Message From RNC Chairman

Dear Mary,

Hypocrite - noun, one who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have.

The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.

Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards.

The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty. You can make a difference! Call Senator Herb Kohl at 202-224-5653 and Senator Russell D. Feingold at 202-224-5323 and tell them to do their job - give these judges an up or down vote.

On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.

The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.

Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.

To learn more about how the Party of Nine has become the obstructionist party of no, click here! See how these members used to demand fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, but now want to block nominees and hold the Senate hostage.

Call Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Russell D. Feingold today and tell them you're tired of the hypocrisy and double standards. Call and tell them these judges deserve and up-or-down vote.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman

Chairman, RNC

Duty, Honor, Integrity, Commitment and Sacrifice

Proud to serve -- my view of military

Commentary by 1st Lt. Steven James
745th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron

Duty, honor, integrity, commitment and sacrifice. Our deployed units across the world are constantly reminded of these five simple, yet significant words. Recent images of our fight against terrorism have invoked strong emotions in the hearts and minds of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.

In front of the world, newspapers, magazines and televisions show our struggle to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.

We see and read about ambushes of coalition convoys, roadside bombs, civilian contractors being tortured and killed, and flag draped coffins carrying the remains of our fallen heroes. While family and friends are left with these images, a seemingly heavy blow to our nation’s morale, let there be no question of our will and determination to protect America, its allies and interests.

Our resolve remains steadfast in the face of international terrorism. Those who have paid the ultimate price wouldn’t want it any other way. The commitment to protect our way of life and to stop the spread of terror is as strong now as it was on Sept. 11. Let there be no doubt. Our sacrifices are too great.

The brave men and women of our coalition forces and civilian counterparts are extraordinary people who commit their lives on a daily basis to preserve and protect our greatest asset: freedom.

While the media tends to focus on the “gloom and doom” of the war on terror, we must remain on our course. America is proud of us and of the sacrifices we make to protect our values.

I want you to be proud of yourself as well. You have made the choice to fight for what you believe in and to take a stand when others may not have done the same. We aren’t in our profession for money or prestige, but simply to make a difference in the world and in the lives of oppressed people.

The words duty, honor, integrity, commitment and sacrifice are not just words to us, they are reality. My heart fills with pride knowing that our nation still produces men and women who are asked to lay their lives on the line every day and yet do it without question, for we already know the answer.

The Left's Talking Points

More US troops questioning Iraq duty

As the tally of American casualties in Iraq continues to rise, so does the number of soldiers uneasy about serving in the two-year-old war.

US army figures indicate that since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, about 5500 military personnel have absconded.

In 2003 an independent advisory service for US military personnel, the GI Rights Hotline, received 32,000 calls, twice as many as in 2001, from soldiers wanting to leave the military.

Some refuse to serve for political reasons, others are just unwilling to go to a country where 1500 US soldiers have been killed and more than 11,000 wounded.

Many soldiers who object have already spent time in Iraq and become disillusioned by their experiences.

Camilo Mejia is one of them. He spent six months in a combat unit in Iraq after the invasion, and upon returning to the US for a vacation decided he would not return for moral reasons.

He subsequently served a one year prison sentence for deserting.

Hard to justify

Mejia says his experiences in Iraq shocked him.

"The commanders wanted us to get into firefights because they wanted to put that on their resume to make them look better," Mejia said. "Thirty people were killed by my unit. About three of those people had weapons."

"Once you come home it's really hard not to think about it. You start going back to those moments and it's really hard to justify that," he said.

As some soldiers begin their second or even third tour of Iraq, Mejia says many are asking why are they still in the country two years after invasion and after handing over power and overseeing elections.

"'What the hell else are we there for?' Soldiers ask themselves this question. It's like there is no ending," he said.

Unofficial draft

The Pentagon is struggling to maintain enlistment targets.

According to army figures the active-duty army in March missed a monthly recruiting goal for the first time since May 2000, and the Guard and Reserve are also lagging.

And as the Pentagon struggles to find enough troops to replace already overstretched units in Iraq and Afghanistan, many say it is resorting to measures that amount to an unofficial draft.

"We think there is a draft but a different kind because it doesn't include everyone," Robert Dove, an administrator with the Quaker peace group American Friends Committee.

Stop loss

Dove points to the US Army's "stop loss" policy, which prevents soldiers from retiring or leaving the military after they have finished their duty.

"One month before I was due to leave they gave me these orders [to return to service] ... I enlisted for three years in August 2001, which meant that my time was up in August 2004. I am saying this is illegal," Webb said.

Overloaded system

But despite the army's figures, Dove of the American Friends' Committee believes the number of deserters is actually much higher.

"There are at least 5000 and I am sure that means there are a lot more. The system is overloaded," he says.

Poverty draft

Webb says he joined the National Guard simply because he needed to supplement his income.

"I didn't have any money. I was broke. I was in debt and there was a $2500 bonus for those who joined, so I sold my soul to the devil," he said.

Critics of US Army recruitment policies say that in a bid to meet their quotas, recruiters often operate in poor communities and lure young people with promises of an education and other benefits.

"I think poor people are definitely targeted. We refer to it as a poverty draft. What that really means is that recruiters target low-income people. So when they choose which high schools to recruit people from, they spend a lot more time in high schools in poor areas," Dove said.

He said the benefits of joining the US military were usually less than many recruits were led to believe.

"You can get up to $70,000 in assistance once you have completed your service. Almost no one gets that... Most people who get any money at all get considerably less than that and a lot of people get nothing," he said.

Also, an increasing number of National Guard units are being sent to Iraq, something that has shocked some National Guard recruits.

Great horror

"The National Guard were originally for emergencies within the United States, so a lot of people join the National Guard for a host of reasons, including that when they go for their training camp they will get paid for it," Dove said.

"But in the last two years they have been enlisted, and to their great horror they [have found they] can be sent off to war."

Both Mejia and Webb have added their voices to the anti-war lobby in the US, attending rallies and speaking about the reasons behind their actions.

"The only way this can be resolved is through protests by the masses," Webb says.

For his part, Mejia says he realized while serving in Iraq that the arguments used to justify the conflict were bogus.

"You go into an Arab nation, you kill people, you steal their oil, you destroy their country and charge them to have it rebuilt," Mejia said.

"You are giving terrorism a whole new life."
_____________________

Sounds like material for a Ted Kennedy speech, doesn't it?

It sounds like something John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or Dr. Dean would echo.

The piece is a laundry list of talking points for the left.

Did I find it at the DNC website? MoveOn.org? People for the American Way?

NO, NO, AND NO.

It's on Aljazeera.

Mad Dr. Dean

A Scathing Chairman Dean Finds Republicans 'Evil,' 'Corrupt' and 'Brain-Dead'

By Brian Faler
Monday, April 25, 2005; A06

Howard Dean may not be running for anything, but his elbows appear to be as sharp as ever.

Since taking over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year, the former presidential candidate has been quoted in newspapers making unusually caustic remarks about Republicans.

Dean has suggested that they are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there.

Dean was noted for his candid and often unpredictable comments during his campaign last year. Then, as now, many Democrats said they don't mind the former Vermont governor's bluntness.

"You don't want a wallflower for a party chairman," one Senate Democratic aide said. Dean's remarks have not attracted much attention in the national media, in part because he has focused largely on local and regional news outlets since taking the party's helm in February.

But his counterparts in the Republican National Committee have noticed. "It's odd that Howard Dean says he wants to earn the respect of those who live in the red states, but chooses to not only attack their views but attack them personally," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. "Americans want to hear an agenda, rather than name calling."
________________________________

Faler calls Dr. Dean's comments about Republicans "unusually caustic."

Where has Faler been? This is nothing new. We've come to expect such "bluntness" from the DNC chairman.

Dr. Dean is prone to these outbursts of what Faler considers candidness.

I can't recall Ken Mehlman referring to Democrats in similar terms.

Dr. Dean is leading his party into the fringe of the wilderness.

Get Ready to be Gored Again

MoveOnPAC to sponsor Gore’s first major political speech of 2005

Sunday, 24 April 2005

From GNN

The New York Times reports that Al Gore will speak out against the GOP’s “nuclear option”, a proposed Senate rule change which would prevent filibusters against radical right wing judicial nominees, on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 in Washington, D.C. Gore's address, which is sponsored by MoveOnPAC, will come on what could be the eve of Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist's move to change the Senate rules, and it will be the keynote of MoveOn’s national day of action, which includes 120 rallies in all 50 states.

According to an email sent to MoveOn.org members in the Washington area, Gore’s speech is called “Breaking the Rules to Destroy Our Courts”. In the speech, Gore will reportedly say “This is a poison pill for American democracy. It is aimed at one-party dominance of all three branches of government, and the end of meaningful debate in the U.S. Senate.

This may sound like a technical issue. But it is actually a historic threat to the health and vitality of American democracy.

This is an effort to replace persuasion on the merits with bullying by partisan domination.”

The speech will be presented at 12 noon, ET and the location will be announced on Monday, April 25th.

(Editor's note: Gore's MoveOnPAC speech is open to MoveOn members in the Washington area only.)
_______________________________

Shouldn't he be working on his cable channel project?

Maybe Google encouraged him to focus on other things.

TIME Goes 2 for 2

Last week, Time took a cheap shot at Ann Coulter when a distorted, funhouse image of her was chosen for the cover.

This week, Time does a number on Pope Benedict XVI. Of all the possible pictures of the new Holy Father that could have graced its cover, a Donald Trump "You're fired!" cobra move photo was the winner.

No doubt, Time has rewarded picture editor Mary Anne Golon for her outstanding work in bashing those outside the liberal elite circle.

Abandon Bolton Movement Begins

Dodd: Bolton Should Withdraw Nomination

AP story:

One committee member, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was asked if he thought Bolton should withdraw from consideration. "I would hope he would," Dodd said in a televised interview.

"I think he's going to embarrass the president. I think he's going to ... have a very difficult job serving if he's confirmed narrowly by the Senate. He should withdraw or the president ought to withdraw this nomination. There are plenty of other good people who embrace his ideological views who can go up" and achieve the major changes that Bush is pressing for at the United Nations. "John Bolton is not that individual."

A White House spokeswoman, Christie Parell, said the president is sticking by Bolton.

"The president believes he's exactly the man needed at the United Nations," she said Sunday in response to Dodd's remark.
________________________________

Now that the vote on Bolton has been delayed, it appears that the Democrat strategy will be to push for the withdrawal of his nomination.

Thankfully, the White House is not abandoning Bolton.

Dodd's suggestion, that "there are plenty of other good people who embrace his ideological views who can go up," is ridiculous.

Are we to believe the Dem smear machine would spare anyone sharing Bush's ideology?

Think of how they brutalized Condoleeza Rice. Barbara Boxer's shameful performance at the confirmation hearings will linger in the minds of many for years.

Bottomline: ANYONE sharing Bush's ideological views will be bashed mercilessly. It's the Democrats' way. Creating a firestorm based on hearsay and whispery gossip is junior high student territory. For elected officials to engage in this type of bullying is indeed a sad spectacle.