter Reed Army Hospital and the amputee rehabilitation unit. So many of these men and their wives were thanking me for what I'm doing. That makes me feel six inches tall as well. (In fact, Justice Thomas and I discussed this in the interview coming up that you will hear.) I said, "I'm just uttering words. You guys, look at you." No, no, no. They were upbeat and happy. One guy had lost both arms. He couldn't wait to get married six months down the road. He said, "Look, we all have our roles, man, and you keep doing what you're doing." The bottom line to all this is that last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that once again the integrity of the US Military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.

They're a Hillary Clinton front group. They will continue to be used as an accredited source by the Drive-By Media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say. They will continue to be a source, because this is the '08 playbook that we saw break down last week, and the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me. I don't know. The House doesn't go into session 'til two o'clock. We'll have to wait and see. I don't know if they will do that or not. If they do it, it is just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military because they know they have to because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they're not pro-military, from Jack Murtha to Harry Reid claiming defeat, to John Kerry's lifetime of criticism of the soldiers. So they're going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose "Betray Us" ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as this will be. But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you'll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won't get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody that works there, to all of you in the US Military, I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won't.

___________________

Harry Reid's office: 1-202-224-3542

Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934

The U.S. Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org for its despicable ad attacking General David Petraeus.

The ad appeared in the New York Times, on Monday September 10. That Lefty rag even printed the Lefty group's shameful smear at a bargain rate.

The Senate amendment's statement of purpose:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

How hard can it be to vote to express support for the U.S. Armed Forces?

For politicians indebted to the hard Left MoveOn, it's too hard to do.

View the Roll Call Vote.

Wisconsin senators split on the amendment. Russ Feingold voted against it. Obviously, he's not maverick enough to bite the hand that feeds him. Herb Kohl voted for it. He can afford to upset MoveOn.org. He's nobody's senator. Unlike Feingold, he doesn't need MoveOn, so he could show some decency.

Those voting in support of MoveOn's despicable ad slamming Petraeus were the usual suspects:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Biden (D-DE), Cantwell (D-WA), and Obama (D-IL) didn't vote.

The spin being put on the resolution really is laughable.

According to the lib media, it was a stunt meant to turn the screws on Democrat presidential candidates.

WASHINGTON -- Republicans on Thursday tried to turn a controversial anti-war newspaper ad against Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama after neither voted to condemn it.

The Senate voted 72-25 to pass a resolution condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, as "Gen. Betray Us." The liberal group's full-page ad appeared last week in The New York Times.

Clinton voted against the measure; Obama did not vote.

Among the presidential hopefuls, Republicans Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas voted for the resolution sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut voted against it.

Obama, Clinton and Dodd voted for an alternative resolution offered minutes earlier by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned political attack ads, including those that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans. It failed 50-47.

McCain and Brownback did not support Boxer's measure. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., also a presidential candidate, did not vote on either resolution.

I think it was a legitimate resolution. I don't think it was game.

It gave senators the opportunity to clarify where they stand on the matter and go on the record.

Obama thought it was best to evade the issue rather than condemn the attack.

Obama, who appeared in Atlanta with R&B artist Usher and former NBA forward Dominique Wilkins, defended his decision not to vote, calling the resolution the "kind of game-playing that the American people are tired of."

He said it was wrong to waste time "debating about a newspaper ad" when young men and women are dying in Iraq and veterans are not receiving needed services.

I disagree.

It's not a waste of time to show support for the military.

Obama's refusal to vote reflected the "kind of game-playing that the American people are tired of."

Biden, too, took the easy way out and didn't vote.

Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd, on the other hand, determined that it would be a mistake to anger the fringe Left group.

Clinton is definitely in MoveOn's pocket. With Norman Hsu out of the picture, I guess she needs to make up some slack and can't afford to alienate the far Left loons.

Before the vote, during his press conference, I think President Bush spoke for many, many Americans when he gave his reaction to the ad and the Democrats' failure to condemn it.

Q What is your reaction to the MoveOn.org ad that mocked General Petraeus as General "Betrayus," and said that he cooked the books on Iraq? And secondly, would you like to see Democrats, including presidential candidates, repudiate that ad?

THE PRESIDENT: I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It's one thing to attack me; it's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.

Very well said.

The 25 cowardly Democrats who voted in support of MoveOn.org may have scored points with the Left-wing group and its radical followers, but I think they lost far more than they gained.

Democrats Respond to Bush's Speech

Guess what?

The Democrat candidates for president aren't satisfied with President Bush's plan to move forward in Iraq.

Did you see that coming?

Ben Smith has reaction from the Dems.

HILLARY CLINTON:

What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.

The commander in chief has the authority to issue the order to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more of our troops home so much faster. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, but are now stuck in the middle of a civil war. I continue to implore the President to change course, bring our troops home faster, and end this war responsibly as soon as possible."

JOHN EDWARDS:

All Americans honor the incredible sacrifice of our troops. They have done everything asked of them with courage and resolve. Now we should bring them home.

They are policing a civil war, and the only way to end that civil war is for both sides, Sunni and Shia, to take responsibility to end it by agreeing to a political solution. And the only way to force them to take responsibility is to withdraw our troops – starting now.

Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he has ever had – more time, more troops and more war.

BARACK OBAMA:

It is long past time to end a war that never should have started. President Bush was wrong when he took us to war, he was wrong when he escalated this war in January, and he is wrong to stay the course now. I opposed this war from the beginning, I introduced legislation in January that would have already started to bring our troops home, and I will continue to lead the fight in the Senate for a fixed timeline with a deadline for the removal of all of our combat troops. The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq.

BILL RICHARDSON:

Enough is enough. This president lacks credibility. President Bush needs to stop putting his historical legacy ahead of the safety of our troops and the security of our nation.

JOE BIDEN:

This war belongs to the President, not to his generals or his ambassadors.

It is the President’s time – and his responsibility – to answer a question that the general carrying out his policies in Iraq could not answer: is pressing ahead with the war making America safer?

Based on everything we heard this week from the President’s surrogates and everything I have seen and heard during my eight trips to Iraq, the answer is no.

The President’s strategy in Iraq is not succeeding. It is not making America safer. Doing more of the same would be a disaster.

I think it's fair to say that the Dems did not respond positively to Bush's Thursday night address to the nation.

I wonder what Osama bin Laden's reaction was to the speech. He probably was disappointed that Bush didn't announce a massive retreat; but I imagine he was pleased by how the Democrats reacted to Bush's plan.
_____________________

In a shocking turn of events, HERB KOHL woke up and released a statement on the President's address on the Petraeus Report. I guess he got over that jet lag after his trip to China.

"I'm disappointed that the President's strategy for Iraq appears to continue down the same dead-end road. We will see a draw down of troops next year -- in part because our soldiers have been stretched to the limit -- but only to pre-surge levels. The draw down will, in effect, bring us back to where we started. The American people, myself included, are frustrated with the lack of political progress in Iraq and want to see the Administration begin to end our commitment there."

That's an unusually strong statement from Kohl. It's unusual for him to make a statement at all.

Former candidate for president RUSS FEINGOLD reacts to Bush's speech:

“The President wants to keep the same pre-surge level of troops bogged down in an open-ended mission in Iraq, while Al Qaeda continues to strengthen and regenerate itself in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The President can pretend that drawing down the surge is a redeployment strategy, but the American people aren't fooled. Next week, I intend to push for a vote on my proposal to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global fight against Al Qaeda.”

So is Feingold's effort to censure President Bush on the back burner for now?

It takes time, not to mention skill and experience in military strategy, to come up with a redeployment plan.

Apparently, commander in chief wannabe Feingold wants to usurp President Bush's authority.

Perhaps Feingold is busy plotting a coup.

MoveOn Attacks Petraeus

Did you ever doubt the patriotism of the MoveOn.org crowd?

Hesitate to say that they act as if they're hoping for America under President George Bush to fail, whether in war or peace?

There's no reason to hesitate.

Those people don't hesitate to lie, mercilessly bashing General David Petraeus.

Pete Hegseth writes:

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

How slimy! The New York Times is the perfect place for the ad.

Maybe no Democrats want to call Petraeus a liar on national TV, but some Dems have come awfully close.

Last week, the Dem #2 man in the Senate disgusting Dick Durbin said:

By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusion's wrong.

Senate majority leader disgusting Harry Reid said:

It’s President Bush’s report. President Bush took final ownership of this when he landed in Anbar province just a few days ago.

On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein was echoing their sentiments:

Over on 'Fox News Sunday,' moderator Chris Wallace asked Senator Dianne Feinstein about recent attacks on Petraeus' credibility. "Well, I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view in that sense," the Democrat from California said. "General Petraeus is there to succeed. He may say the progress is uneven. He may say it's substantial."

"I don't know what he will say," Feinstein said. "You can be sure we'll listen to it. But I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

Also on Sunday, speaking of Petraeus' assessment, Joe Biden said:

"I really respect him, and I think he's dead flat wrong."

Hegseth, an Iraq war veteran, asks:

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House

In a full-page ad, MoveOn.org, propaganda arm of the Democrat party, will tell the world that liberals think General Petraeus is a traitor.

It's absolutely disgraceful.

These people are sick.

Democrats, especially the presidential candidates, should distance themselves from these twisted people.

They won't. They won't because they are on the exact same page.
_________________________

Text of the ad

GENERAL PETRAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?

Cooking the Books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect
of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Meet the Press: Hsu Who?

Tim Russert did his best to keep Sunday's Meet the Press a "NO HSU ZONE."

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army General David Petraeus, will testify before Congress tomorrow after the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq reports that Iraq’s army will not be able to secure their own country for at least a year and that the Iraq national police force is dysfunctional, corrupt and should be disbanded. With us, an exclusive interview with two of the men who wrote the report, the chairman, retired Marine General James Jones, and the former police commissioner of Washington D.C., Charles Ramsey.

Then, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was in Iraq this week. Democratic Senator Joe Biden shares his finding this morning on MEET THE PRESS.

And former Senator Fred Thompson finally enters the presidential race.

(Videotape, September 5, 2007)

FMR. SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R-TN) I’m running for president of the United States.

MR. JAY LENO: All right!

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: As the other Republican candidates exchange fire in a New Hampshire debate.

(Videotape, September 5, 2007)

MR. MITT ROMNEY: The surge is apparently working.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, not apparently. It’s working.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Larry Craig says again he’ll retire. Is this time for real? Bill campaigns for Hillary; Oprah for Barack. And the Democrats gather in Miami tonight for another debate. Insights and analysis from David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal and CNBC.

But first, the war in Iraq. An independent commission has now reported to Congress and the president about the state of readiness of the Iraqi army and the national police force. Here to share those findings are retired Marine General James Jones, former D.C. police commissioner Charles Ramsey.

Gentlemen, welcome both.

And off they went. No time was set aside to deal with the Norman Hsu scandal.

It was well into the roundtable segment when Norman Hsu's name came up; and in the entire hour, it was only uttered once. ONCE!

In a discussion of Oprah Winfrey campaigning for Barack Obama, Bill Clinton's impact on Hillary's campaign was addressed.

It was then that John Harwood mentioned Hsu.

MR. HARWOOD: And they’re beginning to do that to some extent. Bill Clinton’s a huge asset to her—great communicator, great brand with suburban voters, with African-American voters, constituencies that would be important to her. The downside of Bill Clinton is that, to some degree, that casts Hillary Clinton as a candidate looking backwards, looking to the past. Barack Obama’s trying to be the future-oriented candidate. And the problems with this donor, Norman Hsu, is another thing that evokes the issues that arose in the past about Bill Clinton, some of the campaign finance stuff.

MR. RUSSERT: So the message to Hillary Clinton from her fellow Democrats will be if you’re going to claim the successes of the Clinton administration, you’re also going to have to accept responsibility for the shortcomings?

MR. HARWOOD: No doubt. And you’re also going to claim responsibility for Washington, how Washington is now, how it was before George Bush got to town. And Barack Obama and John Edwards both beginning to sharpen that argument, that they’re the ones who are really going to come and turn Washington upside-down far more than Hillary Clinton would.

That's it. That's all.

If Norman Hsu were the albatross around the Republicans' necks, you can be certain that Russert would have devoted a huge segment of his show to the scandal.

Bias? What bias?

Hsu? Hsu who?

Giuliani's Catholicism

It's not unusual for Rudy Giuliani to be grilled on his faith. Once again on the campaign trail, Giuliani was asked about his Catholicism.

That bugs me, especially since presidential candidate Joe Biden seems to get a free pass on being Catholic.

Biden loves to say that he's Catholic, yet the media don't dwell on it. Maybe that's because Biden is so irrelevant in Election 2008 that no one bothers.

When it comes to front-runner Giuliani, it's a totally different story.

DAVENPORT, Iowa -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday that whether he was a practicing Catholic was a personal matter as he declined to answer questions about his religion.

Addressing a town-hall meeting in Iowa, the former New York mayor was asked whether he considered himself a "traditional, practicing Roman Catholic." An audience member also called on Giuliani to discuss the role his faith played in making decisions on issues such as abortion.

"My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests," Giuliani said. "That would be a much better way to discuss it. That's a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."

Giuliani is alone among the major Republican candidates in favoring abortion rights, a practice that the Catholic Church opposes. Some church officials have suggested that candidates who favor abortion rights should be denied the sacrament of communion.

On a personal level, Giuliani has been married three times, with one annulment and one divorce. Catholics who are divorced and have remarried are not permitted to receive communion.

...The first questioner at the town-hall meeting mentioned President Bush's success in winning the support of Catholic voters and pushed Giuliani to explain his religious faith.

"That's a matter of individual conscience," Giuliani said. "I don't think there should be a religious test for public office."

That answer didn't satisfy questioner Thomas Fritzsche of Davenport, Iowa.

"Of course he didn't answer my question," said Fritzsche.

The lib media are really a disgrace.

If questioner Thomas Fritzsche is dissatisfied with Giuliani's answer, then that's his right.

How often are AP articles written about Democrat candidates and their faith?

It always seems to be the conservatives that come under scrutiny.

Whether it's Mitt Romney the Mormon or Rudy Giuliani the "bad" Catholic, conservatives are expected to discuss their faith life, like it's an Achilles' heel.

I think Giuliani gave an appropriate answer to the question.

An even better answer than saying he would let priests determine the degree to which he is a "good or not so good Catholic" would be this:

Judgments about my religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to GOD.

Fritzsche and questioners of his ilk should take it up with Him.

Longshot Ron Paul

AP reports that Ron Paul is a longshot to win the Republican nomination.

Wow.

That's news.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Ron Paul may be the political butterfly of the 2008 presidential campaign. An obscure congressman from Southeast Texas for most of his political career, Paul has metamorphosed into the favorite of those looking for a candidate outside the political mainstream.

Paul isn't outside the political mainstream. I'd see he's much farther away than that. He's "Roswell" outside.

Legions of die-hard fans formed across the country after Republican candidate debates and Internet blogs exposed his contrarian views.

Paul, 71, remains one of the longest of long shots for the GOP nomination, but that hasn't deterred supporters from making cold calls to voters in early contest states, plastering the Internet with plaudits, and loudly challenging Paul's White House rivals at campaign stops.

"I honestly believe that Congressman Ron Paul, as crazy as it might sound, I believe he is the father of the modern Republican Party," said Jason Stoddard, 31, an Austin, Texas, entrepreneur who has no formal ties to Paul's campaign but has made more than a thousand calls to Iowa voters urging their support.

That worries me a bit, that there are a significant number of die-hard Ron Paul supporters. It's like a cult.

Heaven's Gate and Comet Hale-Bopp come to mind.

...National opinion polls of Republican primary voters generally show his support at about 2 percent. And while he's accumulated a cache of campaign dollars, Paul's not spending most of it. He has spent just $650,000 this year, the third-least of all 2008 presidential candidates, according to federal campaign finance reports.

Two percent -- that's Joe Biden numbers.

That's bad.

Joe Biden and David Letterman

On Tuesday, Joe Biden was a guest on Late Night with David Letterman.

He was the second guest and was given just one short segment.

He seemed to be there more to plug his new book rather than as a presidential candidate. (I know. I forget that he's running for president, too.)

Serious presidential contenders don't get put in the second spot.

The book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, is a whopping 400 pages. That doesn't compare with Bill Clinton's 1008-page My Life, but Biden has less explaining to do.

It was sort of strange when Biden talked about his first days as a U.S. senator. He spoke of the deaths of his wife and daughter in an accident just after he was elected.

He said he started off his time in Washington "in a bad mood."

"Bad mood" was a bad choice of words.

When Letterman asked how he managed to go on, he spoke about his experience at length, relatively speaking given the confines of his short time allotment. It was a very heavy topic.

They switched gears very suddenly, probably because the segment was so brief. Letterman brought up the plagiarism charge. Biden brushed it off as a mistake. (I hope he used lots of footnotes in his massive new book. )

Needless to say, this was not a light-hearted interview.

Then, Biden referred to his cranial aneurysms and that his odds of survival weren't good.

Shockingly, Biden actually said that he thought his odds of becoming president were good.

He should have just said, "I am clinically delusional."