Paul Ryan Speech: Harry Reid's Plan

On July 29, 2011, while speaking in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Paul Ryan exposes the ridiculousness of Harry Reid's plan to address the debt.

Video.

Chappaquiddick: 42 Years Ago Today

Mary Jo Kopechne, 1962 college yearbook photo

CHAPPAQUIDDICK

[Ted] Kennedy's family legacy seemed to assure him a competitive candidacy for the presidency -- but for a fatal mistake on July 18, 1969. Following a dutiful appreciation party for the "boiler room girls" who had worked on his brother Robert's campaign, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts. Although Kennedy managed to escape, his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned. Furthermore, Kennedy did not report the incident immediately. Later, he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. Chappaquiddick seemed to quash Kennedy's presidential prospects.

This is an extremely sanitized version of the story. There are many resources available that go into much more detail.

Here is Kennedy's explanation of what happened 42 years ago:

Edward M. Kennedy: "Chappaquiddick"



Broadcast nationally from Joseph P. Kennedy's home on 25 July 1969

My fellow citizens:

I have requested this opportunity to talk to the people of Massachusetts about the tragedy which happened last Friday evening. This morning I entered a plea of guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. Prior to my appearance in court it would have been improper for me to comment on these matters. But tonight I am free to tell you what happened and to say what it means to me.

On the weekend of July 18, I was on Martha's Vineyard Island participating with my nephew, Joe Kennedy -- as for thirty years my family has participated -- in the annual Edgartown Sailing Regatta. Only reasons of health prevented my wife from accompanying me.

On Chappaquiddick Island, off Martha's Vineyard, I attended, on Friday evening, July 18, a cook-out, I had encouraged and helped sponsor for devoted group of Kennedy campaign secretaries. When I left the party, around 11:15 P.M., I was accompanied by one of these girls, Miss Mary Jo Kopechne. Mary J was one of the most devoted members of the staff of Senator Robert Kennedy. She worked for him for four years and was broken up over his death. For this reason, and because she was such a gentle, kind, and idealistic person, all of us tried to help her feel that she still had a home with the Kennedy family.

There is not truth, not truth whatever, to the widely circulated suspicions of immoral conduct that have been leveled at my behavior and hers regarding that evening. There has never been a private relationship between us of any kind. I know of nothing in Mary Jo's conduct on that or nay other occasion -- the same is true of the other girls at that party -- that would lend any substance to such ugly speculation about their character.

Nor was I driving under the influence of liquor.

Little over one mile away, the car that I was driving on the unlit road went of a narrow bridge which had no guard rails and was built on a left angle to the road. The car overturned in a deep pond and immediately filled with water. I remember thinking as the cold water rushed in around my head that I was for certain drowning. Then water entered my lungs and I actual felt the sensation of drowning. But somehow I struggled to the surface alive.

I made immediate and repeated efforts to save Mary Jo be diving into strong and murky current, but succeeded only in increasing my state of utter exhaustion and alarm. My conduct and conversations during the next several hours, to the extent that I can remember them, make no sense to me at all.

Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either in the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.

Instead of looking directly for a telephone after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, I walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin, Joseph Gargan and Phil Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me -- this was sometime after midnight -- in order to undertake a new effort to dive down and locate Miss Kopechne. Their strenuous efforts, undertaken at some risk to their own lives also proved futile.

All kinds of scrambled thoughts -- all of them confused, some of them irrational, many of them which I cannot recall, and some of which I would not have seriously entertained under normal circumstances -- went through my mind during this period. They were reflected in the various inexplicable, inconsistent, and inconclusive things I said and did, including such questions as whether the girl might still be alive somewhere out of that immediate area, whether some awful curse did actually hang over all the Kennedys, whether there was some justifiable reason for me to doubt what has happened and to delay my report, whether somehow the awful weight of this incredible incident might, in some way, pass from my shoulders. I was overcome, I'm frank to say, by a jumble of emotions, grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion and shock.

Instructing Gargan and Markham not to alarm Mary Jo's friends that night, I had them take me to the ferry crossing. The ferry having shut down for the night, I suddenly jumped into the water and impulsively swam across, nearly drowning once again in the effort, and returned to my hotel about 2 A.M. and collapsed in my room.

I remember going out at one point and saying something to the room clerk.

In the morning, with my mind somewhat more lucid, I made an effort to call a family legal advisor, Burke Marshall, from a public telephone on the Chappaquiddick side of the ferry and belatedly reported the accident to the Martha's Vineyard police.

Today, as I mentioned, I felt morally obligated to plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. No words on my part can possibly express the terrible pain and suffering I feel over this tragic incident. This last week has been an agonizing one for me and for the members of my family, and the grief we feel over the loss of a wonderful friend will remain with us the rest of our lives.

These events, the publicity, innuendo, and whispers which have surrounded them and my admission of guilt this morning raises the question in my mind of whether my standing among the people of my state has been so impaired that I should resign my seat in the United States Senate. If at any time the citizens of Massachusetts should lack confidence in their Senator's character or his ability, with or without justification, he could not in my opinion adequately perform his duty and should not continue in office.

The people of this State, the State which sent John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner, and Henry Cabot Lodge, and John Kennedy to the United States Senate are entitled to representation in that body by men who inspire their utmost confidence. For this reason, I would understand full well why some might think it right for me to resign. For me this will be a difficult decision to make.

It has been seven years since my first election to the Senate. You and I share many memories -- some of them have been glorious, some have been very sad. The opportunity to work with you and serve Massachusetts has made my life worthwhile.

And so I ask you tonight, the people of Massachusetts, to think this through with me. In facing this decision, I seek your advice and opinion. In making it, I seek your prayers -- for this is a decision that I will have finally to make on my own.

It has been written a man does what he must in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, and dangers, and pressures, and that is the basis of human morality. Whatever may be the sacrifices he faces, if he follows his conscience -- the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man -- each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of the past courage cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.

I pray that I can have the courage to make the right decision. Whatever is decided and whatever the future holds for me, I hope that I shall have been able to put this most recent tragedy behind me and make some further contribution to our state and mankind, whether it be in public or private life.

Thank you and good night.
(Source)



Here's an account of the scandal as relayed on PBS's American Experience, "The Kennedys":

Narrator: Friday, July 18, 1969. As the Apollo 11 crew approached the moon, fulfilling a goal set by John Kennedy, Edward Kennedy was in Massachusetts, fulfilling still another family obligation—attending a reunion party of young women who had worked for his brother Robert's last campaign. One of them was Mary Jo Kopechne. The party was held on Chappaquiddick Island, off Martha's Vineyard.

Late that evening, Kennedy left the party with Miss Kopechne. Sometime later, his car
plunged off a narrow wooden bridge. Kennedy managed to get out. His passenger did not. Yet, for 10 hours, he failed to report the accident. The car was discovered by two boys on an early morning fishing trip. Police were summoned and the young woman's body was recovered. The diver suspected she had not died immediately.

Kennedy aides helped the other party-goers leave the island hurriedly, without making
statements. On Saturday morning, Kennedy finally appeared before Police Chief Dominic
Arena and was allowed simply to leave a hastily handwritten statement and return to Hyannis Port.

5th reporter (archival): I mean, wasn't there some point—since someone was killed and he hadn't reported it for 10 hours—in actually questioning him a bit deeper?

Dominic Arena, Police Chief (archival): Right, well—well, to tell you the truth, at the time, I thought I would have been able to get back to him. When he left here, I, at the time, thought that he was going to consult his attorney and we would get further [information] from him.

Rita Dallas, Joseph P. Kennedy's Nurse: After Chappaquiddick, I can still see Eunice flying in the house. She took off her coat and threw it. She said, "Where's Teddy?" She said, "I want to talk to him." But there was rage and horror and anger, a lot of anger at not any particular person, not at Teddy, but, I really think, at fate.

Narrator: The Senator stayed behind the walls of the Kennedy compound. Friends, advisers and former speechwriters descended upon Hyannis Port to offer legal advice and propose ways to salvage the Senator's political future.

Midge Decter, political essayist: An army of Jack's loyalists and speech writers—that court that was still, to some extent, a court-in-exile and still dreaming of Washington—descended on Cape Cod to help him, advise him and to write this speech he gave.

Narrator: Just hours before going on television, Senator Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a two-month jail sentence—suspended. That night, Kennedy offered his version of what had happened, calling his own conduct "indefensible."

Edward M. Kennedy (archival): I would understand full well why some might think it right for me to resign. You and I share many memories. Some of them have been glorious, some have been very sad. The opportunity to work with you and serve Massachusetts has made my life worthwhile and so, I ask you tonight—the people of Massachusetts—to think this through with me.

Narrator: Massachusetts rallied to the last of the Kennedy brothers, but across the country, many found his explanations inadequate, his speech mawkish.

Hays Gorey, Time Magazine: Many of us in the press corps thought it reminded us of Nixon's "Checkers" speech. It did not ring true. It was highly political and intended, obviously, to save his political neck.

Pierre Salinger, White House Press Secretary: I think that Ted Kennedy was very badly advised, very badly advised by those who went to advise him. I mean, instead of putting it in the context of the future of his political life, they should have just put it in the context of what happened and had him deal with what happened in the most honest and open way possible.

Narrator: As the story of Chappaquiddick unfolded, Democratic leaders were meeting in Virginia to discuss the next presidential campaign.

Sen. Fred Harris, U.S. Senate 1964-73: Everybody knew - well, they thought—that Ted Kennedy would be the Democratic nominee for president in 1972. Right in the midst of that retreat came the terrible news of the tragedy at Chappaquiddick.

We stopped what we were doing. The issues were still there, but there was no question, from that moment on. Ted Kennedy would not be the Democratic nominee. The situation changed totally and we simply quit and went home.

Rita Dallas, Joseph P. Kennedy's Nurse: Teddy went upstairs and he said, "Dad, there was an accident." And he said, "There was a girl in the car," and he said, "She drowned." He said, "It was an accident."

And his father had his head forward, listening to Teddy and then, he dropped his head back. And Teddy sat down and he put his hands up to his face and he said, "I don't know, Dad, I don't know." But after that, I could see a deterioration in Mr. Kennedy.

Narrator: Joseph P. Kennedy, 81, refused nourishment and began to waste away. He died on November 18, 1969.

Had she lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 71 on July 26.

She died at the age of 28.

Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Senate Run

Tammy Baldwin thinks that she's "likely" to run for the U.S. Senate seat open in the wake of Herb Kohl's departure.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) tells the Capital Times that, "I think I am likely to run" for the U.S. Senate seat held by U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), who is retiring next year.

I can say with absolute certitude that in the event Baldwin does run, I am 100 percent unlikely to vote for her.

She's an extremist, certainly more radical than Herb Kohl.

Please run, Tammy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a tremendous improvement over Russ Feingold!

Ron Johnson presents real hope and change.
__________________

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

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

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

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



Transcript:

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

“Thank you.

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

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

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

“Washington is broken and America is going broke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I don’t think so.

“Of course not.

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

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

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

“Business as usual is bankrupting America.

“It must stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The American people deserve to be told the truth.

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

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

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

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

Patrick McIlheran and Ron Johnson

UPDATE, June 19, 2011: Patrick McIlheran's last Journal Sentinel column: "The right's ideas are winning"
_____________________

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's voice of sanity is leaving the newspaper.

Patrick McIlheran is joining Senator Ron Johnson's staff.

Patrick McIlheran, a columnist for the Journal Sentinel's op-ed page since 2004, is leaving the newspaper this week to take a job with Republican Sen. Ron Johnson's staff.

McIlheran, who will work out of Johnson's Washington, D.C., office, will research issues and write about them for the senator. McIlheran also will work for the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, of which Johnson is the ranking member.

McIlheran's last column for the paper is scheduled to be published Sunday.

This is a good news/bad news thing.

McIlheran will be an asset for Johnson, and in turn, the Wisconsinites that Johnson represents.

Unfortunately, Southeastern Wisconsin is losing an important conservative voice with McIlheran's departure.

I hope the Journal Sentinel considers finding someone else to express a conservative viewpoint. It should be a top priority.

I also wish McIlheran great success in Washington.

Earth Day and DDT

Happy Earth Day 2011!

This year's theme is "A Billion Acts of Green."

I think people should behave responsibly when it comes to the environment.

I believe that we are stewards of God's creation and must care for the Earth. I believe that we are called to protect the environment and not abuse the gift that it is. However, that goal cannot take precedence over caring for human life.

It's a sad reality, but the environmental movement kills.

Let's talk about Rachel Carson and the impact she has had on the lives of millions of people, causing suffering and death.

Because of Rachel Carson, bad science, and politics decades ago, millions and millions of people needlessly have died of malaria.

Their deaths were preventable - not by the use of mosquito nets, but by the application of DDT.

The banning of DDT is a tragic example of what happens when politics and environmentalism run amok.

I think of Al Gore and his hero, Rachel Carson.

The banning of DDT wasn't a victory. It was a death sentence for millions of people. Literally.

It was bad science. It was bad politics.

From the 1998 PBS Frontline report, "Fooling with Mother Nature":

On the walls of the US vice president's office, you might expect to see framed photos of political giants past and present. Amidst his collection, however, Al Gore cherishes a picture of a biologist from Western Pennsylvania - Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring." Why does an unassuming scientist lay claim to this space? "For me personally," says Gore in his introduction to the 1992 edition of her book, "Silent Spring had a profound impact ... Indeed, Rachel Carson was one of the reasons that I became so conscious of the environment and so involved with environmental issues ... Carson has had as much or more effect on me than any, and perhaps than all of them together."

Carson's Silent Spring killed and continues to kill.

So many of Carson's claims have been refuted.

Read a sampling of the debunking of Silent Spring.

Why The Insecticide DDT Should Never Have Been Banned

Killing People - The banning of DDT and radical environmentalists

Malaria Foundation International

The Lies of Rachel Carson

Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!

The latter is a 2002 piece by Marjorie Mazel Hecht. It provides a concise overview of Carson's illegitimate assertions and the consequences of the hysteria that she launched.

The 1972 U.S. ban on DDT is responsible for a genocide 10 times larger than that for which we sent Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg. It is also responsible for a menticide which has already condemned one entire generation to a dark age of anti-science ignorance, and is now infecting a new one.

The lies and hysteria spread to defend the DDT ban are typical of the irrationalist, anti-science wave which has virtually destroyed rational forms of discourse in our society. If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda.

Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria.

...The campaign to ban DDT got its start with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson’s popular book was a fraud. She played on people’s emotions, and to do so, she selected and falsified data from scientific studies... .

Does that sound a bit extreme?

Are you thinking that I'm citing sources that lack credibility?

Do you need a source that you can identify as enlightened, sophisticated, and acceptable to the liberal mindset?

OK.

Read "What the World Needs Now Is DDT."

It's by Tina Rosenberg and was published in The New York Times on April 11, 2004.

It appears that Rachel Carson, Al Gore's inspiration, sparked a movement that cost millions of lives.

What the world needs now is DDT.

And look at the topic of Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl's April 21, 2010, e-mail message:

On April 22, 1970, 20 million Americans paused for a day to celebrate our planet and press for the urgent actions needed to preserve and protect it. As we observe this 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, we once again reflect on the necessity of a clean and safe environment, celebrate the successes of the last four decades, and consider the long way we still must go to achieve the goals laid out that day.

In Wisconsin, we also stop to remember and honor one of our most prominent citizens.

Earth Day was born out of the passion of Gaylord Nelson. His life was one of service – from the Pacific theater during World War II, to the State House as a State Senator and Governor, and to Washington D.C. where he served Wisconsin as a U.S. Senator for nearly 20 years.

When Gaylord came to Washington, he did so with a mission to bring environmental causes to the forefront of the national debate. He believed that the cause of environmentalism needed as much attention as national defense. For his first years in the Senate, his cause was lonely. In 1966, his bill to ban the pesticide DDT garnered no cosponsors.

Gaylord knew that only with the grassroots support of regular Americans, could the environmental agenda rise to prominence. His idea for Earth Day came from the student teach-ins of the 1960s, but his cause inspired people across boundaries of age, race and location. This year, more than one billion people around the world will come together in the same way they did 40 years ago.

In a speech on that historic day in 1970, Gaylord noted that his goal was not just one of clean air and water, but also “an environment of decency, quality and mutual respect for all other human beings and all other living creatures.” He told the crowd that America could meet the challenge through our technology. The unanswered question was, he said, “Are we willing?”

That question was answered with a resounding yes. That year saw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, six years after Gaylord Nelson stood alone on his proposed DDT ban, its use was ended. Later years would bring better protection of drinking water, emissions and efficiency standards for cars, programs to cleanup brownfields sites, and the protection and preservation of our forests, rivers, mountains and oceans.

Despite that progress – and I imagine Gaylord would be the first to note this – we still have much work ahead of us. We must use this anniversary to commit to another environmental decade. The needs of 40 years ago – cleaner water, cleaner air, more protection of our lands – are still here, but the next challenge we must face is climate change.

From lower lake levels, to more invasive species, the consequences of unchecked climate change could be devastating to the people of Wisconsin. Climate change isn’t just a threat, it is also an opportunity. Structured correctly, the solutions to slowing climate change can also speed up our economic recovery.

Remarkable research and development is happening today in Wisconsin – on products for cleaner water, advanced battery technology, and using waste from farms and forests to make advanced biofuels. We have companies developing products to harness the power of the sun to replace traditional interior lighting, retrofitting heavy-duty trucks into hybrids, and manufacturing energy-efficient hot water heaters.

In Congress, legislative work to address climate change is ongoing. With the right mixture of requirements and incentives, we can achieve a policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, cuts greenhouse gas emissions, lowers prices at the pump and on the electricity bill, and creates good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.

We do not have to choose between the environment and the economy; between jobs and solving climate change. Gaylord Nelson made this point over and over again. He once wrote that “all economic activity depends upon the…air, water, soil, forest, minerals, wetlands, rivers, lakes, oceans, wildlife habitats, and scenic beauty.” These, he said, “are the accumulated capital resources of the nation. Take them away and what you have left is a wasteland.”

On this 40th anniversary of Earth Day, while we remember the pioneering sprit of Gaylord Nelson, we must honor his legacy by turning words into action.


Sincerely,


Herb Kohl

Good grief, Herb.

While Nelson did many worthy deeds, working to ban DDT was certainly not one of them.

I have no problem with Earth Day.

We should take care of the environment, but we're also morally obligated to take care of each other.

Properly using DDT would help us to ease so much suffering and spare so much pain and save so many, many precious lives.

Ron Johnson, Maiden Speech (Video, Transcript)

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

Video



Here is the transcript, as prepared for delivery:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Mr. President, I yield the floor.”

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

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

Al Franken, Al Capone

It's the taxes, stupid!

There are so many cases of rich people stumbling when it comes to paying taxes.

It was tax evasion that finally brought the infamous Al Capone down.

More recently, the Wesley Snipes case comes to mind.

Now, we have Al Franken.

U.S. Senate candidate, comedian, author, former radio talk show host on the abysmal Air America, and former cokehead Franken has tax problems.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Senate candidate Al Franken, dogged by accusations that he failed to file tax returns in California, said Tuesday he will pay about $70,000 in back income taxes in 17 states dating to 2003.

Most of the income at issue was from speeches and other paid appearances by the comedian-turned candidate, who said he got bad advice from his accountant but takes responsibility for the errors.

The Minnesota Democrat told The Associated Press that he and his wife, Franni, "paid taxes on every cent of income we ever had." He said that during the years in question, he followed the accountant's advice and paid his entire income tax bill to the city and state where he lived at the time. He lived in New York City from 2003-05 and Minnesota in 2006.

"What happened is our accountant made a mistake, and all of these are repercussions of that same mistake," said Franken. "His mistake was not understanding the law, the obligation to pay these state taxes."

Franken said his finances became more complicated when he branched out from "Saturday Night Live" and started writing books and making speeches around the country.

His communications director, Andy Barr, said none of the 17 states attempted to contact Franken or his accountant seeking the unpaid personal income taxes.

Franken said once the payments to the states are settled, he would seek retroactive credit from his states of residence since much of the income taxes he paid to them was supposed to go instead to the 17 other states.

Franken has been preparing for a tough fight against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., but his campaign has been sidetracked in recent weeks by bookkeeping errors related to his private corporation, Alan Franken Inc.

The campaign said last month it would pay a $25,000 fine to the state of New York for failure to carry workers' compensation insurance there.

Franken wants to paint himself as a victim. It's the accountant's fault. (It always is.)

So an accountant gave him bad advice. That does happen, but it seems that Franken is a magnet for bad financial advice.

Franken vows to pay the $70,000 in back taxes. Problem solved, right?

I don't know.

Legitimate questions arise when an individual is caught again and again making errors related to finances. No doubt, his backers will defend him and they'll give him a pass. I'm not so sure about swing voters.

Some good advice for the good people of Minnesota: Don't elect Al Franken to represent you in the Senate.

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.

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.

Good Riddance, Hagel

A week ago, John Warner announced that he would be retiring from the Senate at the end of his fifth term.

More good news!

Chuck Hagel is following suit.

WASHINGTON -- Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.

...Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.

I suppose after the fiasco in March when Hagel royally ticked off the press by teasing them and dragging them out to Omaha, he made no attempt to keep the content of his announcement a secret this time.

There will be no suspense on Monday. In fact, since we already know his intentions to retire and not seek the presidency, I see no point in holding a press conference to put out that message.

There won't be any news, unless he endorses someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for president during his retirement statement.

The North Platte native earned national recognition as perhaps the most vocal, at times angry, GOP critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

His outspokenness on Iraq and other key issues, including Social Security and foreign policy, fueled national interest in Hagel as he flirted with a possible presidential bid.

As Hagel received more national recognition from the lib media, he became even angrier as well as goofier.

His threats of supporting the impeachment of President Bush were really over the top.

For instance, from ABC's This Week:

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways (impeachment) to deal with that."

It was clear then that Hagel was self-destructing.

His national profile reached its zenith in March, when he headed to Omaha to hold a press conference on his political future.

But amid wide speculation that he was leaning toward a White House run, Hagel announced that he would disclose his plans later in the year.

Yes, that's when Hagel officially jumped the shark. He lost credibility. He fell out of favor with the lib media.

Even his Bush-bashing ally Tim Russert seemed to turn on him after that stunt.

His pending retirement leaves another GOP Senate seat without an incumbent at a time when the Republican Party is struggling to stem potential losses and must defend more seats than Democrats.

True, Hagel leaves another Republican seat open without an incumbent.

But in the long run, I think that's better than having Hagel in the Senate for another term.

Hagel won't be missed.

Dishonorable Senator Chuck Schumer

I heard this clip of the dishonorable Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer on Mark Levin's show.

It made me ill.

It's positively disgraceful that a U.S. senator would conduct himself in this manner, making such despicable statements on the floor of the Senate.

To score political points, Schumer rips our military. He claims that violence has gone down in Anbar because the troops were unable to protect the people there.

From Hugh Hewitt's blog:

And so the fall Senate session shifts into gear as the senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, takes to the floor after the August recess and gives his assessment of the surge in Iraq. Here's the nub of what Schumer said in his 10 minute address to his anti-war fringe and, for that matter, the remnants of al Qaeda that have been getting wiped out in Iraq over the last four months.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

Duane points out:

Not only is Schumer calling the American military incompetent, he's calling them liars, as well.

I think the media should be all over this. There should be banner headlines, and lead stories blaring that a "prominent," "high-ranking" DEMOCRAT has slammed our troops while we're at war.

Does Schumer speak for the Democrat party? Does he reflect his party's attitude toward the troops and what they've accomplished in Iraq?

How will Schumer's comments impact the '08 election?

Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote a piece entitled, "Larry Craig, the Democrats' Best Friend."

Is Fineman working on "Chuck Schumer, the Republicans' Best Friend"?

Is Schumer such a dolt that he doesn't realize that he's bashing the troops?

Doesn't Schumer realize that Americans died securing Anbar? They gave their lives.

Does he care?

Apparently not.

Why aren't fellow Democrats throwing Schumer "under the bus" for his disgusting remarks?

Schumer says, "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

Let me be clear: Schumer is an absolute jerk!

I call on the censure mad Russ Feingold to introduce a resolution to censure his colleague Chuck Schumer.

Cue the crickets....

The Long National Gay Bathroom Sex Nightmare

I thought it was over. On Saturday, Larry Craig resigned from his Senate seat, effective September 30.

Now, it appears that our long national gay bathroom sex, foot tapping, hand signals nightmare is NOT over.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho opened the door Tuesday to returning to the Senate, creating another twist in his unfolding political drama and raising the possibility of an ugly showdown with national Republican leaders.

Dan Whiting, a spokesman for Mr. Craig, an Idaho Republican, said Tuesday night that Mr. Craig had not ruled out reversing his plan to step down Sept. 30. After intense pressure from Republican colleagues in the Senate, Mr. Craig announced Saturday that it would be best for “the people of Idaho” if he resigned after the disclosure of his guilty plea last month to disorderly conduct charges stemming from his arrest in June in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom.

“As he stated on Saturday, Senator Craig intends to resign on Sept. 30,” Mr. Whiting said in a statement. “However, he is fighting these charges, and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”

...Mr. Craig has been encouraged by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is a former prosecutor, to contest the charges.

...Late Tuesday, Roll Call, the newspaper that covers Congress and first broke the story of Mr. Craig’s guilty plea, posted on its Web site an audiotape of a voice message the senator apparently intended for a lawyer of his, Billy Martin, on Saturday morning as he was heading to the news conference in which he announced his intention to resign. In the message, Mr. Craig indicated he could reconsider resigning.

“Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows that I’ve been railroaded, all of that,” the senator said. “Having all of that, we’ve reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30.”

Why am I not surprised that Arlen Specter is involved in this?

I can understand why Craig would aggressively seek to fight the charges.

I can't understand why he would flip flop on his resignation. Just throwing out the possibility that he might reconsider stepping down is an utterly selfish move.

Craig is keeping the scandal alive and potentially damaging his party.

From the Associated Press:

All three of Craig's adopted children said Tuesday they believe their father's assertions he is not gay and did nothing to warrant his arrest.

Jay Craig, 33, told The Associated Press that he, his brother, Michael Craig, 38, and his sister, Shae Howell, 36, spoke candidly with their father about the June 11 arrest.

"Our conclusion was there was no wrongdoing there," Jay Craig said. "We understood the direction he was taking (by pleading guilty) and there was nothing illegal that happened there that would even convince somebody what he was doing was illegal. He was a victim of circumstance, in the wrong place at the wrong time when this sting operation was going on."

In a separate interview on Tuesday, with ABC's "Good Morning America," Michael Craig used similar language about his father.

What is that?

Why mention that Craig adopted his children?

Does it matter that he's not their biological father?

Apparently, the AP thinks it's an important part of the story.

Putting the adoption stuff aside, it's a major mistake for Craig to try to hang on to his seat.

I know there's a double standard when it comes to conservatives and scandal. Their Dem counterparts aren't forced to resign when they find themselves in the midst of trouble. The Dems circle the wagons and protect their colleagues, allowing them to get away with all sorts of wrongdoing and perversion.

Granted, it's terribly unfair.

But in the end, I believe that Craig is putting himself before his constituents and his party.

He doesn't seem to care that dealing with this scandal would leave him little time to do the people's work. It's all about him.

I think Craig needs a serious check on his ego.

Read more.
_____________________

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has weighed in on the Craig story, producing another idiotic editorial, "Politics and morality."

The Board is outraged over the hypocrisy in the Craig case.

Obviously, Craig, who opposed gay rights as a senator, erred in his behavior - if the charges are true - and in not disclosing the conviction to his constituents and colleagues. But where's the outrage in his party about Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter? The party says the case is different because there are no charges after revelations that his phone number (when he was a House member) appeared among those called by an escort service.

That's hollow inasmuch as Vitter has acknowledged having committed a "very serious sin." Just what sin do people think he's talking about?

The Vitter and Craig cases can't be compared. There are distinctions.

Vitter isn't engaged in legal battles to clear his name.

Moreover, "a serious sin" isn't necessarily illegal or a crime.

Another difference, Craig was charged by police and he pled guilty.

By the way, just how many elected officials, Dem and Republican, does the Board think have committed "serious sins"?

There's a lot of sinning going on in Washington. Is that the standard for resignation? If so, no one would be left.

I really don't like the hypocritical Board crying, "Hypocrisy."

Clearly, the homosexual dimensions heightened party angst in the Craig case. That's politics. But it's also hypocrisy and sad all around.

No, that's not clear at all.

Craig was caught in a sting operation. It doesn't matter what it involved. Instead of homosexual activity, it could have been heterosexual in nature. It could have been drugs. It could have been dogfighting.

I object to the Board using Craig's bad behavior as a way to take a swipe at Republicans, depicting them as intolerant.

It's an unfair, unfounded accusation.
__________________

UPDATE:

WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for Sen. Larry Craig asked the Senate ethics committee Wednesday to reject a complaint based on the Idaho Republican's guilty plea in a police undercover operation in an airport men's room, saying the events were "wholly unrelated" to official duties.

"Assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the committee would be literally unprecedented and would create deleterious consequences for the Senate as a whole," the lawyers wrote.

The letter was hand-delivered to the ethics committee hours after Craig served notice that he was reconsidering his weekend pledge to resign his seat.

Larry Craig Resigns

Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig announces in Boise, Idaho September 1, 2007 that he will resign from his seat in the U.S. Senate effective September 30. REUTERS/Brian Losness (UNITED STATES)

Let this be a lesson to Republican elected officials: Behave in public restrooms.

WASHINGTON -- Idaho Sen. Larry Craig resigned from his Republican Senate seat Saturday, bowing to pressure from Republicans to step down after his arrest and guilty plea in a sex scandal.

"It is with sadness and deep regret that I announce that it is my intent to resign from the Senate, effective Sept. 30," Craig said, appearing with his wife, Suzanne, at a press conference in Boise, Idaho.

The resignation comes after reports that Craig pleaded guilty Aug. 1 to a reduced misdemeanor charge from his arrest June 11 in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

The three-term Republican senator did not admit wrongdoing, but apologized for being unable to serve the rest of his term to pursue legal options.

"I apologize for what I have caused. I am deeply sorry," Craig said. "I have little control over what people choose to believe but clearly my name is important to me and my family is so very important also."

This was hardly an "I have sinned" statement.

It seems that Craig wants to bow out as a victim.

I think he's a victim of his own poor judgment.

Larry Craig Going Down

There is an inevitability about this.

Republicans want Larry Craig to resign NOW.

WASHINGTON -- Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is considering resigning, Republican officials said Friday, after days of public and private pressure stemming from his arrest in June in a police undercover operation at an airport men's room.

Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct on Aug. 1, and while he has since said he did nothing wrong, the episode has roiled the Republican party and produced numerous calls for him to step down.

As a measure of the pressure Craig faces, party officials said a statement had been drafted at Republican Party headquarters calling for the third-term senator to resign. It was not issued, these officials said, in response to concerns that it might complicate quiet efforts under way to persuade the 62-year-old lawmaker to give up his seat.

Any resignation would clear the way for Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, to name a replacement who would serve until the end of Craig's current term in 2009. Lt. Gov. James Risch and Rep. Mike Simpson were among the possible replacements, according to the GOP officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

There's no way that Craig can salvage his political career.

It's over.

He should resign. That's the right thing for him to do.

If Craig were a Democrat, everything would be different. They would be circling the wagons to protect him and the lib media would assist. Craig would be embraced.

But Craig is a Republican. Republicans don't stay in office after incidents like this.

Tapping and Touching in Public Spaces

Larry Craig's bathroom visit at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport continues to dominate the news.

His encounter with an undercover police officer has done for bathroom sex what President Bill Clinton did for oral sex. It's in our living rooms now (if it wasn't before) and a topic of current events discussions.

Naturally, knowing the protocol of anonymous bathroom sex has become a concern for many Americans. If you don't know the signals, you could inadvertently give a stranger the wrong impression. For that reason, I think it's vital that this information be taught in the schools. It's a public health issue and should be incorporated into sex education classes.

I've always thought of going into a public restroom as risky business. Now, it seems even more dangerous.

Yesterday, we were treated to the audio of police Sgt. Dave Karsnia interviewing Craig. That helped bring the lurid episode to life.

Craig told the officer that he travels almost weekly through the Twin Cities airport and that he uses that particular restroom "regularly." Craig suggested that the matter be settled quietly. "Am I going to have to fight you in court?" he asked Karsnia early in the session.

"No, no. I'm not going to court unless you want me there," the officer replied, to which Craig told him: "'Cause I don't want to be in court, either."

He later told Craig: "You're gonna get out of here. You're gonna have to pay a fine, and that will be it. Okay. I don't call the media."

But the interview soon became an argument over the details of the incident and whether Craig's actions were those of a man seeking a sexual encounter or whether he merely misunderstood gestures.

"I am not gay; I don't do these kinds of things," Craig told Karsnia. The officer replied that he did not care what the senator's sexual orientation is but that Craig was not being candid about the incident in the restroom.

In the police report, Karsnia wrote that based on his experience, Craig's touching his foot to the officer's and running his hand under the partition separating the stalls are well-known signals among men who use public restrooms for sexual encounters.

Craig vehemently denied that interpretation of his actions.

"Your foot came toward mine, mine came towards yours. Was that natural? Did we bump? Yes, I think we did. You said so. I won't dispute that," he said, explaining later that he was not sure how their feet came to bump each other. "I'm a fairly wide guy."

Craig also disputed that he swiped his left hand under the partition, which would have shown his wedding ring to Karsnia. He said he bent down to pick up a piece of paper with his right hand, adding that to get his left hand under the partition would have required him to "turned sideways" because his stall was on Karsnia's left-hand side.

The officer said he saw the wedding ring on Craig's hand, and challenged the senator's version of events.

"I expect this from the guy we get out of the 'hood," Karsnia said. "I mean, people vote for you."

Read the transcript of the creepy interview.
___________________

Here's another reported case of touching between strangers:

NEW YORK—During a crowded rush-hour subway ride Monday, an inadvertent brushing of one human being's hand against the forearm of another elicited a swift, contrite apology, subway sources reported.

"Whoops—sorry," said proofreader Heather Wright, 32, immediately following the intrusion into 20-year-old Hunter College student Chris Franek's personal space, which occurred as Wright tried to turn the page of her book with one hand. "Sorry about that."

Responding to Wright's apology, Franek almost inaudibly mumbled, "It's okay."

Larry Craig is no Ted Kennedy

Larry Craig's "I am not gay" statement yesterday didn't convince colleagues to give him a break.

WASHINGTON -- Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's political support eroded significantly Wednesday as three fellow Republicans in Congress called for his resignation and party leaders pushed him from senior committee posts.

The White House expressed its disappointment, too — and nary a word of support for the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men's room.

Craig "represents the Republican party," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the first fellow GOP member of Congress to urge a resignation.

My guess is Craig will resign sooner rather than later.

It would be an honorable thing to do, as a representative of the Republican party.

Rather than bringing disgrace to the party, I think Craig's resignation would serve to highlight the standards of integrity within the Democrat party.
__________________________

Here is an account of a scandal, as relayed in PBS's American Experience, "The Kennedys":

Chappaquiddick

Kennedy's family legacy seemed to assure him a competitive candidacy for the presidency -- but for a fatal mistake on July 18, 1969. Following a dutiful appreciation party for the "boiler room girls" who had worked on his brother Robert's campaign, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts. Although Kennedy managed to escape, his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned. Furthermore, Kennedy did not report the incident immediately. Later, he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. Chappaquiddick seemed to quash Kennedy's presidential prospects.

This is an extremely sanitized version of the story. There are many other resources available that go into much more detail.

Although Y Ted K .com is definitely an anti-Teddy site, it supplies a very comprehensive summary of events, including photos, maps, official documents and statements. Ignore the obvious bias and examine the police reports and the testimony of witnesses. It's quite enlightening.

Here is Kennedy's explanation of what happened 38 years ago:

Edward M. Kennedy: "Chappaquiddick"


Broadcast nationally from Joseph P. Kennedy's home on 25 July 1969

My fellow citizens:

I have requested this opportunity to talk to the people of Massachusetts about the tragedy which happened last Friday evening. This morning I entered a plea of guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. Prior to my appearance in court it would have been improper for me to comment on these matters. But tonight I am free to tell you what happened and to say what it means to me.

On the weekend of July 18, I was on Martha's Vineyard Island participating with my nephew, Joe Kennedy -- as for thirty years my family has participated -- in the annual Edgartown Sailing Regatta. Only reasons of health prevented my wife from accompanying me.

On Chappaquiddick Island, off Martha's Vineyard, I attended, on Friday evening, July 18, a cook-out, I had encouraged and helped sponsor for devoted group of Kennedy campaign secretaries. When I left the party, around 11:15 P.M., I was accompanied by one of these girls, Miss Mary Jo Kopechne. Mary J was one of the most devoted members of the staff of Senator Robert Kennedy. She worked for him for four years and was broken up over his death. For this reason, and because she was such a gentle, kind, and idealistic person, all of us tried to help her feel that she still had a home with the Kennedy family.

There is not truth, not truth whatever, to the widely circulated suspicions of immoral conduct that have been leveled at my behavior and hers regarding that evening. There has never been a private relationship between us of any kind. I know of nothing in Mary Jo's conduct on that or nay other occasion -- the same is true of the other girls at that party -- that would lend any substance to such ugly speculation about their character.

Nor was I driving under the influence of liquor.

Little over one mile away, the car that I was driving on the unlit road went of a narrow bridge which had no guard rails and was built on a left angle to the road. The car overturned in a deep pond and immediately filled with water. I remember thinking as the cold water rushed in around my head that I was for certain drowning. Then water entered my lungs and I actual felt the sensation of drowning. But somehow I struggled to the surface alive.

I made immediate and repeated efforts to save Mary Jo be diving into strong and murky current, but succeeded only in increasing my state of utter exhaustion and alarm. My conduct and conversations during the next several hours, to the extent that I can remember them, make no sense to me at all.

Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either in the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.

Instead of looking directly for a telephone after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, I walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin, Joseph Gargan and Phil Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me -- this was sometime after midnight -- in order to undertake a new effort to dive down and locate Miss Kopechne. Their strenuous efforts, undertaken at some risk to their own lives also proved futile.

All kinds of scrambled thoughts -- all of them confused, some of them irrational, many of them which I cannot recall, and some of which I would not have seriously entertained under normal circumstances -- went through my mind during this period. They were reflected in the various inexplicable, inconsistent, and inconclusive things I said and did, including such questions as whether the girl might still be alive somewhere out of that immediate area, whether some awful curse did actually hang over all the Kennedys, whether there was some justifiable reason for me to doubt what has happened and to delay my report, whether somehow the awful weight of this incredible incident might, in some way, pass from my shoulders. I was overcome, I'm frank to say, by a jumble of emotions, grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion and shock.

Instructing Gargan and Markham not to alarm Mary Jo's friends that night, I had them take me to the ferry crossing. The ferry having shut down for the night, I suddenly jumped into the water and impulsively swam across, nearly drowning once again in the effort, and returned to my hotel about 2 A.M. and collapsed in my room.

I remember going out at one point and saying something to the room clerk.

In the morning, with my mind somewhat more lucid, I made an effort to call a family legal advisor, Burke Marshall, from a public telephone on the Chappaquiddick side of the ferry and belatedly reported the accident to the Martha's Vineyard police.

Today, as I mentioned, I felt morally obligated to plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. No words on my part can possibly express the terrible pain and suffering I feel over this tragic incident. This last week has been an agonizing one for me and for the members of my family, and the grief we feel over the loss of a wonderful friend will remain with us the rest of our lives.

These events, the publicity, innuendo, and whispers which have surrounded them and my admission of guilt this morning raises the question in my mind of whether my standing among the people of my state has been so impaired that I should resign my seat in the United States Senate. If at any time the citizens of Massachusetts should lack confidence in their Senator's character or his ability, with or without justification, he could not in my opinion adequately perform his duty and should not continue in office.

The people of this State, the State which sent John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner, and Henry Cabot Lodge, and John Kennedy to the United States Senate are entitled to representation in that body by men who inspire their utmost confidence. For this reason, I would understand full well why some might think it right for me to resign. For me this will be a difficult decision to make.

It has been seven years since my first election to the Senate. You and I share many memories -- some of them have been glorious, some have been very sad. The opportunity to work with you and serve Massachusetts has made my life worthwhile.

And so I ask you tonight, the people of Massachusetts, to think this through with me. In facing this decision, I seek your advice and opinion. In making it, I seek your prayers -- for this is a decision that I will have finally to make on my own.

It has been written a man does what he must in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, and dangers, and pressures, and that is the basis of human morality. Whatever may be the sacrifices he faces, if he follows his conscience -- the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man -- each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of the past courage cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.

I pray that I can have the courage to make the right decision. Whatever is decided and whatever the future holds for me, I hope that I shall have been able to put this most recent tragedy behind me and make some further contribution to our state and mankind, whether it be in public or private life.

Thank you and good night.

(Source)

Larry Craig: "I AM NOT GAY"

Larry Craig chose not to take the path chosen by former governor of New Jersey Jim "I am a gay American" McGreevey.

Senator Craig made the following statement to Idaho at 2:30pm:

"First, please let me apologize to my family, friends, staff, and fellow Idahoans for the cloud placed over Idaho. I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. I regret my decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought to my wife, family, friends, staff, and fellow Idahoans. For that I apologize.

"In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision. While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away. I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it. Because of that, I have now retained counsel and I am asking my counsel to review this matter and to advise me on how to proceed.

"For a moment, I want to put my state of mind into context on June 11. For 8 months leading up to June, my family and I had been relentlessly and viciously harassed by the Idaho Statesman. If you’ve seen today’s paper, you know why. Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been.

"Still, without a shred of truth or evidence to the contrary, the Statesman has engaged in this witch hunt. In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis, because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman’s investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho. Again, that overreaction was a mistake, and I apologize for my misjudgment. Furthermore, I should not have kept this arrest to myself, and should have told my family and friends about it. I wasn’t eager to share this failure, but I should have done so anyway.

"I love my wife, family, friends, staff, and Idaho. I love serving Idaho in Congress. Over the years, I have accomplished a lot for Idaho, and I hope Idahoans will allow me to continue to do that. There are still goals I would like to accomplish, and I believe I can still be an effective leader for Idaho. Next month, I will announce, as planned, whether or not I will seek reelection.

"As an elected official, I fully realize that my life is open for public criticism and scrutiny, and I take full responsibility for the mistake in judgment I made in attempting to handle this matter myself.

"It is clear, though, that through my actions I have brought a cloud over Idaho. For that, I ask the people of Idaho for their forgiveness.

"As I mentioned earlier, I have now retained counsel to examine this matter and I will make no further comment."

I don't understand.

Craig isn't gay, but he wanted to have anonymous gay sex in an airport bathroom?

Was his flight delayed and he got bored?

Listening to Craig speak was like hearing Bill Clinton say:

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never. These allegations are false."

If this was all truly a misunderstanding, I don't see why Craig would keep the arrest from his wife.

I don't understand why he didn't seek counsel immediately.


"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck."

Sen. Larry Craig and Double Standards

Idaho's Sen. Larry Craig is a Republican. That's the problem.

He pleaded guilty on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a men's restroom at the airport in Minneapolis.

Read more.

Whenever a Republican is involved in something like this, the Left gets giddy.

It's as if ALL Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are expected to be saints. If a Republican official falls short, Leftists are the first to cast stones.

I'm in no way condoning Craig's behavior.

But let's be fair.

There are perverts to the Left and perverts to the Right.

Rather than condemning Craig, shouldn't the Left invite Craig to join its ranks, ask him to get under its Big Tent where such indiscretions are celebrated or at least readily forgiven?

Complicating matters in Craig's case was his association with Mitt Romney's campaign.

Already Craig has stepped down from a prominent role with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He had been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February.

"He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision," said Matt Rhoades, a Romney campaign spokesman.

This bugs me:

A political science professor in Idaho said Craig's political future was in jeopardy. And a spokesman for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, Hannah August, said Craig's guilty plea "has given Americans another reason not to vote Republican" next year.

The married Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s, but allegations that he has engaged in gay sex have never been substantiated. Craig has denied the assertions, which he calls ridiculous.

The arrest changes that dynamic, said Jasper LiCalzi, a political science professor at Albertson College of Idaho in Caldwell, Idaho. He cited the House page scandal that drove Florida Rep. Mark Foley from office.

"There's a chance that he'll resign over this," LiCalzi said. "With the pressure on the Republican Party, he could be pressured to resign. If they think this is going to be something that's the same as Mark Foley — the sort of 'drip, drip, drip, there's more information that's going to come out' — they may try to push him out."

A scandal that involves a Republican is framed as a career breaker.

When Democrats behave in a lewd and lascivious manner, the libs circle the wagons and cite their rights to privacy.

Case in point: Former President Bill Clinton.

He finally admits to "being serviced" by Monica Lewinsky, after months of denials. Without the DNA evidence, Clinton would have continued to lie. Maybe the brilliant Hillary would still be claiming to be in the dark on that one.

Does the name Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?

There have been so many other Dems embroiled in scandal. So many are met with endless excuses and abundant compassion.

Barney Frank's romp with male hooker Steve Gobie and the prostitution ring that he ran out of Frank's apartment was forgiven.

Speaking of prostitution, I'd still like to know more about Bill Broydrick and his D.C. Madame connection. More info please.

Then there's Gerry Studds. He was hailed as courageous for having a homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old page! He became a role model!

The double standard is frustrating.

It's also disturbing that elected officials behave so recklessly.

Craig seems to be driven to serve himself rather than his constituents.

____________________________

Read Charles Krauthammer's "Sex Scandals and Double Standards."

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.