The Circle Eight

DIE DIE DIE

2010-06-25T18:49:00.000-06:00

The Left has threatened violence upon Judge Feldman for overturning Obama's drilling moratorium in the gulf.

From Michelle Malkin

New Orleans–While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.
Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.
It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.
In issuing his ruling, Feldman said that the moratorium was faulty because there was no “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” While there is often debate about the merits of judicial decisions, seldom does the criticism focus on the integrity of the judge.

Rory Won't Use His Last Name in His Campaign Ad

2010-06-25T18:43:00.000-06:00

Can you guess why?

Watch the ad here.

Harry Reid is so unpopular in NV, his own son won't even use his last name for fear of being linked to his dad....who will loose this November to Sharron Angle.

AFL-CIO Economist Ken Blackwell Calls FNC's Cavuto a A**hole On Live TV

2010-06-25T17:01:00.000-06:00

Here. At about 4 minutes. Blackwell is a joke.

What a Sack of Sacrosanct

2010-06-24T18:36:00.000-06:00

In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct."
Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? Because in my experience, on a scale of 1-to-infinity, the range of acceptable opinion among New York liberals goes from 1-to-1.001.

How would the following remarks fare at a dinner table on the Upper West Side where "nothing was sacrosanct": Hey, maybe that Joe McCarthy was onto something. What would prayer in the schools really hurt? How do we know gays are born that way? Is it possible that union demands have gone too far? Does it make sense to have three recycling bins in these microscopic Manhattan apartments? Say, has anyone read Charles Murray's latest book?
Those comments, considered "conversation starters" in most of the country, would get you banned from polite society in New York. Also, unless you want the whole room slowly backing away from you, also avoid: May I smoke? I heard it on Fox News and Merry Christmas!
Even members of survivalist Christian cults in Idaho at least know people who hold opposing views. New York liberals don't.
As Kagan herself described it, on the Upper West Side of New York where she grew up, "Nobody ever admitted to voting Republican." So, I guess you could say being a Democrat was "sacrosanct."
Even within the teeny-tiny range of approved liberal opinion in New York, disagreement will get you banned from the premises.

When, as dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan disagreed with the Bill Clinton policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, she open-mindedly banned military recruiters from the law school, denouncing Clinton's policy as "discriminatory," "deeply wrong," "unwise and unjust."
From this, I conclude that having gays serving openly in the military is "sacrosanct" for liberals.
Having gays NOT serve in the military is a position held by lots of people in other parts of the country, but I do not recall any Christian colleges banning military recruiters because the schools believed "Don't ask, don't tell" went too far the other way.
Not only is every weird, shared delusion of the New York liberal deemed sacrosanct, but what ought to be sacrosanct -- off the top of my head, human life -- isn't.
As Stan Evans says, whatever liberals disapprove of, they want banned (smoking, guns, practicing Christianity, ROTC, the Pledge of Allegiance) and whatever they approve of, they make mandatory (abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, pornography, condom distribution in public schools, screenings of "An Inconvenient Truth").
When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own dogmas.
Thus, for example, liberals sneer at the bluenoses and philistines of the "religious right" for objecting to taxpayer-funding of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, but would have you banned from public life for putting Matthew Shepard in a jar of urine, with or without taxpayer funding.
These famously broad-minded New Yorkers -- "thinking, always thinking" -- actually booed Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he showed up at the opera after pulling city funding from a museum exhibit that included a painting of the Virgin Mary plastered with close-up pornographic photos of women's vulvas.
(The New York Times fair-mindedly refused to ever mention the vulvas, instead suggesting that the mayor's objection was to the cow dung used in the composition.)
Has a decision to fund or not fund "art" ever gotten a politician in any other part of the country booed in public? And how might the Times refer to citizens booing a mayor who had withdrawn taxpayer funding for a painting of Rosa Parks covered in pornography?
If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters.

With that in mind, here are some questions it would be fun to ask a New York liberal like Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at her hearings next week:
-- Roughly one-third of Americans are Evangelical Christians. Do you personally know any Evangelical Christians? Name two.
-- In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected president with more than 60 percent of the vote, winning every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. How many people do you know who voted for Nixon?
-- Appropriate or inappropriate: Schools passing out condoms to seventh-graders? Schools passing out cigarettes to seventh-graders?
-- Who is a greater threat to America, Sarah Palin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
-Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is the Reason Newspapers are Going Out of Business

2010-06-21T20:51:00.000-06:00

Townhall is the big league of conservative punditry. All of the A-List conservative columnists, with the exception of perhaps Mark Steyn, Karl Rove, & Peggy Noonan write for them. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Mike Adams, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, -- they're all at Townhall, along with a lot of other top notch pundits.

So last night, I took a look at the 5 most popular columns for the last 30 days on Townhall. So, which of those incredibly talented columnists made the list? Actually, as of last night, none of them:

So, there you go. A woman whose last 5 columns were the 5 most popular columns at Townhall for an entire month can't get mainstream media outlets to carry her column. Yet, you have journalists all across the country griping that no one wants to read newspapers anymore. Well, when you're completely indifferent to what your customers want, it's no shock that they're not interested in your product.

Thanks.

2010-06-20T19:53:00.000-06:00

Ann on the O'Reilly Factor

Obama Polls Lower Than Bush in Louisiana Disasters

2010-06-19T20:22:00.000-06:00

Juan Williams is an idiot.

here

Visualizing the BP Oil Spill - Put in Your Zip

2010-06-19T20:00:00.000-06:00

Here

MIKE LEE, THE 10TH AMENDMENT AND NUCLEAR WASTE

2010-06-19T10:02:00.002-06:00

The ironic thing is, I like Energy Solutions.
I believe in the technology it uses, I believe in nuclear power, I believe in nuclear medicine, I believe the company runs a safe and useful operation.
In fact, when it was trying to import nuclear waste from Italy, and 80 percent of Utahns opposed it, I was on the company’s side. I made the argument repeatedly that waste was waste and a billion dollars was a billion dollars and it didn’t make any difference if they came from Italy.
I’ve been Energy Solutions' loudest unpaid defender.
But you can’t do the right thing the wrong way. And if Energy Solutions is to bring in more – or foreign – waste to its facility in Utah, it must do so by convincing Utahns, not forcing them.
And it must not use the federal government to strong arm nuclear filth onto a state whose people and elected officials oppose it.
And yet Energy Solutions and its hired lawyer – Senate candidate Mike Lee – have tried to do exactly that. With an annual paycheck of over a half a million dollars, Mike Lee has fought in court to suppress the will of Utahns and the actions of their elected representatives.
In a year when the state legislature was standing up for the constitutional principle of federalism – as Utah legislators tried to push back the federal domination of their state – Mike Lee was in federal court arguing for just the opposite.
Utahns had said, “No,” and Mike Lee was in court using his talents to convince a federal judge to overrule the wishes of the people and the decision of the state. The same guy whose campaign basically boils down to waving aloft a copy of the Constitution was hopping up and down in court as if the 10th Amendment didn’t exist.
It’s kind of like Mike Lee’s love of the Constitution has an on-off switch.
So, too, it seems do his principles.
For example, still on the nuclear waste issue, when he was the chief legal advisor to his political patron, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., Mike Lee led the state effort to keep foreign waste out of Energy Solutions’ Tooele County facility.
But then his bread got buttered on the other side, and he changed his position completely. Out of government employ, on the tab of Energy Solutions, he argued exactly the opposite of what he had argued just months before.
How does someone do that?
Maybe in the world of big-ticket lawyers that makes sense, but out here where people speak their mind – not their master’s mind – it seems kooky. Either you’re for it or you’re against it, and in this matter, one time or the other, Mike Lee was passionately advocating something he didn’t believe in.
He was advancing legal arguments he believed to be false.
And for a guy who promises that every decision he makes as a United States senator will be based on the Constitution, he seems not to have applied that rule to his work as a lawyer.
All we know for sure is that when it was in his personal interest to oppose foreign nuclear waste, he did. And when it was in his personal interest to support foreign nuclear waste, he did.
Which brings us to one of his endorsements.
The one from the South Carolina senator, Jim DeMint. At the Republican nominating convention, before the final round of voting, Mike Lee played a video endorsement of his candidacy from Jim DeMint.
Where I sat in the hall, most people looked at one another quizzically, as if to ask, “Who’s this guy?”
Maybe in the wonk world of name-that-senator, Jim DeMint is a big cheese, but on the streets of Utah he’s just an old guy who talks funny.
But he likes Mike Lee. And he swears up and down that Mike Lee is the most conservative guy in this race. Which is preposterous. Though this Freudian fight over who’s the most conservative has gotten old, it is dishonest to say Tim Bridgewater is not conservative. You may not like him, and you may prefer Mike Lee, and you may feel very strongly about that, but whatever flaw you may see in Tim Bridgewater, not being conservative isn’t one of them.
Though I’m sure Jim DeMint is a great patriot, I am even more certain that he is the senator from South Carolina. And as such, his job is to take care of South Carolina and to stay in the good graces of its voters.
Many of whom work for Energy Solutions.
See, Utah isn’t the only state with a low-level nuke dump. For almost 40 years, in Barnwell County, Energy Solutions has run a South Carolina dump. Utah and South Carolina are the bread and butter of the Energy Solutions operation.
And being represented by senators who are very friendly to the nuclear industry and to the nuclear-waste industry is important to Energy Solutions.
Jim DeMint suits them to a T.
And, isn’t this a coincidence, it turns out that Energy Solutions’ favorite senator has decided to endorse Energy Solutions’ favorite lawyer in Tuesday’s primary.
Don’t that beat all.
It sounds like a really cozy club – the big nuclear waste company and its two pet senators.
The only losers could be the people, especially the people of Utah. Energy Solutions is pushing a plan now that would allow it to mix higher-level waste with low-level waste, increasing revenues for the company. The state of Utah has opposed this plan for waste at the Tooele facility and the very real issue is, as a senator, which side would Mike Lee take? The side of the state he represents or the side of the company that helped get him elected?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m in favor of the use of nuclear power and materials, and I have complete confidence in Energy Solutions’ ability and commitment to storing waste safely. I am pro-nuclear, pro-storage and pro-Energy Solutions.
But the cards should be on the table.
And this Energy Solutions thread in Mike Lee’s financial and political success should be on the table.
And somebody who supports the Constitution should not be carrying water for an effort that forces states to take radioactive waste they don’t want. As a serious question: In light of the 10th Amendment, what in the Constitution empowers the federal government to force Utah to accept waste its people and state government don’t want?
Tim Bridgewater knows that nowhere in the Constitution is that power found. He says it’s a state’s decision, and he’s right.
This isn’t about nuclear waste, it’s about states’ powers – it’s about the rights of the people of a state to decide whether or not they want to host this material. It’s about keeping the federal government from forcing this stuff, or anything, down a state’s throat.
Mike Lee is on the wrong side of this issue.
He’s on the side of the company that made him rich, and on the side of the senator that company likes, but he’s not on the side of the people or the Constitution.
Not on this one.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2010

Need Another Chris Christie Fix?

2010-06-18T20:55:00.000-06:00

Yeah ...you do.

here.

Global Warming Strikes Again!

2010-06-18T19:58:00.000-06:00

Cape Town S. Africa has gotten its first snow fall in 20 years!

With all the records broken for snow fall and now temperatures, you would think that the warming activists would give it up. I guess if your theory doesn't work change it completely.

In the 80's it was global cooling, then it was global warming in the 90's and 2000's, and now since we haven't gone into a deep freeze or a sweltering living hell on earth, the activists are using the term climate change and saying any change in climate is caused by C02.

Global climate change being made made is fiction.

Read about Climategate here, and here, and watch here.

What The Hell Is This?!

2010-06-17T21:56:00.000-06:00

here.

Did Google create a search engine just for Muslims? I don't know what else to make of it.

Alvin Greene: The Most Qualified Democrat I've Ever Seen

2010-06-17T20:41:00.000-06:00

Democrats have decided that Alvin Greene's surprise victory in the South Carolina Democratic senatorial primary must be the result of a Republican dirty trick.
Greene beat Vic Rawl, a former state representative and judge, with a whopping 60 percent of the vote in last Tuesday's primary, despite Greene's having no job, no house, no campaign website, no campaign headquarters -- indeed, no campaign. Other than paying the $10,000 filing fee, Greene seems to have put no effort into the race whatsoever.
But he does have one thing Rawl doesn't have: In the grand tradition of legendary Democrats such as Teddy Kennedy, Greene has a felony arrest. (Greene's inexperience really shows here: Democrats usually wait until after they're elected to show pornography to college girls.)

So this is not good for the Democrats. Naturally, therefore, they're blaming Republicans.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., has demanded that the U.S. attorney investigate, ominously suggesting that Greene may be a Republican plant. Clyburn is the third-ranking Democrat in the House.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann interviewed Greene as if he had Lee Harvey Oswald in the dock. Chris Matthews asked guests: "Do you think this has the look of a dirty trick -- sort of a Watergate number?" Watergate, you'll recall, involved the Nixon White House trying to persuade a mildly retarded black man to run for the Senate.
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)
They're hopping mad, these liberals, but it's not clear what their theory of the crime is. Before accusing Republicans of committing a dirty trick, apparently no one asked the question: "OK, but what was the trick?"
The key to Greene's victory, you see, is that he got more votes. How do liberals imagine Republicans pulled that off? Mesmerize the Democrats into voting for an idiot? If they could do that, John McCain would be president.
There is zero possibility that Republicans skipped their own primary to vote for Greene in the Democratic primary. The marquee South Carolina election in last Tuesday's primary was the four-candidate, mudslinging Republican gubernatorial primary. That one was so heated, it's still to be decided in a runoff next week.
Even Sarah Palin got involved in the race, endorsing Nikki Haley (though not endorsing anyone in the Nevada primary, as I incorrectly gave her credit for in last week's column).
Not surprisingly, more than twice as many South Carolinians voted in the Republican primary (424,893) as voted in the Democratic primary (197,380). Not only that, but a higher percentage of Republican primary voters chose a candidate for Senate (97.12 percent) than did the Democratic primary voters (86.24 percent).
Perhaps realizing this, liberal loons (Keith Olbermann) are now pushing the theory that Republicans somehow ... rigged the voting machines! (This is what happens when you know absolutely nothing about politics but are given a TV show.)
I promise you, if Republicans could have rigged any voting machines, they would have made sure Nikki Haley won by 51 percent, instead of 49 percent, to avoid next week's runoff.
The only thing a Republican could possibly have done is pay Greene's filing fee. It's likely that someone paid his filing fee, inasmuch as Greene doesn't appear to have enough money to buy a sandwich.
But anyone could have paid it -- ACORN, a community organizer, a stimulus grantor, Betty White. If a Republican paid the $10,000 filing fee, why not give Greene another hundred bucks for a campaign website? Or how about making it $150, so Greene could buy a new suit?
But, for the sake of argument, let's say a Republican paid Greene's filing fee. Even the worst-case scenario is still not half as bad as what liberals did to Sen. Patrick Leahy's Republican opponent in 1998. To the delight of the media, liberals ran a simpleton dairy farmer, Fred Tuttle, in the Republican primary that year against a millionaire lawyer, Jack McMullen.
As in the South Carolina race, the serious candidate, McMullen, spent far more than the prank candidate -- by about $300,000 to $200.
And as with Greene, Tuttle was a feeble-minded everyman. He had starred in a movie, "Man With a Plan," made by his Harvard-graduate neighbor, about a cornball farmer who runs for Congress. Having "Fred" actually run for the Senate was openly described as a publicity stunt.
Fred won the primary and promptly endorsed Leahy.
The media lavished praise on the "gentlemanly" Senate race, with The Associated Press calling it a "calm, folksy Senate campaign." Reporters think there's too much "mudslinging" when the Republican candidate doesn't immediately endorse the Democrat.
The movie starring Fred was run on PBS, sponsored by Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and Fred -- the winsome simpleton -- was fawned over throughout the media. (CBS' Bill Geist to Tuttle: "Are you a sex symbol?")
That's a far cry from how reporters are treating poor Alvin Greene:
CNN anchor Don Lemon: You're mentally sound, physically sound? You're not impaired by anything at this moment?
Greene: No. Just -- I'm OK.
Lemon: No, just what?
Greene: I'm OK.
Lemon: Quite honestly, you don't sound OK. Are you impaired by anything right now?
Greene: No.
I suppose you could say the Republican primary in Vermont was irrelevant anyway since Sen. Leahy was a shoo-in for re-election.
But so is Jim DeMint, Alvin Greene's current opponent. Leahy won his prior election, in 1992, 54.2 percent to 43.3 percent. Jim DeMint won his last election, 53.7 percent to 44.1 percent.
And Alvin Greene is clearly more qualified to be a senator than Patrick Leahy.

-Ann Coulter

Reid Is Out

2010-06-16T20:58:00.001-06:00

A recent poll shows Sharron Angle (R) leading Reid in NV for it's senate seat.

Alright!

Read on if your LDS.

Not only is Reid taking the country down the wrong path but he is criticizing past church leaders along the way. In 2007 Reid gave a speech at BYU. I wasn't there but I hear it was pretty good.After the fireside Reid held a press conference. In it he said this:

In the past years we’ve had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people. Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.

Understandably, being a party’s standard bearer can be a tough role to play, but right after speaking about King Benjamin’s example and service to God, Senator Reid took some rather uncharitable digs at President Bush:

“They have focused on just a few issues, flag-burning, gay marriage, abortion,” Reid said. “The country has gone beyond that to other issues. We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn’t know how to pronounce the words.”

and at evangelicals:

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. “They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right.”

For these statements Reid is heading down the wrong path and is taking the country with him.

Glenn Beck Destroys Obama

2010-06-16T19:52:00.000-06:00

If you don't watch the Glenn Beck program you need to start. He's always got something good to say about what's going on in the country and his insight is great. And his Monday show is no different.

2010-06-15T20:52:00.000-06:00

Trailer for Four Lions

2010-06-15T20:16:00.003-06:00

Here.
Looks good yeah?

Congressman Goes Berserk

2010-06-14T20:32:00.000-06:00

North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge (D) goes nuts.

Anti-Mosque Rally At Ground Zero

2010-06-11T22:11:00.000-06:00

Watch it here.

Shocking Video

2010-06-11T22:08:00.000-06:00

This is video of Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the FBI and the only person to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground. Remember the Weather Underground? The were mentioned a few times in the news during the recent presidential race because of Obama's ties to its founder, Bill Ayers, and his wife Bernadine Dohrn.

Now Larry may have made this up, but I'm more inclined to believe him than a domestic terrorist who bombed banks, ROTCs, Fort Dix, a police department (and on and on) and a "lady" who said this about Sharon Tate's murder by the Manson clan: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly. Wild!" She said of the LaBiancas (who were repeatedly stabbed): "Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson!" ^[14] In greeting each other, delegates to the war council often spread their fingers to signify the fork.

Why aren't these two in jail?

2010-06-10T22:06:00.002-06:00

here.

Sarah Palin: Please Endorse Rob Simmons

2010-06-10T06:37:00.000-06:00

Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah's being stalked by Joe McGinniss.

Now, she's got to endorse Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate. Otherwise, Republicans can kiss the possibility of a major upset in Connecticut goodbye.

I wouldn't ask, but the country is at stake. We have a mere 100 senators; only 17 Senate seats currently held by Democrats are up this year; and only about six of those could possibly go Republican, even in Newt Gingrich's wildest fantasies.

Republicans have done a fantastic job predicting a landslide in the November elections, but not such a good job of doing anything that will actually help them achieve victory.

Which may explain why Connecticut Republicans rolled the dice and said: Let's run a professional wrestling "impresario" for the U.S. Senate! ... You never know.

Except in this case, you know. Running a professional wrestler in the richest, most highly educated state in the nation is going to force voters to hold their noses and vote for the Democrat, Richard Blumenthal (who's already been endorsed by a leading group of Connecticut men who lied about serving in Vietnam).

Until recent revelations about Blumenthal's boasting of his nonexistent service in Vietnam -- and the Harvard swim team -- Republicans didn't have a snowball's chance to pick up Chris Dodd's old seat anyway.

But now The New York Times has splashed on its front page the news that Blumenthal has been lying about his Vietnam War service. Even knee-jerk Democratic partisans, such as Chris Matthews and Bill Press, refused to defend him.

Blumenthal immediately resigned and pulled out of the Senate race ... ha ha, just kidding! That man will never voluntarily stop annoying us. Blumenthal is so churning with ambition that he probably had his first ulcer at age 9.

But no matter how much the local press flacks for Blumenthal, people won't soon forget that he lied about his Vietnam service. It's like finding out he likes to wear diapers or he cheated the Girl Scouts out of cookie money -- but enough about Frank Rich.

Connecticut Republicans have done nothing to deserve this gift. All they need to do is field a candidate who isn't inextricably linked to professional frigging wrestling.

Instead, last month, a majority of Republican caucus-goers favored professional wrestling impresario Linda McMahon, based on her offer to spend "up to" $50 million of her own money on the campaign.

McMahon would be a fantastic choice if money were associated with electoral victory. But it's not.

We know this because rich dilettantes are constantly thinking to themselves: "I have $300 million, I've bought everything I can buy ... I think I'd like to be a senator!"

In 1994, Michael Huffington spent $30 million in his bid for a Senate seat from California against Democrat Dianne Feinstein. He lost.

In 2002, Tom Golisano spent more than $74 million of his own money running for governor of New York. He received 14 percent of the vote. That same year, Democrat Tony Sanchez spent $60 million of his own money trying to become the governor of Texas -- and lost to Rick Perry.

In 2004, John Kerry spent $6.4 million of John Heinz's money on his presidential race, and still lost.

Last year, Jon Corzine, then-governor of New Jersey, spent about $24 million of his own money trying to hold onto his job. Despite outspending Republican Chris Christie 3-to-1, Corzine lost 49 percent to 44 percent. (Corzine also out-slimed Christie in that race by an whopping 106-to-1.)

In all, 20 candidates for the House or Senate in 2002 spent at least $1 million of their own money on their campaigns; 19 of the 20 lost, generally to more experienced candidates.

Even in the rare cases when the deep-pocket candidate wins, it's not a novelty candidate -- unless it's Minnesota. Michael Bloomberg, the sitting mayor of New York City, spent an astronomical $100 million last year just to win his own office back, outspending his opponent 15-to-1. He squeaked in with 51 percent of the vote -- and that was only after Bloomberg passed a massive new tax on voting for his opponent.

So Republicans better have a more impressive reason for picking Linda McMahon than "She'll spend up to $50 million of her own money."

But they don't.

Any half-wit knows Connecticut will not vote for a professional wrestling "impresario" for the U.S. Senate. So unless Republicans have secret information that Blumenthal does enjoy dressing up in diapers, Republicans are forfeiting a Senate seat for no reason.

By contrast, Rob Simmons, who recently suspended his primary campaign against McMahon for lack of money, is a Haverford College graduate, a former Yale professor and an Army colonel. Unlike fantasist Blumenthal, Simmons really did serve in Vietnam, coming home with two Bronze Stars.

And Simmons, who remains on the Aug. 9 primary ballot, can win even in moderate-Republican Connecticut. He's good on taxes, he's good on defense -- and he's the best Connecticut is ever going to get.

Simmons was elected to Congress three times from a very liberal Connecticut district, beating an incumbent Democrat in his first run. As a result, he had the distinction of representing the largest number of Democrats of any Republican in the House of Representatives. Even in the dark Republican year of 2006, Simmons lost to his Democratic challenger by only 83 votes.

Instead of sitting around, idly predicting massive Republican landslides this fall, how about Republicans work on running candidates who might actually win?

If only we had some popular former governor, preferably a moose-hunter, whose endorsements are gold ... Then we'd show 'em.

-Ann Coulter

Helen Thomas Gets The Boot

2010-06-08T21:19:00.000-06:00

Helen Thomas of the White House Press Corps was recently dropped as a client by her agency for a statement that she made about Israel.

Are You Kidding Me?!

2010-06-08T19:10:00.001-06:00

HAHAHAHAHAHHAH!

Libs Flunk Econ 101

2010-06-08T19:02:00.000-06:00

Here are the results.

The article is here.

Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.