RedState

Crist Campaign, Unable To Prove Itself Conservative, Tries To Show Rubio Isn’t Either

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:07:10 +0000

This is really funny. The St. Petersburg Times is painting a picture of Marco Rubio as not a conservative, but a political opportunist.

After a week of negative attention and a website designed to paint Rubio as a liberal, Charlie Crist finally had to hire some journalists to do it.

Rubio’s fiscal conservatism was called into question as soon as he assumed the role of speaker. He spent hundreds of thousands on renovations, including a private dining room for lawmakers, hired the highest-paid spokesman in state government (one with no state government experience) and added more than 20 jobs, including a parliamentarian earning nearly $134,000.

The whole article is designed to expose hypocrisy in Rubio’s record, much of it easily explained away. But keep this in mind, here is what the exact same newspaper wrote about Marco Rubio just last year:

“Rubio, the young Republican speaker from Miami, has been a particular disappointment…Rubio would have had more success if he had learned from Crist’s populism and willingness to compromise instead of clinging to the hard-edged conservatism of his mentor, former Gov. Jeb Bush.”

But there’s more.

The NRA, which supported Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, attacks Rubio.

“He was a big disappointment to us when he was the speaker,” said NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer

Never mind that Rubio has a 100% rating from the NRA, even pushing legislation to prevent employers from barring employees from being guns to work — legislation Crist wavered on.

But this is where the smear really goes in depth. The St. Petersburg Times‘ reporters write, “Rubio says he knew nothing about it, but his hand-picked budget chief, Ray Sansom, was able to funnel $35 million to a Panhandle college — actions that led to a grand jury indictment against Sansom.”

Here is the exact same newspaper writing on the exact same topic from June of this year: “There’s no evidence Rubio knew that Ray Sansom had budgeted $6 million for a donors’ aircraft hangar in the guise of funding a college educational facility . . . . Gov. Charlie Crist, declined to veto that appropriation despite it being flagged as a ‘turkey’ by Florida TaxWatch.”

The rest of the article continues in the same way. The reporters accuse Rubio of some act of liberalism, when just a few months ago the exact same newspaper wrote about the exact same incident saying either Rubio was not involved or decrying his dogmatic conservatism relating to the incident.

Charlie Crist must be really desperate to get a bunch of reporters to totally contradict themselves in a matter of months.

It’s also really lame.

links for 2009-11-08

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:06:25 +0000

Interesting dichotomy

Byron York has more on Ft. Hood. Notice how quick Obama was to jump to conclusions in the Dr. Gates v. the Police matter, but we all need to be patient and avoid jumping to conclusions in this, according to him.

I wonder if the Texas Rangers are hiring.

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:16:22 +0000

I understand that they look for this sort of thing.

Sergeant Munley, 34, was unconscious after being shot three times by Hasan and was rushed to hospital after she lost so much blood doctors thought she would die.

She was shot twice in the left thigh and once in the wrist but still managed to bring Malik down with four shots of her own.

Dr Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley in hospital, said: “She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said.” Sgt Munley has now been told that Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 38 but her actions saved the lives of many others.

Via Hot Air, which also has a rather pointed suggestion about the need for Congressional hearings into the Fort Hood terrorist attack. Turns out that the terrorist responsible for the attack has a link to Anwar al-Awlaki; it would probably be a really good idea to find out just how this kind of breakdown occurred in our domestic anti-terrorism watch.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

How the Fort Hood Shooter Will be Judged

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:53:14 +0000

This is one heck of a read.

In a time of war, they volunteered to defend us. They would have died as heroes for us. Had they, at least their families might be making some sense of the terrible loss they must feel now. With loss, there might at least be meaning — the understanding that their loss is what history has always deducted from our hearts to keep evil at bay for a greater good, for freedoms that are not free. But Nidal Hasan’s murder of twelve soldiers at Fort Hood will be all the more agonizing for the families because there is simply no making sense of it. It had no meaning. There are no words to express how contemptible it was — this cowardly theft of brave young lives from the parents who invested decades of love in their children, of spouses who will never be consoled, and of children who not know mothers and fathers.

Which Republican did this? [UPDATED]

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:43:23 +0000

[UPDATE] I was emailed that it was Louie Gohmert (R TX-01). Looking for video.

[ANOTHER UPDATE]: Short, sweet, and to the point:

I’m not following the floor action on the House health care rationing bill – I figure it’ll eventually pass the House somehow, and I am still fighting a cold – so I didn’t see this. Which is a shame, because it must have been hysterical:

Fun stuff…Hoyer led the House in cheering for John [Dingell]. Nice touch and all but then a Republican got up and asked unanimous consent that [Dingell] be given back the Chairmanship of the House Energy And Commerce Committee. Pelosi replaced him, the Dean of the House, with Henry Waxman because [Dingell], being from Michigan, would never have moved on Cap and Tax.

Well played. I’d love to know who did this, and whether it was done on his or her own initiative.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Doctor No, health care rationing, and unanimous consent.

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:24:57 +0000

(H/T: Big Government) Senator Tom Coburn is living up to his nickname:

Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who developed a close friendship with President Obama when they served together in the Senate, is threatening to have the entire health care bill read on the Senate floor.

Senior Senate Democratic aides had heard Coburn was considering having potentially thousands of pages read aloud in effort to stall passage. “If he did this it would be even outrageous for a guy who’s become known as Dr. No around here,” one of them told POLITICO.

Good luck on getting Coburn to back down on this: we’re talking about a guy who has a hold on a veterans’ bill because it’s not addressing his concerns about cost duplication and discrimination. We’re also talking about a guy with an approval rating somewhere around 60 with his constituents – so that argument is out, too. Ed Morrissey thinks that this could delay the bill for up to half a year; I don’t expect it to go that far, but Coburn’s poised to be able to do one heck of a monkeywrenching job on the health care rationing bill for at least the rest of 2009…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

links for 2009-11-07

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:03:54 +0000

Insurance or Jail

Are we really set to do something like this? In the United States?
New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Gonna have to get this.
Great Television Ad

We were promised flying cars.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Global Warming is a religion…

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:48:11 +0000

In a precedent-setting ruling, a judge in the UK upholds Mr Tim Nicholson’s right to sue his former employer because he was fired over his environmental beliefs and his green lifestyle.

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

Photo credit : PA

Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.

He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.

“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

Today’s House Vote, by the Numbers

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:18:34 +0000

The Speaker of the House and the President have two options right now: hold and lose the vote in the House, or wait and vote after the Senate.

By my own count the Speaker and the President are light at least ten votes — and could be light as many as twenty three — depending on the dynamic on the House floor.

The problem is that some yes votes could get changed to no as the loss becomes apparent — why take a beating for a tough vote when the thing is going down?

Members of Congress will not take a beating, just for the sake of taking a beating. They will switch votes, and that is how you get to the fifty to fifty-five House Dems voting no.

The smart play for the Speaker is to don the robes of Mother Protector — I will save my House Members from Walking the Plank — we are waiting for the Senate to vote first. That way her House Members are protected against the bill dying in the Senate, without having taken a tough vote.

As one Senate Dem lobbyist told me yesterday, “Reid can get on the bill, he just can’t get off.” Translating from Washington-speak: Senator Reid can get past the filibuster of the motion to proceed, he just cannot end the filibuster against the bill itself. It is like Senator Reid’s own version of Hotel California hell — he can check in but he can never leave.

This is why the smart play for the Speaker and the White House is to punt. And Harry Reid’s offense takes the field.

Reid then takes the blame if he can’t get into the end zone. The Speaker merely points out the obvious: I was acting in the best political interest of my members. Why should we take tough votes on Medicare cuts, guns, immigration, abortion, taxes, spending, mandates (government control) and watch the Senate fail? (Again.)

But the continued forever quest for the holy-health care grail is making her look like Captain Ahab and the search for the Great White Whale — which in the end he found — it killed him, his ship and all but one of his crew.

If the reaction to waiting for the Senate is an acknowledgment that Senator Reid will fail, then this underlines even stronger the reason why the vote should wait — unless the goal really is to force the political death of some of the red state Democrats.

Failing is Succeeding

On the other hand, there are two arguments making the rounds in Washington about why the Speaker should have the vote, and lose the vote.

First, notwithstanding her dictum that she “does not like to show weakness,” she will first and foremost end the misery of the walking health care political nightmare she is living. Health care has divided her caucus, radically divided it. There are not just petty differences — but raw, unadulterated anger and hatred that you save for members of your own side. Some on the left want the Blue Dogs to lose and have argued that forcing a vote will insure losses by the Blue Dogs. (The Blue Dogs understand that they are hated in some quarters to the point of those doing the hating wish them dead, politically speaking.)

Her caucus is being ripped apart. She is living night and day health care pain, and has been for months. At some point you have to put down the razor blades and knives and stop your team from cutting itself anymore.

So, immediately ending the political pain for her team is the first result of losing the vote. The pain of losing will be shorter lived than the current poked-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp-stick-pain, where every opposed organized lobby and angry citizen just keeps pounding day and night on her and her flock, who in turn are fighting each other.

Second, losing the vote means her left wing base is intact in San Francisco and nationally. She took the risk, she delivered a liberal’s fantasy-health-reform bill to the progressives. It is not her fault that the left did not have the strength to pass it — she went well beyond the call of duty to try and get it passed.

Third, the country, just like the Speaker’s caucus, is continuing to be harmed by the uber-health care focus. There are other problems that need the attention of the U.S. House.

Finally, if the Speaker does not have the vote now, is waiting going to make getting the votes any easier? Or is waiting going to illustrate to everyone that the Speaker has never had the votes for her health care plan. She doesn’t have them now, and never did have the votes.

It is time, Madame Speaker, to act in the interest of your caucus and let them off the hook. Don’t force them to walk the plank. Wait for the Senate. Then again, perhaps saving Sen. Reid’s skin is more important to the Speaker than saving her own members from this brutal vote.

CBO: New House Health Bill Spending Estimate, $3 Trillion over 10 Years

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:08:31 +0000

The totals below, I am told by the Heritage Foundation, do NOT include the $250 billion extra spending on Medicare to buy off the American Medical Association for their support of the U.S. House bill.

The Democratic House Leadership has completely lost touch with fiscal reality.

The following is a cut and paste of a media statement by the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Gregg (R-NH):

Senator Gregg: Updated CBO Estimate of House Bill Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.

“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”

Eugene Robinson gets the name of the site right.

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:11:06 +0000

It’s actually been a matter of some amusement for us: you could tell who the lazy or just dumb reporters were from their habitual reference of this site as Redstate.org, which it hasn’t been for years. Apparently, the Washington Post has gotten around to updating their files, bless their hearts. A shame that Eugene Robinson didn’t then try to actually talk to a Republican before he wrote his column, although I admit that it would have been harder than sneering at the Republicans that live largely in his head.

Let’s unpack a typical paragraph:

Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views?

Err, no.

Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying “Republican In Name Only” as penance?

Err, no.

Will there be re-education camps?

Err, no. Also: cheapening to the memory of victims in the tens of millions.

Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?

Err, no.

Eugene Robinson’s thesis, such as it is, is to try to claim that Republican defeats on Tuesday night were due to conservative meddling while the more numerous Republican successes were due to the forces of moderation who must stand against us awful, awful Tea Partiers*. While it’s fun to watch a writer from the Washington Bob McDonnell’s Thesis Post try to claim that the GOP’s sweep of Virginia was done despite the best efforts of conservatives, it doesn’t excuse his sloppy thinking. Nor does it justify recasting principled conservative opposition to a candidate who wasn’t chosen in a primary, did not subscribe to basic conservative principles**, and who refused to show even the most basic loyalty to the Republican party in terms of being the first salvo in a GOP civil war.

I mean, I understand why he wants one. It’s the Democrats’ only hope right now.

Moe Lane

*There’s also the usual Democratic obsession with former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin.

**Including the Don’t spend money that you don’t have, you idjits one.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

New Orleans ACORN HQ Raided By LA Attorney General’s Office

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:02:45 +0000

State investigators taking dozens of computers from ACORN office on Canal Street

Early last month, Caldwell’s office issued subpoenas for records from ACORN’s New Orleans office, where the organization — now moving its national headquarters to Washington — has long been based. …

In a statement, ACORN’s attorney Pamela Marple said the group was told the raid was ordered because of reports that workers loyal to Beth Butler, the recently fired head of ACORN’s Louisiana branch, had been taking computer data and other items out of the office.

“Over the last two months, ACORN has been cooperating with a variety of governmental entities across the country to provide requested information and documents,” Marple wrote. “We were told that the AG’s office has no criticisms of ACORN’s cooperative efforts, but rather that the warrant was issued because of concern that former local ACORN staff members had, and may intend in the future to remove or alter electronic documents.”

An ACORN official also said Caldwell’s investigators will copy the hard drives from ACORN’s computers and return them next week. The computers contain all payroll information for the national organization, the official said.

H/T dennism

Be Proud, Democrats. Be Very Proud.

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:30:35 +0000

Friday night, prosecutors in the case of The United States v. William Jefferson (D-LA) issued a memorandum recommending a prison sentence of 27 to 33 years for the former congressman from New Orleans, consistent with Federal sentencing guidelines. Such a long sentence is justified, according to the memo, by the severity of the crimes, flight risk, and the possibility of hidden assets.

Anything approaching the recommended punishment would be the longest sentence ever meted out on given to a U.S. Congressman.

Jefferson will be sentenced on November 13 by Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria, VA.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

“Because Congressman Jefferson’s crimes against the people of the United States were exceptional in their sheer number, length and breadth, the United States respectfully requests that this Court sentence the defendant within the applicable guideline range,” the memorandum states. “While the guidelines sentence calculated by the Probation Office is lengthy, it is appropriate, in that Congressman Jefferson’s criminal activities have surely caused or substantially added to the loss of public confidence and trust in our nation’s highest levels of government.”…

According to the memorandum, “law enforcement agents learned of several wire transfers from offshore territories into U.S. financial accounts that were either controlled by the defendant or whose proceeds were made available for his benefit.”

The government’s conclusion: “Given the age of the defendant, the severity of the sentence calculated by the Probation Office, the defendant’s frequent travel overseas and unexplained wire transfers from overseas locations to financial accounts used by the defendant, the defendant cannot rebut the presumption at sentencing that he is a risk of flight.”

{emphasis added}

Tuesday’s results on top and down ballot: The closer you look, the worse it was for Democrats

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:47:12 +0000

The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats. Let’s start by reviewing once again the three high profile races: New York’s 23^rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010. Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true.

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate. In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe. He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.” On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie. He had been elected statewide twice before. What Corzine was, was a bad governor. And why was he a bad governor? Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level. Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says. But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do. Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year. Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points. Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men. Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years. Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them. These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points. Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse. Republicans rolled to easy double digit victories in the Virginia Attorney General and Lt. Governor races. In the Lt. Governor’s race, Bill Bolling, who won by just 1 percent in 2005, won by 12 points. Republicans gained 6 seats (pending one recount) in the State Assembly, giving them a 61-37-2 majority. Republicans gained a seat in the New Jersey House. Republicans took control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and won six of seven statewide races in the Keystone State. Republicans gained in the heavily populated New York City suburbs , taking control of both Westchester County and Nassau County for the first time in a decade. They even gained a couple seats on the New York City Council (in addition to the re-election of their sort-of Republican Mayor Bloomberg). In Michigan, in a special election for a state senate seat that had gone Democratic by 61-39 when it was last up in 2006, the Republican flipped the landslide around and won 61-36. Republicans also flipped a New Hampshire state house seat in a special election.

When the Republicans are rolling up victories in the northeast corridor and in Michigan, the Democrats have to be worried. But Republican successes weren’t limited to such recent Democratic stomping grounds. In liberal Washington state, a Republican captured 58 percent of the vote to win a state House seat controlled by Democrats for 22 years, and Republican candidates steamrolled to landslide victories to easily retain seats in two other special elections for state house.

We might also note that the Republicans picked up two Democratic seats in special elections last month, winning a previously Democratic state house seat with 63% of the vote in a special election in Tennessee last month, and also picking up a formerly Democrat held state house seat in Oklahoma.

Even in the safest of Democratic bastions, the Democrats underperformed. In a special state house election in Missouri, for example, Democrats held a safe Democratic seat with 61 percent of the vote. Sounds impressive, but in 2008, in what was also an open seat race, the Democrat carried the district with 69 percent of the vote . This year’s showing, in fact, was the worst for the Democrats in the district since at least 1994. Meanwhile, Republicans romped to victories in safe Republican state legislative seats in South Carolina, and two races in Georgia.

Democrats held most of their big city mayors, but Republicans did to as incumbent mayors did well throughout the country, in what were mostly non-partisan races. But a few offices changed party control, however, usually away from the Democrats, and many in the battleground Midwest and in the northeast, where the GOP is supposed to be dead.

Toledo elected independent Mike Bell, ending 20 years of Democratic control. An independent also defeated an incumbent Democrat in Dayton. Republicans picked up the Mayor’s office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In an open seat race in Manchester, New Hampshire, Republican Ted Gatsas kept the Mayor’s office in GOP hands with the best showing by a Republican in the city in more than a decade. In another open seat Mayor’s race, in Norwich, Connecticut, Republican Peter Nystrom easily won election to an office previously held by a Democrat. Republicans also won the Mayor’s office in Stamford for the first time since 1993, winning 55 percent of the vote in a city with a 2-1 Democratic edge in voter registration. A Republican ousted the Democrats from the Mayor’s office in Stratford, Connecticut, and the GOP picked up council seats throughout the state. You have to wonder if Chris Dodd was watching.

Republicans picked up Mayor’s offices out west, too. In a non-partisan race in Washington’s 4^th largest city, Republican Tim Leavitt defeated labor-backed, 14 year incumbent Royce Pollard, saying, “My opponent seems to think government creates jobs. Creating jobs is done by the business community. Where government can help out is by getting out of the way.”

The Democrats did pick up one mayor’s office of note, in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Republicans returned the favor by taking the Mayor’s slot away from the Democrats in Greensboro. Democrats were left to find solace in such holding actions, such as not losing as many state assembly seats in New Jersey as they had thought they might.

Republicans ought not, and probably cannot, sit around and hope they can ride into office in 2010 merely on a bad economy and Democratic ineptitude. For one thing, the economy is resilient enough, and the Democrats and the Fed have thrown enough money into it, that the economy and the unemployment numbers should be improved and improving a year from now. We need to press forward with common sense solutions to everyday concerns, and be explaining now why the President’s economic policies are retarding, rather than helping, the economy to recover. And we should keep emphasizing the value of freedom. But we can’t just expect 2010 to fall into our laps. That said, Tuesday was a very good night for Republicans, and the more one looks at it, the harder it is for Democrats to claim otherwise.

Carly Fiorina: Supporting a free Internet means supporting child rape?

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:38:52 +0000

Carly Fiorina truly is panicked. The NRSC has been spooked by the Scozzafava/Hoffman/Owens race, and is more or less going to leave Fiorina out to dry. And while she got the support of conservative favorite Tom Coburn to match Chuck DeVore’s Jim DeMint, the rest of her supporters paint a different picture. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski: to many of us, these are what is wrong with the Republican Senate caucus.

So now she’s launched prematurely, shot the wad of endorsements she has in the middle of a week, rushed to pander to the right by appearing in the OC Register, but even that’s not enough. Now she’s making outrageous attacks on Chuck DeVore and the rest of us who favor an Internet free of burdensome government regulation.

Gibbs’ Bushitler amnesia.

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:10:38 +0000

Remember: nothing prior to 01/20/2009 is REAL to these people. And that includes all the fools that they encouraged to go mad for the Democrats’ political benefit.

You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People — imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler. Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities.

See Mary Katharine Ham & Hot Air for more: see here and here for images along those lines. And yes: there’s more. There’s disturbingly more, in fact.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Another Czar Bites The Dust

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:30:54 +0000

In the flurry of news this week, you may have missed another body tossed under the insatiable Obama bus: Internet Czar Susan Crawford.

The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.

From The American Spectator:

“[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”

This looks to be classic scrambling for cover on the part of Summers. As Big Government notes:

Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers -including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod -and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”

That last line is a keeper. The full quote obtained by the American Spectator: “They haven’t done us any good on any level, and now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” Yes, that’s in reference to the radical elements appointed all over the administration, not just the net neutrality extremists.

This won’t be the end of the net neutrality war. Nothing with the Obama administration ever seems to end. But it is one more radical leftist shown the door, and that’s a good thing on its own. It’s also yet another reminder of that Neil Steven’s refrain: Elections Have Consequences.

I voted for it, to improve it

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:50:27 +0000

They could have saved themselves, but instead, they followed a tortured inside-the-beltway logic that will be lost on the likely voter — I voted for it, to improve it. Uh-huh.

Did members cut spending? End funding of abortion? Enforce the prohibition against illegal immigrants getting the new health care benefit? Cut the $759 billion in new taxes? Curtail the gun health care database? Stop the Medicare cuts? No, oh. I see.

Sounds a whole lot like that famous line, “I voted for it, right before I voted against it.”

Blue Dogs and other Democratic Members of Congress are deluding themselves if they think they can state publicly they voted yes, to improve it. Or that a conference with the White House, the Senate and the House will produce a bill closer to the U.S. Senate’s version.

Instead, they are looking hard for excuses to do the wrong thing.

And if they are looking to end the unending political pain of the Speaker’s health care politics — then the way to end it is to end the bill, and vote no.

Otherwise, they will have to defend their vote in their election, and vote again on the Conference Report — if the bill makes it through the Senate, a very dubious proposition.

Instead, they will be walking the plank, the bill then dies in the Senate — and many of their number will then die in November, 2010.

Can you be in Washington on Saturday at 1 o’clock?

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +0000

Listen here:

You can also download it here.

———————————-

Tomorrow at one p.m. Congressman King will join his Republican colleagues and Americans from across the nation seeking to have their voices heard in the health care debate for a second House Call press event. Republicans and other participants will deliver a message that the American people reject a government takeover of health care.

What: Second Health Care “House Call” on Washington

Who: Republican Members of Congress Americans concerned about our health care future Other Guests – TBA

When: Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.

Where: U.S. Capitol

The Legacy of Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:30:33 +0000

The murder of thirteen US soldiers and the wounding of thirty others at Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday is an unprecedented even in the history of the US military. It marks the first time in the history of the republic that a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces has turned his weapon on American troops.

Probably the closest thing the US Army has experienced prior to this in its history occurred in July 1867 when Captain Thomas Custer, acting under orders from his brother, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer, tracked down three deserters, wounding two and killing one. Where Lieutenant William Calley and Captain John Compton participated in mass murders (347 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968 and 40 Italian prisoners of war at Biscari, Sicily on July 14, 1943, respectively) the victims were not their own troops.

The murderous rampage of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan has entered the annals of military history as a unique betrayal of the traditional relationship between an officer — and a physician — and the men entrusted to his care by virtue of his rank.

Did it have to happen?

The past six years have been a watershed for the American military. It has demonstrated conclusively that it can match insurgents on the battlefield, develop civil infrastructure out of whole cloth, and recruit a volunteer force while embroiled in two wars. Unfortunately, it has also failed.

The virtue of the American military has always been its ability to take whatever manpower that was available and make from it a soldier (used here generically to describe a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine) loyal to the republic even when the individual loyalty of the individuals might have been nebulous. Confederate prisoners became “galvanized Yankees” on the frontier freeing up Federal troops to fight their own kinsmen. German immigrants fought in France in World War I and II. We are all familiar with the 442 Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Battalion formed from Japanese-Americans and their courageous service in Europe. Native Americans, with no great reason to love the American government, did love the Army and fought with as scouts, line infantrymen, and Code Talkers.

What has happened in the past 6 years is that assurance that the men in uniform were if not loyal Americans at least loyal to their comrades has been shattered.

The tip of the iceberg appeared in 1998 with the arrest of former Special Forces sergeant Ali Mohammed, a former major in the Egyptian army before immigrating to the United States and joining the US Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, NC.

In September 2004 SFC Abdullah Webster was sentenced to prison for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Testifying on behalf of Sergeant Webster was Air Force Chaplain (Captain) Hamza Al-Mubarak who claimed it was better for Webster to die than to fight fellow muslims.

In 2003 Army Chaplain (Captain) James Yee was arrested and charged with espionage and sedition based on his dealings with al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo. He avoided court martial because the government was concerned with classified information that might come out at trial. His assistant, Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, was convicted by a court martial. Civilian translator Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, also stationed at Guantanamo, was arrested and convicted at the same time.

In 2004 Army Specialist Amir Abdul Rashid was arrested, and eventually sentenced to life in prison, for providing sensitive information to al-Qaeda.

In 2008 Navy Signalman Hassan Abu Jihaad was sentenced to ten years for divulging classified information to al-Qaeda.

And no one can forget that on March 23, 2003, the eve of our invasion of Iraq, Army Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar tossed a hand grenade into the command post of 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division killing two officers and wounding fourteen others including the brigade commander. He is now on death row at the US Disciplinary Barracks and presumably will soon have the services of his own private shrink.

This list doesn’t include the numerous John Walker Lindhs and Adam Gadahns out there. They, at least, made their sympathies plain.

Obviously, it is unfair to tar all muslims in the military through association with this short, yet impressive, list of muslims who have betrayed their uniform and their country. There is no doubt that many muslims serve this nation in uniform and do so honorably.

But at some point a frank conversation needs to take place on what it means when the nation can no longer rely on one identifiable demographic to uphold the oath they have taken. More importantly it calls into question the impact on combat readiness when there is a perception that muslim soldiers in your unit are as likely to kill you as they are to kill the enemy.

Clearly it is a very touchy subject. One of our most enduring myths is that America was founded on the idea of religious freedom and religious discrimination is one of the vices that we’ve largely abandoned as a people.

During World War II we didn’t commission Japanese nationalists or ardent Nazis. During th Cold War we did our best to not commission members of the Communist Party. The reasons were obvious. Holding a commission confers certain privileges, while the odd Nazi or commie in the ranks might not be a threat a commissioned officer who took his oath “with purpose of reservation and evasion” is a significant danger. Oddly enough, in the case of Major Hasan, Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution would allow him to serve as a commissioned officer in the military even if a decision were made to bar muslims from enlisting in the Armed Forces.

One of the enduring fallacies of the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror was the refusal to admit that islam was neither peaceful in nature nor a disinterested observer in the war. This is not to say that all muslims are members of al-Qaeda, but to blithely ignore the religious dimension of the war was simply wrongheaded. To continue to ignore the particular vulnerability of muslim troops and officers to the propaganda on the grounds and label that very unremarkable observation as being racist or xenophobic is a fatal error. As we saw yesterday at Fort Hood.

Major Hasan’s rampage simply brings an issue which should have been addressed years ago back to center stage. Knowing what we know, how to we make sure these incidents of murder and sedition stop? Forever.