I had a chat with a friend at work this evening. He'll be voting for Obama. I got the distinct impression that Democrats expect politicians to lie. Bill used to say that he tried marijuana but didn't inhale, and his party thought he "handled the question" quite well. For a Democrat, truth isn't the point, it's telling the lie cleverly enough that no one challenges it.

This is the "edited" spoof on Hillary's arrival in Bosnia. Hillary "showing off her marksmanship" cracks me up every time. The video is fine but the rest of the page is unfortunately not "family friendly."

It Makes Too Much Sense

It's like getting sued for trying to help a victim of a car accident. In litigation crazy America, our reps actually had to write a law that said you can't sue someone for trying to save your life!!
Now, in a slightly different application is the same logical question - "Should we allow citizens of the United States to be sued for reporting suspicious behavior on a fully fueled jet passenger aircraft?" (For those who can't stand the suspense, the answer is "NO!")
"The Flying Imams" as they are called, are not a troop of circus artists. They are a group of Muslim leaders who, after attending a meeting of folks with like minds and rank in Minneapolis, boarded a flight and promptly made jerks of themselves, frightening the passengers. An Arabic speaking passenger, not among the Imams, overheard their conversations and was among those who reported the odd behavior to the flight's operators.
"The Flying Imams" contend that the passengers over-reacted and were motivated more by irrational fear and racism than with any real threat. The Imams were removed from the flight. Which, I guess, hurt their feelings. The identities of the passengers who spoke up were wisely withheld, so they are known in the incident as "John Does." The Imams have sued the John Does.
It's become a federal issue, and Speaker Pelosi is being lobbied by her Republican colleagues to offer protection for people who report to authorities behavior like what was on display.

"We cannot afford to wait any longer to protect individuals who seek to do the right thing by speaking up to prevent a terrorist attack," more than a dozen Republicans wrote to Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, today in a letter obtained in advance by The Washington Times.
The legislation responds to a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams after they were removed from a Nov. 20 U.S. Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior. The lawsuit was filed on March 12 and also named as defendants any yet-unknown "John Doe" passengers who reported the imams' behavior.
"This represents a startling precedent, one that could freeze the very behavior law enforcement has encouraged," the letter said.

Of course, the Democrats are the "bridge builders" of American politics. (They even went and engaged in photo ops with Assad of Syria, when he wasn't too busy watching sports events with the Turkish PM, whom American Democrats had recently snubbed for Turkey's refusal to acknowledge their pesky Armenian issues.) Being politically correct and projecting just the right image is far more important to them than any flirtation with "Justice."

What I Like And Dislike About Giuliani

Largely because of McCain-Feingold, (which denies free speech rights to issues organizations in the months leading up to elections - when the issues are most important) Senator McCain simply has no credibility with the conservative base of the Republican Party. As impassioned as his defense of the war on terror is, and as much as I appreciate ANYONE's defense of that under-reported important issue and viewpoint, McCain has already lost his most valuable asset as a national spokesman. Enter Giuliani, who has no similar problem on the war. At a New Hampshire "town hall" meeting Tuesday night, Rudy impressively handled citizen's questions regarding the war, and the president's prosecution of it. When the Democrat/media driven issue of the war somehow causing an abridgement of rights arose,

"Just about every personal right has been abridged in the war on terror," he said. "When will you say that's as far as I will go?"

Giuliani did not waste time or effort with his answer - with glorious attitude -

"I think you have grossly exaggerated the case," Giuliani responded. "And you didn't point out the other fact, and that is we haven't been attacked and we've been safe."
He defended the administration's domestic wiretapping program, tough interrogation techniques and the USA Patriot Act.
"So, no rights," Capodice said.
That drew a sharp retort from Giuliani: "That's hardly no rights!" he said. "You have more freedom than anyone in this world has ever had — and no one has taken that from you!"

While I can't vouch for the literal value of his statement, the fact is that whatever limitations there are to our constitutionally guaranteed rights have mostly been imposed by Democrats and politically liberal Supreme Court decisions. (Notable exception is the previously mentioned McCain-Feingold) Political-correctness, hate-speech, deprivation of the right to life of the unborn, are just a few of the many examples of the rampant fascism of the Democrat agenda. They simply cannot see the wisdom in the adage, "Be careful what you hope for!" Hate speech is a very dangerous lasso around our freedoms that is now being used by Muslims to keep Americans from discussing the serious threat their religion WILL someday present. Democrats desire a world where we are free - not TO BE what we want - but free from pain! Imagine a world free from struggle? Impossible so long as people are human...but there I go on my rant!! (((Focus! Giuliani!)))
Rudy of course loses it (his credibility) when he gets into issues not having to do with 9/11...
Some folks think that the tenth amendment only applies to the second amendment

Last week, after the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, Giuliani said it "does not alter the Second Amendment" and emphasized state-by-state gun control measures, which contrasted with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners.

Imagine state-by-state "religion controls" or state-by-state "equal protection" controls, and you quickly see how silly is his - and liberals/democrats/media - approach. On the other hand, there is no mention of any medical procedure anywhere in the constitution, and so those legal/social issues SHOULD be approached on a state-by-state basis as directed by the tenth amendment. Which is why the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v Wade is such an abomination under the law, even if one CAN accept 45 million dead babies by now.
If Fred Thompson gets into the action, I'll vote for him. If not, then my primary vote will go to Huckabee - I like him, plus it's a sympathy vote for being Bill Clinton's Lieutenant Governor Indiana has no say in the primaries anyway - and my vote in the election will go to whoever runs for the Republicans.

Secular Islam Summit

The democrats in America don't easily take "no" for an answer. Over the years they have perfected the political tactic sometimes called "the shotgun approach." In this short-term strategy for gaining political strength, a slew of usually contradictory, unrelated and brainless ideas are "shot" full force through a friendly media to gauge reactions from the public. The far left likes all of them so their poll numbers are only mediocre early. But the media blast is repeated with nauseating regularity (think "re-deploy the troops")until a few ideas find homes in the minds of a large enough poll sampling that a mandate can be claimed by the owners of that idea. I could probably be talked into the timetable, but not if the intention of pulling all the troops out. That's simply head in the sand denial.
This is happening now with the Iraq "time line" idea being pushed by house democrats, with Murtha being the mouth. From AP:

WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable would be accelerated — to the end of 2007 — if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq's security.
The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file Thursday, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even Lady Espresso believes it's time for Iraq to defend Iraq. I believe this pellet of scattershot will strike its target. So, I have an inclination and a couple recommendations. I don't think the Islamists have finished what they started on 9/11, so my initial inclination is to buy weapons and ammo. I've been through this thought process before, though. I'm going to think about it.
My recommendations would be to:a)get as much "punch" out of the Baghdad surge as is possible. People are war weary and want the soldiers home if this is all the progress the military can show. This would be a good time to pull UBL and Mullah Omar out of the Himalaya's butt.
b)instill as much insecurity in muslims about the value of their religion as possible. Personally, I subscribe to the view that "moderate muslim" is an oxymoron. But to encourage the growth of such a religious entity could do to muslims in our century what corruption and political ascendancy did to christians during the Reformation / Enlightenment era. (Come to think of it, there are some neat similarities.) This video came from following links from powerline

This is a movement worth trying to encourage, and I hope the administration can be shown its value!

espresso beans to powerline

Why Bush Lost America's Trust -- Accusation Fatigue

Too much lying by activist jerks, some working for the gov't. Some twist and spin in the press like the article below... too little response by the White House. ... (all emphasis mine)

WASHINGTON - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.

In 2003 there was nothing "gone wrong" about the Iraq war except that it was plain that the Democrats - in disagreement with it - were taking a bath in opinion polls. As important as polls are to politians, that's a call to arms - so they went on their own covert campaign to smear all of America's best efforts. And if the "effort" had to be made, why shouldn't it be an aggresive one?
...

The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.

The "mission" at the time was to depose Saddam and install a democracy and an ally in the gwot. The American military had just accomplished a part of that, and there's no reason the President shouldn't have offered his thanks and encouragement.
...

The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.
Trial testimony so far — including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recorded testimony to a grand jury in 2004 — suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.

Someone could remind this journalist that "claims" and "accusations" do not constitute evidence. It should go without saying that at some point, a little evidence of what this journalist is reporting is needed. The word of a reporter with a spin for sale is not taken for granted to be truthful. The report's author is as much as admitting that the press has no idea what it's talking about regarding the level of "discipline" present at the White House.
One could go on and on throughout this junk, but it's apparent to me that this is another example of "controversy sells" rather than reporting honestly...which is too boring. The Wilson scandal may prove that Libby had something to hide, or not. The real scandal here is Wilson is an employee of the US State Dept, and a partisan liar.

Dissent at the Times

Snagged this YouTube from milblogs...[Greyhawk](Link in title...)

Via NewsBusters; New York Times Baghdad reporter John Burns talks Iraq with Tim Russert:

He's on dangerous ground - another Times reporter was recently publicly humiliated after committing a lesser thought crime.

Tokyo Who? A Friend's Email Forward

Ghost of "Tokyo Rose"
and some random gifs I've been collecting...

Anyone who remembers anything about World War II, or has studied anything
about World War II, will understand and remember that during World War II,
the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces.
The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster
"Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged
in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American
GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message?

It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war

Does this sound familiar?

Is it because;

Tokyo Hillary,

Tokyo Harry,

Tokyo Teddy

Tokyo Nancy ,

Tokyo Durbin,

Tokyo Kerry,etc. have all learned from the former enemies of our country and have
picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on

Tokyo CNN,

Tokyo ABC,

Tokyo CBS,

Tokyo NBC,

etc., to our troops?

The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they
demoralize them.

Come to think of it... Tokyo Rose told the American Troops she was on
their side also!

espresso beans to dean!

Republicans Were Different Then

I was going to call the article, "We Were Different Then." It was going to be my response to this Froma Harrop column. In using "we," I intended to mean the people of the U.S. She chides current Republicans for not being the way President Ford was, (of course Democrats and the press ridiculed Ford as stupid and uncoordinated back then) and targets Newt for being "radical" and a "street fighter" as opposed to the "sensible" Ford...

A street fighter like Gingrich didn't get Ford at all. The man from Grand Rapids, Mich., wasn't plotting for the next election. He wasn't into demonizing Democrats. He was only thinking about what was good for the country. Not running up debt was good for the country.
As Gingrich saw him, Ford was just too middle class. He was not slithering around all day, planning some sneak attack on reputations across the aisle, or peddling the free lunch of tax cuts to be balanced by unspecified spending reductions.
"One of the great weaknesses of the Republican Party is we recruit middle-class people," Gingrich lamented in his speech. "Middle-class people, as a group, are told you should not shout at the table, you should be nice, you should have respect for other people, which usually means giving way to them.

We are all painfully aware of words being politicized. "Middle class" meant something entirely different back then, from what it means today. In '74, it was possible to call a war a "police action." You could even declare "war" on poverty or drugs, and the middle class thought that meant that politicians actually would fight those real concerns with sincerity. All these "wars" ever "won" was a bitterly divided class structure, a country of "two Americas," as John Edwards would call it. Heck, you could promise a "Middle Class Tax Cut Plan" and lie your way to the White House with no reason to believe that the Middle Class might actually EXPECT the tax cut - right up to 1992!!!
But it (my first choice title)just isn't true. The "we" is not right. Republicans were different, Democrats and academia and the Big Journalism (BJ)Industry haven't changed a bit.
During Mr Ford's presidency, republicans were supposed to be 80%'ers. They wanted everything the Democrats wanted, from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" - they just didn't want to spend so much money getting there. (yup - republicans ARE the party of fiscal responsibility...wait till the democrats get their hands on our tax receipts!) They never expected to win either house of congress, and had no defining agenda for a majority if they ever won it. Newt of course, was different. Ms Harrop doesn't even start with Reagan, another "good" Republican, now deceased - coincidence?
Big Journalism still refuses to get Republicans, and doesn't even want to know who they are. Just read the first line from this AP story from the WISH-TV website.

WASHINGTON - The nation honored Gerald R. Ford on Tuesday in a high-powered fanfare for the common man who was summoned to the presidency in the Watergate crisis. He was remembered for what he didn't have - pretensions, a scheming agenda,a great golf game - as much as for the small-town authenticity he brought to high office.

Maybe AP was thinking of Chevy Chase.
I liked President Ford. Everybody knew his "WIN" campaign was an admission that nobody knew what to do about inflation. I can argue either way on the pardon of Nixon, but am certain he thought it right, with or without extra political pressures. I can't remember who I voted for in '76, but it was the Carter administration that convinced me that no matter how "sensible" the democrat candidate seems during the campaign, the other democrats in their administrations will still be socialists.
And that's why I vote republican.

Berger is Fried

The next time anyone says anything about crime in the Republican Party...
Honestly, Only a Democrat could have gotten off so easy.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

...I love this next part. It got to the point that they gave him speciall attention because of earlier episodes!.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

And finally, from Patterico's, Mr Clinton's classic reaction just after Mr Berger's "mistake,

As long as Patterico is talking about the Sandy Berger scandal, I think readers should be reminded of Bill Clinton’s reaction to the charges:
“We were all laughing about it on the way over here. People who don’t know [Sandy] might find it hard to believe. But … all of us who’ve been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers.”

The Iraq Study Group Does Rodney Dangerfield

Drudge directs to this you tube vid made by the director of "Airplane"

espresso beans to drudge

In My House, Newt Has 50% Of The Vote

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. My wife thinks he's mean and his divorce(es?) disqualify him. Still, I can't help but wondering when the Boston Globe ever opened a story about a Democrat this way...

Gingrich: GOP needs new kind of campaign
By Beverley Wang, Associated Press Writer | December 15, 2006
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Even Republicans are impressed with the reception of Democratic superstar Barack Obama.

I guess you'll just have to trust me, the story really is about Newt.

The Cliff Hanger Continues

Wow...I'm actually mentioning a story I wrote on last month.

A political newcomer’s seven-vote upset of a veteran Indiana state lawmaker last month goes before the Indiana Recount Commission on Tuesday.
The hearings, expected to last up to three days, will address findings of the State Board of Accounts in the Nov. 7 race between Elrod, a Republican, and Ed Mahern, the defeated Democratic incumbent.

espresso beans to taking down words

THE TRUTH ON IRAQ

POLITICAL ANSWERS WON'T WORK says the New York Post's John Podhoretz.
The problem has never been that we didn't have a plan, the problem has been that our plan didn't work because it was political, not military.

Yes, we'd stay in Iraq and fight the bad guys when we had to, which seemed mostly to be when they decided to attack us first. Our resolve was intended to give the Iraqi people the sense that they were being given control of their future, and to give Iraqi politicians the sense that they had a chance to forge a new kind of country in which everybody could prosper.

For this reason, we relented on several occasions when we had a chance to score a major victory over the bad guys. Because politics was more important than military victory, because playing the game was more important than killing the enemy, we chose to lose.

espresso beans to ny post

D's Still Searching For Intelligence (Chairman)

Hastings, Harman Rejected for Chairmanship
According to recent news accounts, House speaker Pelosi really wanted to placate the Black caucus and appoint Hastings. Harman sounds like she had some insight into, and appreciation for, the Pentagon, which of course makes her insufficiently shrill. There's also some history between Pelosi and Harmon.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has decided against naming either Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, or Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), the panel's No. 2 Democrat, to chair the pivotal committee next year.

The unresolved issues between the "blue dog" democrats and the liberals will have to play out --

The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994. Harman, a moderate, strong-on-defense "Blue Dog" Democrat, had angered liberals with her reluctance to challenge the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Hastings, an African American, was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus but was ardently opposed by the Blue Dogs, who said his removal from the bench disqualifies him from such a sensitive post.

Of course, Hastings offered his congratulations on the victory acheived by the vast right wing conspiracy; including,columnists, bloggers,

"...and other assorted misinformed fools."

espresso beans to Drudge

Cliffhanger In My District! Elrod - Mahern

From today's Star; Democrat Ed Mahern of Indianapolis today filed for a recount and a contest of his 7-vote loss in his bid for re-election to the Indiana House. I voted for Elrod so I like the direction this "trend" is taking!

Problems included electronic voting machines that weren't working when voters first arrived at the polls and paper ballots left unsecured because they couldn't immediately be counted, he said.

We heard about this the morning of the elections. I didn't think they were talking about our (Indianapolis) booths. I saw nothing of any problems at my location. The next paragraph really caught my eye.

"In several precincts in the district, poll workers took the unprecedented step of recreating some ballots -- actually filling in ballots without the voters present -- after (the original ballots) were rejected by the electronic scanning machine," Mahern said. "In virtually every case, this happened hours after the voter had left the polling place."

The machine "rejected" some ballots, and in the effort to make every vote count, the poll volunteers "recreated" the voter's ballot in such a way that the votes will be accepted. In their editorials, the Star encourages counting even the ballots that are ineligible for one reason or another, but Mr Mahern seems to criticize counting these ballots (which could arguably be considered invalid). If there were rules then the volunteers would have had guides to follow. Without any guides, I think they just did what had to be done to get the votes counted.
I am a partisan Republican, I have the conviction and passion to have been a precinct committeeman in the past. The same qualities of strength of opinion could definitely have been said of my Democrat counter-part. But every issue we encountered (there weren't many) was handled between the two of us in a way that was agreed on by both of us. I think it's disturbing that Mr Mahern would cast doubt on the integrity of the workers at the polls. Have your recount, you deserve it. But leave your excuses to your own inability to convince your district, in a year of a Democrat wave, to vote for you.

The organizational meetings will be held today, the first day of the new session. Elrod says he's just going to show up and see how events shake out!

Elrod said he didn't know what to expect.
"I'm going to show up and find out what happens," he said.
If the victories by Republicans Harris and Elrod hold up, Democrats still will have a 51-49 majority in the 100-member House.

The Conservative Bean Is Frugal!

1) all the earmark and "bridge to nowhere" nonsense.

The '94 elections were successfully "nationalized" by Newt, to the Republicans advantage, ending the Tip O'Neil dictum, "all politics is local." It was supposed to be the end of the "bring home the bacon" advantage that was Democrat largesse. In '06, Senator Ted Stevens "Bridge to Nowhere" was deadly. It may be that the country is belatedly getting around to intuitively understanding de'Toqueville's warning that democracy survives only until the people discover that they can vote for themselves funds from the largesse of the treasury - and that politicians can bribe their constituents into keeping them in office. The problem with Tip's perspective is, of course, that bringing home the bacon for one district costs money that neighboring districts think could have been better used to buy more coffee. That, at least, is what my district thinks!
And obviously the neighboring districts are correct.
No one expects good reviews of anything Republican from The Comedy Channel, but we shouldn't be giving them such easy targets.

It's likely that you don't live in Alaska, so your district probably disapproves as well. Alaska's Senator Stevens ignored the steaming contempt that his bridge was brewing because he could. He is, til January, in charge of the transportation bean counters.
To the old timers in the GOP, this represents the widespead betrayal of failure to deal with rampant use of earmarks. The youngers, who voted in record numbers this cycle, have no memory of what a war that is run from DC really looks like. They haven't even heard of the results of raising minimum wages, or why Democrats enjoy interfering with successful businesses like Wal-mart. (Not to get results, but to remind business who they must pay off.) To anyone who has entered political arena in the last fifteen years, the Republican party is the party of Big Government.

Weak Is Coffee Quickly Brewed

In the attempt to feel like they are on the forward edge of conservative thought, I think many bright folks are running too quickly from shock and dismay to
planning for the next election cycle. More discussion, research is needed. Many, many pounds of beans still separate us from the time decisions need to be made regarding candidates! Let's aggressively remind folks who we are after we've figured out what went wrong...'cause it's not just about losing our conservative voice!

In a previous post I listed some of what I thought were the important reasons the GOP lost the elections. I have some more. To keep each article short, click the bold or scroll for my thoughts. If conservatives have any smarts, we'll have a lot more ideas, because the last elections were bad, folks.

First the previous...

But I think the loss is a direct result of (in no particular order):

1) all the earmark and "bridge to nowhere" nonsense.
2) Abramoff
3) lack of leadership on the border/immigration issues
4) lack of perceived progress in Iraq.

To those I'd add...

5) Lack of any movement toward a market based health plan
6) The Republicans still cannot deal effectively and consistantly with the media