Friday, July 29, 2005
Mooloolaba Beach, Australia --
DC: I would like to welcome you all here. Thanks for coming down. It was kinda tight in the plane. I especially want to thank Nickie and Ms. Thomas for sharing a seat. It was a great time.
Of course, I have come here to celebrate my three Golden Meatballs. It is a great honor. I wanted to come to this great place because it is where I will start my world blogging tour some day. Just not now ... There is still too much paying work to be done.
There are are lot of people I would like to thank for getting to this point in my blogging career. I would like to thank my mother and dad -- Ma and Pa Cutter -- without them I wouldn't be here. And also I would like to thank my computer. And my publisher. That would be me. Mainly, I would like to thank my dad for instilling in me a love of country, and my English and journalism teachers for instilling in me the love of the printed word. And I would like to thank my commenters ... the best in the blogosphere ... for driving me to the next level.
Mainly, I would like to thank IMA, the Int'l Meatball Assn. for its work in helping me to this breakthrough moment. And I would like to thank Laurie Dhue.
And now, I will take your questions.
Yes, ma'am ...
Helen Thomas: Helen Thomas. Sir, today we heard that John Bolton had to change a questionnaire and may now be implicated along with Karl Rove in the leak of the name of Valerie Plame. When will the White House address this head-on?
("Battle Axe" disguised as cough heard three times from Goomba News Network section while question being asked)
DC: Excuse me. I would appreciate some decorum here. I would be happy to address this head-on. Ms. Thomas, I think there is a pending investigation, and I am not going to discuss this at this point. Yes, you, right there close to Ms. Thomas ... Yes, Nick ...
Nickie Goomba: Yes, sir. Nicholas Goomba, Goomba News Network, winner of Niko Bufaleone Award. I ... uh, first, thanks for bringing us here, and I was wondering how it feels to get three of my deals ... the ball doodads, the three balls, Golden Meatball deals.
DC: Actually, Nick, it is great. Great question, by the way. I mean, I feel good. I feel like I could get six, eight ... I mean, the IMA is in complete control of the categories.
Catherine Herridge: Catherine Herridge, Fox News: DC, there is some rumbling that the IMA actually meant to slight you, in light of the fact that one category made fun of your Texas roots and another implied that you are short, with a tall "companion". And I must say ... being as fair and balanced as I can, you are quite tall and handsome (murmuring in crowd).
DC: Thank you, Cate. As for me ... well, I take it as a high compliment. Of course, most things are high to the members of the IMA. Given that they are old, portly, and short, their jealousy is understandable. So, I don't worry about it. Make fun of Texas. It's the Capitol of the World. Texans can take it. Yes, ma'am, you have a follow up ...
Unidentified: Geez. For the sake of all things decent ...
Helen Thomas: Helen Thomas. Yes, sir, I was wondering ... when the President fires Karl Rove, should he be required to appoint a Democrat as his Deputy Chief of Staff, and would this perhaps heal some of the wounds from the stolen 2000 election?
DC: Helen, I think we have been over this ... I think I have answered ... Yes, you there. Yes, Laurie ...
Laurie Dhue: Laurie Dhue, Fox News. Where does the patriotism come from? What major influences do you credit for your passion in writing about America?
DC: Thanks, Laurie, for the great question. It all started with my dad, who taught me that being an American is a special responsibility. It is a great gift, but also a special responsibility. He also taught me that America is good. Not perfect, but good. And certainly as good a nation as the world has ever seen. Then, I would say the next major influence is my faith. I know this makes Helen's toenails curl, but tough. The Bible teaches me to be a good citizen, and it teaches me to cherish the freedom promoted to all people, believers and unbelievers alike, in America. This nation, I love it so. Yes, but not ... okay ...
Helen Thomas: Helen Thomas. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?
DC: Yes. (murmuring in the crowd). Yes, Nick ...
Nickie Goomba: Helen wants to know where is the food and when do we eat.
DC: Nick, c'mon. ... Okay, 30 minutes till meatball sandwiches. Goodness. Okay, Megyn.
Megyn Kendall: You seem to be confident about the Roberts nomination, both that Judge Roberts will be confirmed and that he will not disappoint conservatives as a member of the Supreme Court. How come you are so confident?
DC: Two words, Meg: George Bush. Ultimately, I must admit that I have to trust the President's judgment in the pick. And ... if you look at his various nominees, they have been very good on the whole, and each one of them has done as the President expected in their various roles ... Rummy, Condi, Gonzalez, etc. Plus, the more we learn about Roberts, it appears that I was right to have this confidence. He looks like the real deal. He will be confirmed. It doesn't hurt that he is smarter than all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee combined. Alisyn ...
Alisyn Camerota: Alisyn Camerota, Fox News. Some have wondered if you are having fun with the blog. It got kinda serious with the shootouts with the Leftists recently. Are you having fun?
DC: Well, we're here, aren't we? I mean, yes, some of what we talk about is serious ... like the Iraq War ... like how do we face down jihadis that want to kill us all in the West, both left and right. But, yes, I am enjoying this. I wish I had more time to devote to the blog. I must be more regular with the format (column early in the week and short mid-week update), but events have been racing. And the Roberts' nomination has made it tough. But writing is fun. And my blogger friends make it fun. And the commenters. So, we press on ...
(Sound of female screaming.)
Helen Thomas: Get your hands off me, you pig!!
Nickie Goomba: What?
Kiran Chetry: It's Nickie and Ms. Thomas fighting over the meatball sandwiches, DC.
DC: You have got to be kidding me. Nick, I swear, I can't take you anywhere. Try to show you the world and look what you do. Yesterday, you are doing carrier quals in the aisle of my plane. Would you just hang on? Okay, one last question so we can eat ... Yes ...
Lisa Bernhard: Lisa Bernhard, Fox News. Mr. Cutter, looking over your writing and argumentation, I was wondering if you have some sort of training or background that makes you adept at dealing with the Left.
DC: Well, Lisa, it helps to be right. But seriously, I have been on the ideological battlefield with the Left for 25 years now ... orally and in print. As a journalism student, I was one of about three or four conservative students on my campus newspaper in the 80s. We made an impact and ultimately helped to bring balance to the paper. My pothead, Marxist editor used to argue with me about my columns as he "edited" them. It was a joke, but I persevered. I have had my faith mocked, my patriotism mocked,my conservatism laughed at as hokey, my whole belief system challenged over and over again over the last quarter of a century, in my personal and professional life. I may not have heard all of the Left's arguments twice, but I have heard pretty much all of them at least once.
And it all has just made me stronger. I am just getting started.
Thank you all for coming.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
So, the press conference to answer all of the media's burning questions on this subject will be tomorrow at a yet-undisclosed location. First, I have to swing by and pick up the pool reporters. Please all be ready with your stuff at the pool.
I have got to get my KC and the Sunshine Band CDs together, and gas up the jet and then I will be there. Don't worry about having enough room in the parking lot for me to land. My plane is actually a VSTOL, in fact, a modified Harrier fighter bomber. So, I got it covered.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
I mean, there I am, minding my own business, looking for real news on the web ... and I see this nice missive awarding a Golden, albeit stinking, Meatball Award to our favorite Moderate (hands over your hearts, please) senator, John McCain.
And delicately tucked in his quaint, little corner of cyber-space, I find this poignant passage portraying the plight of Sen. McCain:
"In his attempt to take the “middle ground”, John McCain is destined to slide into the big cosmic butt crack."Graphic. Illustrative. Right on. Goomba.
If you haven't been following the awards extravaganza that is "The Golden Meatballs", please do check in at Nick's site.
Last year, I came in second to Ace for "Best Blog of the Millenium", as I recall. This year ... I am expecting a whole plate full. I do not recollect any limit on Meatballs. If so, it is surely in the penumbras. Would it be an extraordinary circumstance that would clear the way for a leftist filibuster of the ceremony if I were to haul in a half dozen or so Meatballs? I think not.
This I pledge ... A victory press conference upon my receipt of a Golden Meatball. Not to be presumptuous, or anything. But hey ...
For now, work and all manner of other duties press in. Judge Roberts will be fine. I like the docs being released. Looks like I am/was right about him. Relax conservatives. Tremble, ye who fear interpretation of the Constitution as originally drafted.
So, unless called to the podium by a surprise announcement of my Golden Meatball, I shall post again next week ... and maybe resume that cliff-hanger "Burglars" ... we'll see.
Monday, July 25, 2005
A couple of stories caught my eye over the weekend. First, there was this one. You may have heard the gist of it -- on their visit to Guantanamo Bay, Sens. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Akaka (D-Hawaii) apparently got an earful from their respective home-state troops for comments recently made by Durbin, Kennedy, et al., regarding Gitmo.
It seems the troops didn't accept the nuanced distinction by Durbin, et al., that they were only criticizing American policy at Gitmo while supporting those who were carrying out that policy. The troops' reactions to such nonsense were described as "stiff" and they spoke of Sen. Durbin's recent comments with "disdain".
As I have said here and have argued many times and in many places before, criticisms of the troops' mission or conduct in wartime are criticisms of the troops themselves. You can not criticize the chain-of-command without implicating all in it. Even those who don't accept this premise of military order must understand that perception is reality to the troops. And the troops understand Kennedy, Durbin, and their ilk to be undermining their mission ... and criticizing, not supporting them.
I knew the troops would treat Sen. Kennedy this way. How? Well, how to explain ... You see, as my decorated uncle often reminds me, I was not infantry. Yes, I was in the rear with the gear ... not shot at. Indeed, I was in a dreaded support MOS. But still, how do you know what your brother, mother, father, son are going through? How do you know what they feel? How is it that you know ... you just know how they will react? How do you know what is important to them?
You know because they are your family.
So, Sen. Kennedy, please ... meet my family. I am sure they might have some things to say to you. I can't be there with them now, but they are in my prayers and I am proud of them.
Back in Washington
On Friday, My Houston Astros were starting a four-game series with the Washington Nationals. Before the Astros took the field on Friday night, however, their classy owner Drayton McLane arranged for the Astros to make a visit to Walter Reed Hospital to visit wounded troops.
The Houston Chronicle ran a nice story on Saturday about the Astros' visit to Walter Reed, even though reporters weren't allowed to be present when the Astros mingled with the troops. But here's how the paper described the meeting afterwards:
McLane sounded like a proup papa as he described the sight of his athletes eating hot dogs and hamburgers with soldiers their own age who are learning how to get by without arms and legs, or the lives they knew before the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Astros' All Star closer Brad Lidge was taken aback and humbled by the experience. He said:
"At first, they were apprehensive because these are soldiers who are badly injured, " said, McLain, who, visiting on his birthday, shared a surprise cake with a young soldier who lost most of one leg and all of the other. "But when they got here, they just lit up. It lifted my heart."
The Astros also hosted several soldiers from Walter Reed at each game and will vistit the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
Anyone who meets the soldiers comes away feeling humbled and inspired, said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, who was with the Astros and frequently stops by the medical center on his own.
"These young people's frame of mind could teach a lot of us," he said. "We get frustrated if traffic is not moving or if we can't find a parking place. These people have lost one limb, or three, and they have to deal with it. ..."
"These are the heroes. These are the guys I feel privileged to meet. They were so optimistic about everything. You don't feel sorry for them at all because they won't let you."So, the wounded troops lifted the Astros as much or more than the Astros lifted them. I am proud of our troops at Walter Reed. However, the fact that they lifted the spirits of the Astros doesn't suprise me at all. Again, I know them. Like family.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Interesting indeed that the apparent planner of the 7/7 London attacks was picked up in a madrassa. At least two of the other bombers had paid a visit to a madrassa in eastern Pakistan, as well.
The discussion is beginning. Now for action ...
Thursday, July 21, 2005
The bottom lines here are: 1) Barring unforeseen developments, he will be confirmed, probably with strong bipartisan support; and 2) The nastier and longer the fight over Judge Roberts, the more the Republicans are helped and the more the Democrats are hurt.
Here are the subplots:
Sense of Inevitability: Already the Demos are demoralized and appear to be going through the motions. The usual suspects are lining up demanding a fight -- NOW, NARAL, ACLU, PFAW, and other assorted bad acronym types. Yet, these same groups were preparing to do the same to the nondescript Edith Clement. And these types opposed David Souter, as well. And then provocateur extraordinaire Ann Coulter says he is Souter. This actually helps, too. I think Ann supported Souter with the rest of us dupes.
Marched to War: The Demos must fight, for their generals (the acronym types listed above) demand it. These are the people with the money, after all. These people run the Democrat Party. As long as the holy faith of the Left ... the ability to impose Roe v. Wade and other sacred doctrines upon the masses without input from the masses ... is on the line, then the Left must fight, even if it means certain defeat.
It's an Ambush: The nominee brought forward is known as a conservative from long-ago, from his four years of service for Ronald Reagan and his clerkship for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the two dissenters in Roe. His conservatism was apparently formed at the tail end of Viet Nam as his Indiana sensibilities were jolted by Ho Chi Mihn supporters at Harvard. He has since gone on to become one of the greatest legal minds in the country, and there is ample evidence that Judge Roberts has gone out of his way to dust his own footprints and leave no possibility for himself to be "Borked". Recall that as a young lawyer he watched what happened to Judge Bork in 1987. It appears to me that he began to consider the possibility of serving on the Court in the early 80's. But he saw the "benefits" of a paper trail a few years later. Hence, no paper trail. The judge did, however, argue for the overruling of Roe in 1991 while representing the first Bush Administration. Yet, he can now accurately and fairly state that he was representing his client. He was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court in 1991, and his nomination languished. Judge Roberts then circled back in 1994 to write a law review article and go out of his way to write the footnote about which Ann Coulter now complains -- wherein he cautioned his readers not to assume that the argument to overrule Roe was his own. I view this as very shrewd, indeed.
He has gone out of his way for many years to make friends wherever possible. All who know him like him, and his former liberal law firm and law school colleagues describe him as "very, very conservative." Apparently, Ann Coulter believes that being conservative means being despised by all liberals. This, however, is why she is a pundit and Judge Roberts is heading for the High Nine on the Potomac.
He is a genuine good guy, and he has been battle-tested by 39 oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. This nerve-wracking exercise essentially consists of trying to make your case to nine of the best lawyers in the land while they pepper you with questions ... points ... counter-points. And then your adversary takes you apart, as well. Yet, Judge Roberts is regarded as the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation, by Justice Scalia and many others.
And he will be "grilled" by Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, and Kennedy? This will be child's play for him. Plus, he is likeable and reasonable. The longer that this debate/discussion goes on, particularly if Schumer misbehaves like he did in the 2003 Circuit Court hearings, it will become more and more of a disaster for the Demos.
He won't admit it, but ... He's pro-life. How do I know? Deductive reasoning. Catholic. Life-long contributor to Republican candidates. Wife is former Executive President of Feminists for Life. Wife's political contributions mirror his. Has two children ... ages 4 and 5 ... and both are adopted. Don't meet many people with adopted children, especially Catholics, who are pro-abortion. And he went out of his way to end his remarks when the President nominated him with a reference to his two kids ... "who are the reason why I am doing this." Very interesting comment.
Now, with all that said, I think he won't impose this view and rush in to overrule Roe. He has correctly said, as I would, that Roe is settled law. It is. He knows, however, that doesn't mean it will always be so. Depends on the facts of the particular case presented to him. He is an originalist. No question. Read his opinion in the french fry case, where Judge Roberts and the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a harsh D.C. ordinance wherein a 12-year-old was arrested, handcuffed and taken off like a common criminal for, yes, having french fry. Judge Roberts cited precedent to note that the proper way to evaluate the Fourth Amendment was to determine what amounted to an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. Common sense, but a novel idea these days. But he found SC precedent to support it.
The Rehnquist Factor: I am convinced that the WH has coordinated its nomination of Judge Roberts with CJ Rehnquist. All parties know that a simultaneous Rehnquist retirement would have dramatically increased pressure for Pres. Bush to nominate a "moderate", whatever that is in constutional jurisprudence. Plus, the Demos would have certainly argued that a dual vacancy represented an "extraordinary circumstance". Now, the runway is clear. Once Roberts is confirmed, then the CJ will feel free to step down. Interestingly, the dynamic will have changed such that the WH can argue that it is certainly appropriate to nominate a clear conservative to replace the conservative CJ. Then, perhaps Roberts will slide over to chief as the WH nominates Edith Jones, or Michael Luttig, or Emilio Garza. It may be early enough in Roberts' tenure (the longer he is on the Court, the more it will be clear that he, Thomas, and Scalia will vote as a bloc) to contend that he may yet be a Souter. Rove and Co. have a master plan that looks dastardly for the oppostion. And ... if Stevens or Ginsburg step down (some say that this is a distinct possibility) then Demos will contend the Apocalypse is upon us. Or at least upon them.
Public Opinion and the '06 Elections: It is also strategically advantageous for the WH to have the more ideological, heated SC confirmation battle as close as possible to the '06 elections. Thus, the timing of the Rehnquist and O'Connor retirements is helpful. Make no mistake: Public opinion is with conservatives on the activist judiciary. Gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, eminent domain, etc. are issues that resonate not just with true-blue conservatives like me. They resonate all over the country. And then you throw in abortion, the Ten Commandments, the SC's resorting to foreign law to strike down state criminal laws, and you've got most of the center and right siding with the Republicans in the battle over the judiciary.
With the 24/7 news cycle, too, conservatives have a golden opportunity to educate the public on what is at stake. And when the public sees the treatment afforded to Bush nominees by the likes of Schumer, Kennedy, et al., support for the nominees will grow.
The Republican base will be energized, and the defeat of any conservative nominee will only increase resolve going into the '06 elections. To the extent the Demos cause any problems at all in the confirmation process, the President will simply urge the election of more conservatives so that we can get more conservative judges confirmed. This is a winning issue going into the '06 elections.
Circling back to where we started ... all you need to know is Demos are already plotting how to lose the Roberts fight with dignity. And get this: Democrat senators are confiding that one of the things that made Roberts an acceptable "consensus" pick, if you will, was that his lack of a paper trail will give them their excuse to feed to their generals for their impending defeat.
But while the Demos are plotting how to lose with dignity, Bush, Rove and Co. are plotting how to win big.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
In celebration of Pres. Bush's sticking his finger in the eye of the Left/MSM ... and after apparently dropping some Cool Hand Luke chili powder earlier in the day ... I am officially declaring this a holiday -- "Orrin Hatch Day". As a result, I am delaying the eagerly-anticipated Part III of "Burglars in the Neighborhood". Please read all the way to the end of this post to learn/be reminded of how Sen. Hatch treated Sen. Schumer's last attempt to lay a glove on Judge John Roberts. It was a complete, unexpected slap-down, kinda like Ward Cleaver getting picked on by a couple of young bullies on the way to greet June after a day at the office and then just going Chuck Norris all over them, leaving them writhing in the driveway. Unbelievable. So ... read on.
As for the Roberts pick itself, this president does and does not surprise me. He is very consistent. He does what he says. The logical choice was a woman or minority. It was politically a plus (at least apparently) to go that direction. Yet, Pres. Bush defied conventional wisdom, and in the process may have nominated some one that gives the Demos even more problems to oppose.
In taking in the commentary this evening, it is quite apparent to me that the Judge Roberts will be confirmed and he will be an excellent justice on the Court. He seems to have the amazing quality of being a true judicial conservative, while also being a great lawyer, and a great guy. There aren't a lot of such folks around, to be sure.
I will let my more well-armed blogging heavyweights such as Hugh Hewitt, confirmthem.com, and Bench Memos supply the ammo and direct the fire.
As for me, I will do my part (to the extent necessary) to call out left-wing hypocrisy, lunacy, and lack of logic on this issue. This could be a full-time job (actually it is) but my actual job will not permit me to do this glorious task justice.
So, I will contribute where I can.
For starters, I have to ask: What has gotten into Orrin Hatch? His stock is rising as one of my favorite senators. Okay, that's damning with faint praise, I know, but ... as I noted in the post below, he was spouting on Fox about how the country is "tired of the judiciary committee's crap." Preach it, Orrin!
And then ... I started checking a little background on Roberts, and I found this nice story about his prior confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. How I missed this jewel ... oh, well.
Here is my favorite passage wherein my new hero Hatch described the examination of Roberts by Schumer:
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."Folks, it doesn't get any better than that. Recall that Sen. Schumer doesn't think he is the most enlightened, brilliant man inhabiting this planet; he knows it. To be dressed down in public for asking "dumbass" questions by the formerly-dignified, but now apparently-crotchety Orrin Hatch ... that is excruciatingly funny and perhaps one of the most noble acts of public service ever in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change his mind.
A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."
Okay, I am going to bed. Earned my pay today.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Oh, that is very nice. It's almost like hearing this guy cuss a blue streak. The truth is, though, that the Left are the ones crying and cussing tonight.
Reflect on the following bit of truth for a few seconds, if you will: The same morons who said that this President would be remembered as a tainted leader who won in 2000 under dubious circumstances are now amassing files to paint Judge Roberts as an "extremist".
Bring it on.
By nominating Roberts, the President lays the groundwork to potentially elevate Roberts to Chief when CJ Rehnquist retires. At that point, maybe we get Edith ... as in Jones. Or Luttig.
But regardless of what lies ahead -- and we can expect the Party of Extraordinary Circumstances to push back -- Pres. Bush unsurprisingly kept his word.
And when the Left pushes back ... I expect the President to do more of the same.
We'll see. confirmthem.com is now reporting that credible sources are reporting a presidential Edith and Switch.
In either event, I am confident that Pres. Bush will make a good pick. He appears to have learned pretty much all of the lessons from the mistakes his father made. And he is a far better politician. He will make a pick that puts the Demos in a vice grip. And he will pick some one who will not change their make-up when then go to the pressure cooker of D.C., a la Justice Kennedy (remember ... he was Pres. Reagan's third pick for a vacancy that was supposed to be filled by Robert Bork).
A couple of final thoughts here ... First, the President reiterated today that he is going to appoint some one with the judicial philosophy he talked about in the campaign. And recall that he said then that he admired Justices Thomas and Scalia.
Now, recall that Judge Jones has been called the "female Scalia". And if that doesn't make your heart sing happy melodious tunes, by all means get that ticker checked out. And also, recall that the President has a soft spot for this hotter than Hades land that he and I call home. Yeay, a land that would not exist but for the invention of the air conditioner. And he is loyal. Edith Jones hails from here.
So, I am still holding to my hope and belief that it will be Judge Jones.
If it is not, and it is Judge Clement, than the President has made the judgment that she can and will get it done and the the political fallout for the Demos in pulling any shenanigans to keep her off the Court would be too much for them to bear. Landrieux, Byrd, and Nelson would be forced not only not to filibuster, but to vote for Judge Clement. It would be glorious to watch. Plus, she has some good enemies, too. I am not too worried about the comment about "settled law" and abortion. Wasn't separate but equal "settled", at least for a time?
So, either way, I am okay. But I still think it's Jones.
Update: Okay, I have survived the incoming fire of the email from Specter re: the confirmation hearings transcript for Judge Clement. It turns out that his staff sent it because of requests from a number of staffers. This all sounds like "Cool Hand Luke chili powder" to me. Again ... the President went out of his way today to say that he was going to fulfill the promise he made during the campaign, which was to nominate people like Scalia and Thomas. And ... this WH doesn't "leak", unless it has something to say (like, stop following false stories made up by partisan hacks). And why in the world would Pres. Bush's people leak the choice and steal the thunder from the announcement? Makes no sense. Based on what I know about the President and Darth Rove (a nomination of Jones first, with a fallback to Clement if trouble arose ... doubtful, but still ... makes perfect sense), Judge Jones will be standing up there with him tonight, and it is the right course both constitutionally and politically. Clement can/should be held in reserve. We will see.
Yet another update @ 3:10 p.m. CST: Looks like the nominee (based upon my analysis of the judicial and political landscape and knowledge of the players involved) will probably be: 1) a Texan; 2) a conservative; 3) some one who has been through the judicial/ideological wars and will not morph and "grow" in D.C. and 4) a woman.
That leaves two potential nominees: 1) Judge Edith Jones; and 2) yes ... (cue "Phantom of the Opera" score) Judge Priscilla Owen.
Oh, my. We will see. The exquisite irony of an Owen pick will cause me incalculable joy. I am still sticking with Judge Jones, but Justice Owen would work, too. Stay tuned and hold on tight ...
And ... one more thing. The President's decision to go prime time with the nomination and get out there before the pundits could carve up the nominee all day says, I think, that he wants to introduce this conservative nominee and go on offense for her before the critics start carving her up. So ... in sum, another reason for the Left to be afraid. But, we don't know for another 4-1/2 hours. We'll see ...
Another update @ 4:05 p.m -- Does any one know if Judge Janice Rogers Brown's middle name is Edith? Now ... here is another developing theme today ... If it's not Edith, then the ante will be upped. That is, the President will preemptively go to war again. Demos have said "It will be war" if Brown is nominated. Now, that would make for a fun summer, would it not? We will see. Then, I guess that Edith Jones could be the compromise candidate.
This just in ... Rove seen in full Sith regalia. Stand by ...
Update @ 4:25 p.m. -- More evidence that it's Jones, as suspected all along. Apparently the first Pres. Bush passed her over to nominate ... Souter. Yikes. Does the son atone? I think he will. Plus, I just know he would like her.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
I mean, when the guy slathered that orange paint on his face and became a racial flip flopper to look all tanned and ready for the first presidential debate, was there any doubt? But, you are getting me off point here. I digress. Where was I? Oh, yeah.
Let's come clean here. Sen. McCain is no rocket scientist. Now, he is a legislative mad scientist, as was made clear by his campaign finance "reform" legislation that gave the Demos a huge funding advantage and created the huge sucking sound of a loophole called "527s". Recall, too, that this is his Magnum Opus of legislative accomplishments. And now, the dreaded "reform" measure, like a Friday the 13th villian that won't die, is threatening bloggers, as the FEC ponders our fate.
So, as the Founding High Potentate and Supreme Ruler of Blogs For McCain's Opponent(s), I already had my doubts about his gray matter.
As for his politics, we know that Sen. McCain is not really a conservative. I mean, he can click his loafers together and say "There's no President like Reagan" all he wants. He is not a conservative. He is a Moderate -- hands over your hearts, please. He likes to raise taxes. He likes to regulate and meddle, even when the people who know better say forget it. Like the generals in Iraq. Moderates are equivocating meddlers who think they are more high-minded and smarter than the cavemen driven by ideology. Hence, they are operational allies with their kinfolk, the liberals.
And McCain loves to meddle with everything. All things are federal affairs -- baseball, steroids, what you can say about politics, how you spend your money, how movies are rated, etc.. It seems that McCain's foray into meddling with movie ratings, though, has now got him on the hot seat. And this is funny ... when imagined brilliance meets hypocrisy, and it is caught on film.
If you haven't been following this nice little brewing controversy, check out how the good senator has not got himself in a bit of hot water over appearing in a bare-breast fest of an R-rated movie. Hmmm. And this is odd, too, when juxtaposed against Sen. McCain's lectures to Hollywood about how it packages its garbage such that it will be opened by children.
In her column appearing in the Myrtle Beach Sun News (where was that second primary in 08, again?), liberal Susan Estrich asks:
Will the right laugh off the senator's latest cameo as just that [a bad joke]? Or will they ask what he was thinking when, having campaigned against R-rated films marketed to kids, he agreed to appear in one.Indeed. But Susan, I will answer the question for you. Yes, conservatives will question his judgment, because all conservatives will need in this regard is information. And with the new media, they will get it. Unless Sen. McCain regulates us out of business first, that is.
In the end, what may be at issue is not whether conservatives share McCain's sense of humor but whether they come to question his judgment.
Programming Note: Okay, working the penultimate episode of "Burglars in the Neighborhood". Coming to a computer screen near you ... Due out Wednesday.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Yeay, the Dark Side of the Force ... it is very powerful.
Instapundit has a nice roundup of links. And the roads lead back to? Reporters ... and Joe Wilson ... who now says his wife was not undercover when Novak "blew" her cover? Would some one please beam me up? I thought that's what this was supposed to be about.
Next, as a public service to my Lefty readers/lurkers and as more continuing outreach, I implore you to please take a look at this outstanding column by Dean Barnett. (h/t to Hugh Hewitt).
Here's a sample:
... [T]he politics of the left-wing blogs are far out of the American mainstream. Where most of the 120 million Americans who voted in the last election bear a benign indifference to political matters, the left half of the blogosphere seethes with hatred for George W. Bush and his supporters. What's more, the blogs take numerous positions that would strike all but the most passionate Democratic partisans as patently preposterous. For example, several of the left-wing blogs recently ran an advertisement that referred to West Virginia Senator and former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd as an "American Hero."Do yourself a favor and read it, and learn, Lefties. Or ... just keep it up and keep losing. Choice is yours. As for me, I happily continue in my Jedi training. And, yes, I do it with a smile.
Also, the level of discourse on the Daily Kos and other prominent liberal blogs is not something that would be attractive to the majority of the American public. The writings are often obscene and usually relentlessly hostile and negative. Crude personal attacks, whether aimed at right-wing bloggers or politicians, are the order of the day.
See you next week, I will.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
1) Since when is any of this a problem? Did it drive the poor jihadi mad? How do you drive a crazy person insane any way? Sorry, that was three, but ...
2) Is such conduct only a problem when Christian "religious extremists" object to it?
3) Would any liberal authorize such treatment to prevent another 7/7 ... or 9/11? If not, why not?
4) If the jihadis did not advocate death to America along with death to homosexuals, would they still be poster-boys for the Durbinite "human rights" cause?
5) Is supporting traditional marriage (you know, the man and woman deal) worse than advocating death for homosexuals? If so, why?
6) Can the Left abide all manner of despicable miscreants, as long as they hate America and the West? If not, please explain the silence of the Left in light of the well-known human rights outrages routinely committed by jihadis.
7) One last one: If not even a hint of a smile, nary a slight curl upward of your lips occurred when you heard that this he-man -- he who would courageously fly a plane with civilians, women, and children into a building -- donned a Cross-Your-Heart, please explain why. And if you have any moral outrage left in the tank on this one while they are still counting the dead in London, please do explain.
Okay, now I am done.
Now, in fairness, I would like to offer my response to Question #3. Here goes: Actually, I would be willing to run an all-night jihadi disco, and would personally spin the hits myself for as long as it took to break 'em. "Ah ... ah ... ah ... ah ... Stayin' Alive ... Stayin' Alive ..." And I would staff it with all the male personnel necessary to make sure that no jihadi had to sit out a particular dance. And ... I would be willing to cut in where necessary ... provided that I had my MOPP gear at the ready. So ... there you have it.
So now, your answers?
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Is there a person on the planet who thinks if the MSM had the goods on Darth Rove that they would not have leaked this during the election season? Crazy. The "source" is not Rove, and the MSM knows it. And the special prosecutor does, too.
That wily Texas boy is involved in a set-up alright. Except it appears he is the setter. Oh, my ... the horrah. And the Left ... the "set-ees". I sense a flanking maneuver, over by the S.C. building.
My sources (anonymous of course) tell me that a Texan will be appointed to the High Court. We will see.
But lefties ... stay away from that Sith Rove. He may be uglier than sin, but he will zap the fire out of you with that purple 'lectricity.
For a recap, here's Part I.
The Captain of the Force, he returned to his men, still pondering the words of the Half-Delegate: “This mission is a waste, but go ahead.” These were words of support? Well, he tried to understand, for certainly all the people of the land would be behind the force as they tried to hunt down the criminals in the east.
That evening, the Captain explained what had occurred that day to his men. Some they understood, or thought they did. But most, they did not. “How can one say we are wasting our time and at the same time wish us well?,” a sergeant asked. Another crime fighter, a corporal said, “It seems that the Half-Delegate, he doesn’t like the policy we are carrying out. Can he then wish us well?” The Captain thought about these questions, and he reminded his men how all people in the land were free to believe as they wish about all manner of issues – both foreign and domestic. All were allowed to believe as they wished about matters of policy. But the Captain, too, wondered: Could they do so and support his men? And what were the effects of people voicing their views when his men were enacting the policy?
On this first night, at least, the morale of the Captain’s men was not good after the Half-Delegates expressions of support were discussed. But how a fellow countryman could not wish his men to succeed in their mission, this he did not understand. To compound matters, the mission had gotten decidedly tougher in recent weeks.
Later that week, the Captain went to the gate of the Neighborhood to see if the Half-Delegate would return. Surprisingly, the Half-Delegate was already there – seemingly waiting. “I did not know if I would have to wait to find you here,” the Captain said. “Ah, yes, Captain, I have been working on a project that I have just about finished,” the Half-Delegate explained. “What brings you here?”
The Captain then told of the meeting with his men and he sought further clairifcation about what it meant to “support" the work of the force. The Half-Delegate seem perplexed. "I have already told you that I, and the rest of the Half Who Do Not Support the Supreme Commander, we support you."
The Captain, he had many questions. So he asked the first one that came to his mind: "Well, you see. My men and I are about trying to get the Menace and his band of criminals. This is hard work, as you know, and the most important thing in these circumstances is having the land that we love behind us."
"Well, we are," said the Half-Delegate. The Captain was relieved. "I mean, let me explain," the Half-Delegate elaborated. "You are just like a ... a gun, you see ... and guns don't kill people. People do. And you're a good gun, a real keeper. It's not your fault that the Supreme Commander has sent you here." This comment dazed the Captain. But before he could start with the string of questions that were beginning to populate his mind, the Half-Delegate continued. For a roll, he was on. "Actually, Captain, the Supreme Commander has committed the Crime of the Century in bringing you and your men here to the Neighborhood to find the burglars. But you must complete the mission. I support you. I don't support the mission. But get on with it. We are behind you."
And with that, the Captain said, barely audibly, "But then are we not ... the ...", and his voice tailed completely off.
The Half-Delegate, he paid no attention to the Captain's reaction, but rather patted his bright and shiny contraption that he had just completed this morning. "And this, dear Captain, this is my new Yorktimes, equiped with a double-whammyforce microphone. This new Yorktimes, sir, I will use to pronounce my support of you and your men every day, right here at the gates to the Neighborhood. And it will also reach the people of the land. What do you think of that, Captain?"
"That's nice," the Captain half-heartedly offered. Then, the Half-Delegate stepped to the mike of the new Yorktimes and bellowed: "Listen up ... Good morning citizens of the Neighborhood. My name is the Half-Delegate, and might I remind you that Half of us we do not support the Supreme Commander. He is a criminal and a liar. And the mission he sent the force on is a crime. They have purportedly been sent here to fight crime, to catch burglars, but that is not so. The entire mission is and unnecessary waste and was dreamed up by the Supreme Commander for his own selfish, illegal reasons. We are so sorry for this. But the members of the force carrying out this criminal mission ... we support them. But, look on the bright side. The mission, which we/I do not support, has degenerated into a quagmire."
The Captain's mind raced as he heard these words. He knew that the mike, it was so loud that some of his men could surely hear. Furthermore, the walls to the Neigborhood of the Mother of All Menaces were near enough that her forces must surely hear this, as well. What would they think to hear people from the land denouncing the Supreme Commander? And the mission, which was the Captain's mission ... and his men's? Indeed, the Captains' men had already encountered criminals from the MOAM's neighborhood. Make sense, this did not. He was greatly troubled.
The Captain turned to leave without speaking. But the Half-Delegate stopped him, "Captain, wait. Before you go ..." The Captain turned, hoping to hear just for a fleeting second that maybe some mistake had been made. "Take this," the Half-Delegate said. "It's some baby wipes and sunglasses."
"Thanks a million," the Captain said. And with that, he double-timed back to check on his men.
To be continued ...
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Did I ever tell you that I get all my material from talk radio? But I digress ...
To set this up, apparently Ron Reagan wanted to make the point that the War in Iraq was a "diversion" in the War on Militant Islam. And he wished to make this point with Hitchens, a Brit fluent in the English language, and right after the London bombings of last week. Poor planning.
And, please be advised that it was much better when this verbal whipping was delivered in Hitchens' beautiful British accent, but here is the excerpt from the interview:
RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?A few observations, in light of the foregoing: 1) So, is Hitchens, the liberal icon and writer for The Nation, just a shill for the Bush Administration, too?; 2) Even though few people bother to watch MSNBC, the beauty of the new media is that we can see circus acts such as Reagan's that we would otherwise be deprived of; 3) we need to do a better job of describing the breadth of the war we are engaged in, and the enemy ... and do it, at every available opportunity and 4) the Left won't listen/read any of the foregoing and change, because Bush lied. I mean ... he lied. He is evil, man!!
CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?
RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.
CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?
RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.
CH: How can you know so little about...
RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.
CH: Absolutely nonsense.
RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?
CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.
CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?
RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.
CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...
RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.
CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.
Update: This post, along with a number of others, is part of Rick Moran's always-interesting "Carnival of the Clueless". Lefties stop your cheering ... the clueless one referenced here is your own beloved Reagan. And yes, to whoever had that great idea, he should be required to change his name. I was thinking Ron Goomba. No, that won't work. How about Ron Franken? Ron Moore? Da-Doo-Ron-Ron? I don't know ... anything but Ron Reagan.
Programming Note: Okay, still working on the next thrilling episode of "Burglars in the Neighborhood". Stay tuned ...
Friday, July 08, 2005
One particular Leftist that I have been exceedingly patient with is ... our old pal Charlie, who has consistently insulted me and all things conservative throughout the entire time that I have tried to dialogue with him.
Take a look at the recent thread where I was "dis-invited" from commenting at Charlie's place. Incidentally, I provide this to you as a public service, because there are only about five raging leftists who regularly read Charlie's site, and normal people would never know of it otherwise.
So, here is Charlie's send-off:
"Well, little Daisy, let me cordially invite you to eat a steaming pile of shit before leaving this site, never to return."Actually, he made me chuckle. And my response? Here it is:
But ... Charlie and his ilk can still slip across my "open borders" and comment. I will not require them to maintain certain diet restrictions to do so. Of course, our little band of conservative "Minute Men" shoots 'em up pretty good when they wander in here. They need to suck it up. No one is armed with anything other than words, here.
Okay, so this is my swan song. I see that my "healthy dissent" is too much for the sensibilities of you ladies. So, I will make it count, as this little site degenerates to a very boring, echo chamber ... But is does have a niche ... "Lie ... lie ... lie ... lie ... (bouncing off walls).
PW, pretty much every one was able to come back to my site and answer the mail. Except you ... Because even this little exercise scares you. And you would certainly be a lot more polite if we were face to face.
If you don't have the facts when called on your exception-proving-rule anecdotes, guys, don't get mad at me.
And ... we're all sinners. We're all prone to lie. It's just that you are ensnared in an ideology/philosophy that requires you to lie to continue on in some semblance of sanity. Or you try other things. Maybe you are the exceptions to the Leftist rule. But the rule is demonstrably true.
What you call "healthy dissent" is no more than cowardly back-patting. The second some one pushes back (even here in the blogosphere), you cry foul.
You know, PW, I can't believe you said what you did, because one time some one was spreading vicious lies about you, saying you eat "Defication Burgers". It was horrible. I took up for you ... "He is allergic to wheat," I said. And it stopped. I am hurt. But I press on ...
Programming Note: No more posts until early next week, when "Burglars in the Neigborhood" returns. Stay tuned for the Half-Delegate's hearty encouragement for the Captain of the Force: "Yes, I support you and your men, Captain. And yes, you are carrying out the crime of the century. I don't want you to succeed, but get on with it. I support the troops."
Thursday, July 07, 2005
And couple of questions: 1) Why does al Qaeda attack nations that are supportive of our efforts in Iraq? I thought the Left told us the Iraq conflict was supposed to be separate from the War on Islamic Terror. Will some one get a message to al Qaeda, please?; and 2) Why doesn't al Qaeda attack France? Never mind.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
This series is fictional, but it is based upon current events. Any resemblance between any character herein and/or between current world events is not designed to impugn the patriotism of any Leftist … as we know that the Left loves the military, “supports the troops” and it is completely outlandish to even imply otherwise.
Some time ago, in a land not foreign there was a Supreme Commander. Half of the land they liked him; but half of the land, they did not. The Supreme Commander encountered a difficult decision, for the land had been ransacked by criminals living in a region far away and to the east. These criminals had engaged in a crime spree like none ever before seen in the land. The criminals broke into homes in the land, ransacked the property, and killed those inside. This string of deadly burglaries left the people of the land in shock. As a result, the nation’s view of crime was changed. Now, more dramatic measures were considered and needed.
So, the Supreme Commander sent some of his best and finest crime fighters to the east to locate and kill these dangerous criminals. This particular mission was successful. However, word later came that another potential crime spree was being plotted in yet another neighborhood in the east. The particular criminal that ran this neighborhood had been a Menace for many years. The Menace ruled his own land with an iron fist, and he was brutal to all, to those inside and out of his neighborhood. Given his avowed hatred for the people of the land and his stated intention to develop deadly weapons to be used against the land and its allies, there was concern throughout the world. This concern was made worse by the previous crime spree, too.
The leaders of the world gathered to discuss, once again, the problem posed by the Menace from the East. It was agreed that there were many problems with the Menace remaining in control of his neighborhood, including his potential to aid or form alliances with the first bunch of criminals who had struck the land. Also, there were many other reasons discussed for ridding the world of the Menace, both within the land and without. It was even thought that removing the Menace-criminal could, in fact, create a movement for law abiding behavior in the east. Even the Half Who Did not Like the Supreme Commander agreed that the Menace, he was a Menace. Some said this for fear of the people in the land, but they said it, nonetheless. The League of Many Lands, too, wrote many eloquent treatises about dangers posed by the Menace. The League concurred: He was a Menace. Yet, the Menace ... he would not respond to treatises. Even strongly worded ones. The League of Many Lands said that they would do something about the Menace, if he did not stop being a Menace. They even said they really meant it. But the Menace, he would not stop.
So, after consulting with Those Who Wait But Have Good Hair, the Supreme Commander sent his best and finest crime fighters to the east to stop the Menace. At first, there were some complaints from some in the League of Many Lands. But in the land itself, there was virtual unanimity -- the Menace, he must go.
The mission to locate and bring the Menace to justice started well, and the land's crime fighters quickly made progress against the Menace's forces. But eventually, the pursuit of the Menace and his crime family got tougher. It remained that way, even after the Menace himself was captured. Some in the land began to grumble, for things in the land they happened quickly, or not at all.
The Half Who Did Not Like the Supreme Commander, too, began to complain. "See?," they said. "This trip to get the Menace was a diversion from the real war on crime. The real war on crime is further to the east. For there, the Mother of All Menaces, she still runs free." The Supreme Commander has made an awful mistake, they said. Some even argued that the treatises by the League of Lands did not authorize such an operation in a faraway land, and the the operation itself was illegal.
After some time, the Half Who Did Not Like the Supreme Commander sent a Delegate to the Supreme Commander's crime fighting force. This Half-Delegate reached the gate to the neighborhood. The battle was raging inside, for he could hear it. He rang the bell outside.
The Captain of the Force came to the gate and greeted the Half-Delegate cordially. The Half-Delegate was very respectful, as well. The Captain asked the reason for the visit. The Half-Delegate said, "I have come to convey my deep respect for your work in fighting crime, and I wish to tell you that I and the rest of the Half Who Do Not Like the Supreme Commander ... they, we all support you. " The Captain replied, "Great. That's good to hear. It's important for us to know that the people of the land are behind us."
"Only, it is important for you to know this one thing," the Half-Delegate said. The Captain looked in anticipation. "We do not support the Supreme Commander, and we believe that you have been sent on a very ill-advised mission," the Half-Delegate explained. The Captain was now very perplexed, and he asked, "So, then should we just come home? This is hard work, and we pride ourselves in not only serving the people of the land but in also doing what is right and lawful. We have sworn an oath to this effect."
"No, you must continue on in this mission. It is true that it is a waste of time, but really it is better now that you continue killing and being killed," the Half-Delegate explained. The Captain sat speechless. "You can't stop now" the Half-Delegate said. "The Supreme Commander has created a mess. You must continue."
The Captain, confused and distressed, wondered what he would tell his men. He turned to leave. And then, the Half-Delegate said, "Wait, Captain. I do have something to share with you that will surely lift your spirits." The captain hopefully looked at a box that the Half-Delegate handed to him. "It's a box of chocolates and bug spray," the Half-Delegate explained.
"Oh, thanks," the Captain said. And then he shrugged and went to meet with his men.
To be continued ...
In an incredible development, Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer was overheard speaking to a friend on his cell phone, and he made one of the most incredible statements heard in Washington in a while: “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”
"I read this on Drudge, and I was very happy to scoop the aggressive sleuths at the the GNN," DC, the author of the influential conservative blog "Daisy Cutter" told a group of fawning reporters who hung on the New Media giant's every word. "However, the only reason that Chucky does not need a UN resolution or even an enemy is because he is declaring war on a yet-unknown Bush Supreme Court nominee. Now, we have the Demos in favor of war against invisible, non-existent extremists. Maybe we can get them on board to fight real extremists."
After the opening remarks, two Fox News reporters passed out and had to be taken from the press conference in an ambulance. A GNN reporter administered mouth-to-mouth on both reporters at the same time.
DC wrapped up the brief press conference by saying, "Democrats know not nor speak not the truth. Fortunately, they are also dumber than dirt and know not to stop running their pie holes when a man in a fedora with a tape recorder is present."
DC then scattered the reporters with this parting blast: "And if any of you quote me, remember I am to remain anonymous and I will have you all put in jail where you belong."
"You can't trust people who cook as badly as that. After Finland, it's [Britain] the country with the worst food. The only thing the British have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease."The following day ... London gets the Olympics. What more proof do you need?
I think Chiraq was joking/kidding, and let us recall that almost all good humor contains an element of truth. The Brits are not known as good cooks, for sure. But more to the point ... what kind of moral miscreant thinks that how well one whips up the victuals has anything to do with trust? And to the extent the French get props for their "trustworthiness" in this regard, let us give our proper due to the Germans, as well, for telling them what to cook for good chunks of the 20th century.
And to the U.S.A. and Britain, of course, for giving them the opportunity to work on something other than streudel.
The French are odious, and they should be scorned.
Now ... coming late tonight, I am going to post a pilot of "Burglars in the House". If it's a smash ... then it may indeed become a mini-series. I look forward to your reviews.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
It's going to be a long, hot political summer, but I like the President's comment ... "I'll get back to you in a few weeks" ... when it became apparent that liberal interest groups would be lying in wait for weeks and lobbing negative ads with the Senate off getting all their tassled loafers shined.
Actually, I think the President will do just fine on this. And ... I think that brilliant Sith Darth Rove should also be consulted to concoct a dastardly, poisonous political stew to feed to the likes of Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, et al.
Well, we can't.
You see, I forgot. The Complain-All-the-Time-We-Hate-their-Commander-the-War-is-Illegal-But-we-Support-the-Troops-Anyway Caucus supported the invasion of Afghanistan. And ... Afghan elections are coming in September, hence the increased enemy activity. So, the Left will keep a stiff upper lip (the occasional mad rantings of Barbara Boxer notwithstanding) and argue we need to "stay the course." Pardon me while I laugh uncontrollably for a few minutes.
Whew. I am back.
Here is all you need to know about the Left's "support" of U.S. military intervention that actually kills bad guys: They support it when it is a political necessity, as Afghanistan was and is. You will recall that, once upon a time (i.e., just before the 2002 elections) many did the same in Iraq.
But what is interesting/funny to watch is that the arguments the Left makes for "cutting and running" from Iraq could very well be made in Afghanistan. But, the the Principled Ones won't/can't make this argument. Because it would be political suicide.
And suicide is not a good plank upon which to build a movement. Speaking of which ...
In the other part of this troublesome neighborhood, it appears that jihadis are now targeting Arab envoys. This is an interesting strategy, which shows just how inevitable the jihadis appear to believe a stable Iraqi government really is. I mean ... embassies? Is the Egyptian embassy really that critical to the Iraqis? I guess you take what targets you can actually get.
I wonder, too, if the jihadis have weighed the costs of attacking Americans. Does the PR they get from al Jazeera and the Left not outweigh their own mounting body count? Can a jihadi not get a break, man? Maybe they should have watched closer to see how that 2000 election deal came out.
The Left should recall how these elections keep coming out, too.
Monday, July 04, 2005
And with these and the remainder of the brief but eloquent Declaration of Independence, the United States of America began on July 4, 1776.
But there were no fireworks.
The founders had no government. Limited popular support. No historical precedent for the radical step they had just taken. No chance of avoiding the consequences for their treason against the crown.
But they did have something. They had a war on their hands. Indeed, they had declared war on the world’s greatest power.
Seven years later, the Americans miraculously had outlasted the British Army, and the independence declared on July 4, 1776 was won. Many credited Divine Providence for the victory, for it was so spectacular and miraculous as to defy human explanation.
After all, it was greater than any Hollywood script. The founders' triumph was both the political lunar landing and the greatest military upset in history, all rolled into one. The American Revolution sent shock waves through the world that still reverberate in places Kiev, Beirut, and yes, in Kabul and Baghdad, too. And more waves are on the way.
For now, history has a precedent that human freedom can overcome all odds to establish a home for the free and the brave.
They made the history that the world views with awe. It's hard for those of us who have grown up in this Wonderland called America to recall that America wasn't always a superpower, let alone the world's lone superpower. Indeed, this whole experiment got kicked off by America sticking its finger in the eye of what was then the world's superpower.
The optimism, braggadocio, and confident spirit of America traces its roots to her daring founders. For they had the foresight to realize the value of freedom, and also the guts to fight for it. If you read the case they laid out in the Declaration, they seemed to be arguing that life simply wasn't worth living if it wasn't lived in freedom. Indeed, they spoke of a "necessity" and a "duty" to fight for liberty.
Without the willingness to fight for freedom, they realized, we won’t have it. They showed us the way.
The founders paid dearly, too, with their property, their own physical liberty, their families, and even their own lives. But they persevered. They didn't whine, falter, or quit when the inevitable, bloody fight with Britain came.
They knew it would come to this. They knew the tough days ahead would require more than they could give. And they would give their all.
Consider that they finished the Declaration with these words: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
They would need all that they had pledged and relied upon to make it through the difficult days ahead.
We need to remember their examples on this day ... and every day.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Photo courtesy of AP.
Well, it looks like the "president-elect" of Iran is a terrorist. At least that's what a number of former American hostages are saying. He was, at a bare minimum, involved in planning the anti-American uprising that kicked off what is now become a quarter-century battle with Islamic Fascism.
So, Iran's president is a terrorist. Curiously, Iran has boxed itself into an intellectual "gulag" by denying his involvement. I mean, what's the big deal guys? Right? Raz-Some-Johnny the Moderate (hands over your hearts, please) was a former cohort of Khomeini, for crying out loud.
But ... I have a question. Okay, a couple. For the Left.
Query: Is he, the former torturer/interrogator of the Islamic state and apparent terrorist hostage-taker, a "war criminal"?
Follow up: And if so, will you still support his troops?
I mean, they will in all likelihood be arrayed against Americans and the West.
Ah, I hear a chuckle or two. (New technology at work). Let me explain, particularly to the Leftist readers who are lurking. This humor deal, you see, it's kinda hard to figure. But ... a lot of good humor has an element of truth in it. Like, if you call me an idiot. That's kinda funny. But not near as funny as when I call you one. Understand?
By way of further explanation of why so many of us listen to the Left's pronouncements of all things related to foreign affairs only for comedic relief, please consider the words of the greatest conservative columnist alive. It pains my red, white, and blue heart to admit this, but the best columnist going is a Canadian. He is Mark Steyn.
Thanks to the Great One for pointing me to this tremendous interview with Steyn.
Here is the quote I want you all to ponder in light of my foregoing questions:
There are two malign trends of the last four decades, and in the war on terror they’ve merged. For the far left, the issue is always America. So, if America's destabilizing some Marxist-Leninist socialist utopia the left takes the side of the Marxist-Leninist socialist utopia. Likewise, if America's at odds with misogynist racist homophobic theocrats, the left takes the side of the sodomite-beheaders and the freelance clitorectomy performers. That’s entirely consistent once you realize it’s simply a choice of United States vs [Your Name Here].Oh, Canada. Right on, Steyn.
I am off for the holiday weekend. Feel free to send your comments and emails, but ... moderation (small "m") will be light over this grand weekend as we celebrate freedom in this great nation of ours. God bless America. (Sound of screeching moonbats and flapping wings.)
Now, that only conservatives are left ... See you early next week as we celebrate America.
Coming next week: A DC Mini-Series: "Burglars in the House?". It is sure to be a smash.