Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Democrats have a host of idiots to draw from in their effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. John Kerry is no exception to this rule. In an effort to quickly confirm the allegations that liberals hold appeasement as their primary weapon against national security threats Senator John Kerry reveals Democrats are ready, willing and able to cave to accusations by the “Muslim world’ that the big bad old US needs to ‘forge ties’ with same. For all those who never cease to find time to criticize the Bush Administration’s eight years in office kindly remember we have not been attacked since September 11, 2001. ‘We share your aspirations’ is a quote from Mr Kerry. The problem is Mr Kerry may not be completely up to speed on what those aspirations are. To broadly state that the US wants to ‘forge better ties’ with the ‘Muslim world’ assumes that all Muslims share common aspirations. Are liberals so ignorant as to think ALL Muslims think alike? Are they silly enough to assume a generalization like that? Name one group where all members of the set think exactly alike on any issue or topic. This is part of the Obama brain trust who is the Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What is worse? That Kerry could have won in 2004 or Obama winning in 2008?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, is calling for a new chapter in America’s relationship with the Muslim world. Kerry chaired a hearing Thursday to explore ways to forge better ties with the Muslim world.

Senator Kerry opened the hearing by echoing President Barack Obama’s call for better ties with the Muslim world. “We share your aspirations for freedom, dignity, justice and security. We are ready to listen, learn, and honor the president’s commitment to approach the Muslim world with a spirit of mutual respect,” he said.

Kerry called on Americans to do their part to ease the climate of fear and distrust that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. “If we truly want to empower Muslim moderates, we must also stop tolerating the casual Islamophobia that has seeped into our political discourse since 9/11,” he said.

The senator, who recently returned from a trip to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, called for expanding educational exchanges between the United States and the Muslim world and for greater funding to promote Americans’ foreign language capabilities.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was among those who testified at the hearing. “Our engagement with Muslim communities should include explicit support for democracy. This preference need not be heavy handed, but neither should it be so timid as to be inaudible,” she said.

Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, discussed Muslim perceptions of the United States gleaned by international surveys of done by her organization.

She said detainee abuses at hands of U.S. personnel in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. detention center Guantanamo Bay, Cuba hurt America’s image in the Muslim world. She said most Muslims believe the U.S. invasion of Iraq did more harm than good, and that very few Muslims believe the United States takes an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Mogahed says many Muslims admire what they say are universal values practiced so well in the west, including good governance and self-determination, as well as human rights. But she says they are skeptical as to the United States’ true intentions in promoting these values in their region.

“Ironically, it stems from the perception that we do not live the values that they so admire about us in our treatment of them - rule of law, self-determination, and human rights. Many believe that the U.S. is denying Muslims these rights by supporting dictatorships, direct occupation of Muslim lands, and what is seen as passive support for Israeli violence,” she said.

Mogahed says Muslim Americans could play an important role in helping improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world.

“The stimulus was political nirvana: cut taxes and raise spending,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the fiscal watchdog group Concord Coalition, who is among those invited to the summit. “This is the opposite; it is the political agenda from hell.”

Some of the promises made by Barack Obama may have disappeared. Much talk of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle leading up to the stimulus package and his administration in general along with transparency have faded. Quotes like the one above needed to generate debate on the stimulus before it became law. As cited by many in Congress, mostly from the GOP, no one may have had time and no one certainly read the 1000 plus page document. Hundreds of politicians voting on something they know little if anything about. And the public was shut out. Where is the promise from Obama that the public would be able to view and comment on the ‘proposal’?

Now we finally hear warnings and criticism that deficits will be too high, long term economic health is being ignored for expediency and there may be a ‘grand plan’ for the third rail of politics in the near future. While concern is voiced about entitlements and they were once the critics’ favorite target deficits and the willingness of foreign countries to buy our debt have taken center stage. With the new Secretary of State essentially begging China to buy more US debt and the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee on an appeasement mission to the Middle East we have much to be concerned about beyond the overwhelming insanity of the economic ‘fixes’ coming out of Washington.

Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg’s about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress.

In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. “We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair,” Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama’s stimulus bill was too partisan.

Financial numbers from the Obama Administration that could make the man of steel wince and the opposition party talking benefit cuts and tax increases for social security is reason enough to conclude Washington has lost its collective mind. Not like it wasn’t a strong suspicion in the past but there is no other way to paint it these days.

Adding to the problem is evidence a previous post here asking whether GOP governors would embrace porkulus for their states has been answered. Two Democratic governors and two GOP governors were on Fox News Sunday and the view here is they all will gorge at the pork table. Granholm, Democratic governor of Michigan, said not only would she enjoy the pork but would eat the other’s shares if they turned it down. Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, mentioned he will only be governor for a while longer and will plunder the pork yet be concerned about the problems facing those after he leaves. That’s reassuring. Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty, GOP governors of South Carolina and Minnesota respectively, were slightly more vague about their pork menus. Sanford will likely continue to criticize the stimulus and only indulge in those items for which he can acquire political cover. Pawlenty will undoubtedly do the same.

Going out on a limb the view at this blog is there is no politician alive who will not take the money. If Obama maintains a policy of use it or lose it you can bet staffers of every politician have already compiled a variety of public statements to cover every possibility. Either they will take the money and offer an excuse or offer the excuse and then take the money.

To listen to those praising infrastructure spending and citing the need can cause one to wonder if Saddam Hussein was not the only one ignoring such things in the last few decades. As an example the governor in my home state has been accused of robbing the transportation budget to pay for pet projects during his tenure. Now he looks forward to porkulus to make up the difference. But what is to stop him from doing more of the same. It would be no surprise if other states found themselves in the same situation.

And CITI group, bank, whatever, as well as other beneficiaries of the ANOTHER bailout of many are again asking for more money. You have to ask yourself if this will ever end? And perhaps more important will it do any good for the ‘economy’? Which brings to mind another words of wisdom type of sentiment.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Special interests? What special interests? (Michelle Malkin) 

With the President-elect’s choices to fill vacancies for a new administration heavy on former Clinton cronies and the often heard criticism of this being a third Clinton term the ‘change’ mantra of the Dems or ‘change you can believe in’ slogan from the Obama campaign suggest that all you can do is invoke the other Dems mantra….. hope. Not an impressive beginning for the next Presidential Administration but those who support the next President urge withholding criticism until he has had a chance to lead.

If not from the Clinton clan the choices for vacancies in the coming Obama Administration seem to focus on Illinois or Chicago politics. President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system, as education secretary Tuesday and declared that failing to improve classroom instruction is “morally unacceptable for our children.” Relying on Illinois for filling vacancies may be a little risky. One example would be from the press announcement linked just above. A reporter was ‘cutoff’ when inquiring about Rahm Emanuel being on a federal wiretap discussing the Senate vacancy with the Blagojevich camp. All just mentioned are tied to Illinois and Chicago politics. It has been suggested that Blagojevich is not stepping down in hopes of negotiating deals for himself and his wife without which he might use whatever he has to damage Obama or Mayor Daley.

The only change seen so far appears to be 60 or so members of the freshman class for the 111th Congress. Al Franken is still engaged in the recount fight with Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The process, at the outset anyway, was grindingly slow. In the first two hours, the board had ruled on 46 votes challenged by Franken. Of those, the board awarded 26 votes to Coleman, 7 to Franken and 13 to the pile for ballots where intend couldn’t be determined or were disqualified because of marks that might identify the voter.

And Caroline Kennedy has decided to follow in the family tradition seeking to fill the US Senate vacancy left by Hillary Clinton in NY. And of course there is the vacancy in an Illinois seat for the US Senate that surrounds the soap opera that is Governor Blagojevich. The controversy for Kennedy lies in the fact that she emphatically endorsed Obama early in the campaign and now wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. On top of that there are those who publicly question her credentials for being a senator. One quote addressing her name recognition suggested J Lo has name recognition too. She has taken a different path in her life to this point than many in her famous family and that fact was even complimented on this blog in the past. Now that the family’s political prominence may be fading is that the driving force behind her decision?

Then there is the real Democratic party situation which is ‘no change’. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still, well, Nancy Pelosi. Quick to make statements and predictions as in her forecast that Congress will pass a $600 billion stimulus package early next year but says hopes of accomplishing anything yet this year is fading. For Nancy, that certainly is not new. Continue to predict what will happen and when it does not blame the opposition party. In other words, we did nothing again this time but just wait until next time. Ya, whatever. And BTW Nancy, where is all the money coming from anyway? What happens when it runs out? Are you just going to start printing more?

More of no change from the Dems finds Dianne Feinstein as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and John Kerry to head the foreign relations committee. Nothing new there and nothing to get excited about unless you are interested in worrying about what will go wrong next. Feinstein’s questionable conflicts of interest with her husband engaged in the defense business and her post on MILCON, the military construction appropriations subcommittee, never saw the light of day even though she resigned that post when allegations surfaced and claims to be an ethics reformer with earmarks transparency legislation. And John Kerry fancies himself some kind of major player in politics. He has seen his share of controversy but that does not necessarily translate into a stellar resume’. Failed attempts at a White House bid and running errands for the Dems elite does not propel a career. It would appear the committee assignment is a consolation prize for not getting Secretary of State after doing the party’s bidding.

The final note in this post on recent news features more irony from the Dems. It would be humorous if not so pathetic. The very people responsible for promoting policies that ignited the subprime mortgage mess are now complaining that the White House has not done enough to relieve homeowners in or near foreclosure.

“Absolutely nothing has been done to respect that part of the legislation,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters as she discussed the House’s agenda in coming weeks.

She and Frank have talked about “legislation that insists that the provisions of the (TARP) law be honored, before we release any more funds,” Pelosi said.

Legislation demanding more foreclosure mitigation will be ready within the next couple of weeks, said Steven Adamske, an aide to Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said last month he was willing to legislate if the financial sector failed to do more to curb foreclosures, restrain executive pay and modify mortgages to help struggling homeowners.

The GOP has made some progress in returning to conservative principles including fiscal restraint by opposing more bailout programs but the effort is not entirely convincing. The White House seems content to negotiate a legacy by spending us into oblivion and the Dems are right behind them with a $600 billion stimulus package with no end in sight.

It might be fair to say that leaders in both the public and private sectors have lost their collective minds except for the fact these sort of dealings are not new. It is just the small matter of the numbers being used do not fit any reasonable equation. The math is not working. Politics and business as usual have run into a severe problem with reality. How large a burden is the American taxpayer expected to bear. It is understood that the small percentage of wealthy taxpayers at the top pay the majority of taxes in this country. But that is small consolation to the unemployed or those whose own budgets are strained to the breaking point even while employed. Not that we don’t all share in the problems currently faced. But those in a position to affect the most change toward solutions seem to be slightly out of touch with reality. Unless the only reality is to use their influence for their own gain and the rest be damned.

Merry Christmas

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For weeks now and to the opening of the Dems convention the talk has been ‘party unity’. With groups like PUMA and the modified words of the acronym, party unity my ass, does it seem unity is not a guarantee? Obama having to appease the Clinton clan speaks volumes of how little unity there is. The same two who pounded each other in the primaries are now making nice for the cameras. For Clinton to say we WERE NOT all on the same side but we ARE now is ridiculous. Obama is trying to save his campaign with this dribble and Clinton is trying to keep her options open four years in the future. For Clinton, the odd thing is four years only works if Obama loses in November. Otherwise it is possible, but unlikely, that she would have to wait for two terms of Obama and perhaps one of Biden. Appeasement for Obama no matter how dispicable may win him a shot at, in his words, ‘that White House’. As another report suggests, this convention is all about selling the Obama brand. For Obama the key phrase should be let’s put some lipstick on this pig. Hire a few used car salesman for the hard sell. But then there is no need, they already have Obama and perhaps half of the Dems have begun drinking the Kook Aid.

Posted at 6:43 PM ET, 08/25/2008

Democrats Stress Unity as Convention Opens

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer

DENVER, Colo. - The Democratic National Convention opened this afternoon with a call to order from party chairman Howard Dean and a pledge of unity by formal rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It’s madness. Its madness I tell ya. A view from the PBS coverage tonite included a woman listening after Carter spoke via whatever and Obama’s half-sister was speaking. She was already teary-eyed. Then there was one who looked stunned or confused or just plain not happy. One could guess the first already drank some Kook-Aid and the other hand not. Apparently one Obama supporter and one for Clinton. Two different kinds of Kook-Aid are being offered.

Democrats Kick Off Convention Madness

Kennedy Tribute and Michelle Obama To Headline Denver Extravaganza
By JENNIFER PARKER and NITYA VENKATARAMAN
DENVER, Aug. 25, 2008

A presidential ticket now in hand, exuberant Democrats flooded downtown Denver today for the official start of their 2008 nominating convention, hoping to heal rifts from a bruising primary season and begin their fight to the November election with renewed focus.

Here it is again. ‘Healing rifts’ of a ‘bruising primary season’. Gee Wally, imagine that, the piece above suggests that this week the Dems are concerned that the roll call vote Clinton brokered with Obama might disrupt their HOPE for party unity. Are these people for real or what?

While observing some of the coverage by PBS of the Dems convention this evening some points are reinforced. To go further than David Brooks opinion of Pelosi’s speech that she basically said Obama is a Democrat and that is good so vote for a Democrat, she mentioned again that nagging failed agenda of a New Direction for America which they may have unveiled for the 2006 midterms and nothing has happened since. She also credited Obama with the toughest ethics legislation in decades, another falsehood. Then Jimmy Carter helped them point to their manufactured victims. Then his half-sister said Barack helped her follow her dreams and would do the same for you. If that is the case, why couldn’t she follow her dreams independently? Did she need Barack to do that? Here we go again. The Dems can do nothing but repeat their tired old mantra of hope and change. Because that is all they have to offer. Hope and change that never provides solutions. They were victorious in the 2006 elections and nothing has come of it yet. Now they want you to give them the White House and nothing would come of that except extending the political future of do nothings.

But hey, how about that party unity?

August 25, 2008

Clinton and New York Democrats Stress Unity

By Jeremy W. Peters

At a meeting of the New York delegation here, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton implored the state’s Democrats to work as hard to elect Senator Barack Obama as they worked for her.

We were not all on the same side as Democrats, but we are now,’’ Senator Clinton said.

In her 9-minute speech, Mrs. Clinton used the word unity at least a half dozen times.

Let there be no mistake about it. We are united. We are united for change. We are, after all, Democrats. So it may take a while, but we’re not the fall in line party, she said.

All over the press lately is the chant of party unity or the concern over it from the obviously left leaning MSM. They were pounded about it so much since Obama entered the campaign, you may occasionally find a piece that is not flattering to Obama. But that is just a little misdirection provided by the MSM to dissuade you from noticing their bias. Listen to Hillary. We are united. Is it her Democratic party ‘hope’ that if you throw enough of it at the wall some will stick? Or is she just playing a role to look like the good soldier while behind the scenes she is working deals for herself? Maybe she wants to deflect suggestions of guilt when the rabid Clintonistas disrupt the convention. If the party goes back on the floor vote arrangement Denver will need those 1500 police and then some.

Republicans Want Hillary Backers to Switch Sides. Will they?
by Heather Nauert
Monday, August 25, 2008

Republicans have identified an opening and hope to bring a new group of women to the polls in November. They are going after disaffected female voters who backed Hillary Clinton during the primary and at a minimum wanted her as Barack Obama’s running mate. Now that Obama’s picked Joe Biden, where will these Democrats go?

In Debra Bartoshevich’s case, she’s going for McCain. Bartoshevich was a Clinton delegate from Wisconsin who was replaced after she came out in support of the Arizona senator. She is appearing in a new McCain television ad that the campaign says is running in key states.

Don’t be shocked if a high percentage of independents and even Democrats vote for John McCain. Obama should lose much of the women’s vote without Clinton and the ad from McCain on the story above may begin to convince more women that the GOP is a better choice for them. It is for most people. It is just a simple matter of them not figuring that out yet. GOP perfect? Not even close. But they are far and away better than the left choice. As it works out on two acounts, they are the right choice.

Poll gives Democrats reasons for hope, concern

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) — A new national poll has a mixed message for Democrats as their national convention gets under way Monday in Denver.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday shows that President Bush’s approval rating remains extremely low, at 30 percent, which would appear to benefit the Democrats.

But the poll suggests that the public is not convinced that Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would follow Bush’s policies if elected. So Bush’s unpopularity may not rub off on the presumptive Republican nominee.

The public may be more intelligent than the credit some give. Understanding the fallacy in the Dems only argument against McCain can provide some optimism that the entire nation is not drinking the Dems Kook Aid. But the funny thing here is the Dems believing some of their own propaganda….’reasons for hope’. You know, like the fact they are always waiting for some Messiah to lead them out of the wilderness. Along comes Barack Obama. Go figure. They took the bait.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

postscript: Just as this post was being finished Ted Kennedy was shown on PBS giving his speech. It would appear Senator Kennedy is in charge of distributing the Kook-Aid. And based on the post-speech commentary by Shields and Brooks, Obama is real tight with Kennedy. Sounds eerily familiar, right John Kerry?

Mob scene at the Mint

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, , Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, , , Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

John Edwards caved to the Democratic party elite in 2004 to become number two on a failed ticket. Now John Kerry did the party’s bidding again by endorsing Barack Obama. Essentially the same story was posted here yesterday and things haven’t changed. Reports are out today that the D for ‘duh’ party may have soured on the Clintons. What was the first clue? Iowa was the proof for the Dems elite. If HRC could not sweep through the first two contests, Obama would get the nod from the party.

Perhaps Edwards feels used after the 04 race. He has no one but himself to blame. He caved to party politics and got what he deserved. Or was he silly enough to think that number two on a Kerry ticket guaranteed him the spot in four or eight years? Doesn’t matter. He was working Iowa since 04 and only took 2nd cuz Obama was in the race. And 2nd was virtually a tie with Clinton so he really got nothing from Iowa.

Dan Balz’s Take
John Edwards: Spoiler, Surrogate or Surprise?
“I want to be absolutely clear to all of you who have been devoted to this cause,” he told supporters in New Hampshire last Tuesday night, “and I want to be clear to the 99 percent of Americans who have not yet had the chance to have their voices heard, that I am in this race to the convention, that I intend to be the nominee of my party.”

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts

The ink is barely dry on Biden and Dodd dropping out of the 2008 race and you know that Senator John Kerry’s endorsement of Barack Obama was planned with the Senate candidate from Illinois. Is this a slick move to woo undecided voters, the 2008 version of the 2004 anointing of the Dems party elite and do Biden, Dodd and Kerry stand to profit politically and otherwise by winning cabinet posts if Obama would be successful?

Below are reports from Kerry’s 2004 cabinet plans and strategy as well as a post from Michelle Malkin on the topic. The only part of this campaign strategy that is compelling points to the possibility that the Democratic party elite is shunning Hillary Rodham Clinton and her former President husband Bill. When Katie Couric interviewed HRC this week to help her continue to market the tears thing and further the network’s desire for another Clinton White House she noted the house they were at as Hillary’s home in NY. With some reports suggesting Bill has tried to sabotage Hillary’s campaign and the living arrangements being what they are, how does anyone consider them married other than technically? Excuse the spontaneous thought please. Can’t help but wonder about these things and worse, why so many choose to ignore all of what is wrong with the Clinton clan.

One last note, that may explain why John Edwards is still in the race. He sold out to the Dems party elite by caving to their anointing of John Kerry in 04. So he may only be in it to get the nod for VP on HRC’s ticket if she would end up with the nomination. Any way you slice it, with the Dems you get the same old c__p. And they want you to believe they are change agents. Maybe quick change artists but not change agents.

It would appear the Dems party elite does not believe Clinton can be the GOP. It is also quite possible that the cold, calculating queen of cringe cannot be trusted to attend to party business. So the party is grooming the ‘naive and irresponsible’ other rookie Senator to do the party bidding.

Kerry Exploring Cabinet Options

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A23

If he wins the White House, John F. Kerry will immediately confront a difficult, divisive and deeply personal decision: which close friend will he have to stiff for secretary of state?

Kerry, who would name a national security team a few weeks after the election, is said by campaign sources to be under a fair amount of pressure to pick Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) or Richard Holbrooke to help repair global alliances and attract new allies to assist in Iraq. Both men are seasoned diplomats, ambitious and close friends and political advisers to Kerry. And both clearly want the job.

Next: Kerry’s key Cabinet choices

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

But picking through advisers and matching them up with possible Cabinet roles reveals a lot about candidates themselves. A US administration is a joint effort, after all. Undecided voters might find it easier to make up their minds if they consider what personalities a challenger would install in office for the next four years.

A relative unknown to much of the voting public, Mr. Kerry might particularly benefit from helping this process along.

Michelle Malkin » John Kerry tries to make himself relevant; “Let …

I fear Kerry might be selected to fill a cabinet post if one of the Dims is elected. Hope I am wrong, but could you imagine him as SecDef or Homeland …

And who could forget Bill Richardson, his withdrawal and resume’ items in the Clinton cabinet. If you read the 911 Commission report that the Dems love to mention, you can relive the 911 mistakes of Bill and Hillary as well as Mr Richardson in failing to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Maybe Richardson gets his pick if either Obama or Clinton make it to the White House. Certainly buying off Vilsack earlier in the campaign ensures a post election job for him too. These people are more like job service than public service. So where are the change agents? Don’t kid yourself this is business as usual in Washington. But the Dems take it to a whole new level. And if you add Pelosi and Reid to the equation as well as Boxer and Feinstein and their money connections and Clinton’s criminal campaign contributors, this country could be in a world of hurt come 2009.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA

On March 8, 2007 Hillary Rodham Clinton published a press release on her website called ‘ Hillary Clinton: Supporting Our Troops.’ The PR contain an opening statement ‘calling for immediate steps to better train and equip our troops and get them the care they need when they return home.’ It is followed by four of her concerns about the troops. She was concerned about improving mental health care, the disability system, orphans and a GI Bill of Rights. That’s all fine but no where does she mention opposition to the war which is all she has talked about since it became popular for Democrats as their central theme for the 2008 campaigns.

She claims she voted for the authorization for military force in Iraq based on intelligence that has since been designated as faulty. Few in Congress even bothered to read the intel much less try to determine its accuracy. It is convenient to use the excuses Hillary Rodham Clinton wants you to believe are valid. She also claims she voted for a measure that would limit the President’s authority for war in Iraq to one year. Setting time limits while authorizing troops into battle? That is not very Presidential and neither is omitting due diligence on the very intelligence reports on which her choice was made in the first place. That was March 2007 and before. Here is May 2007

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
By CARL HULSE and PATRICK HEALY
Published: May 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

While on ABC’s Democratic debate on August 19, 2007, Mrs. Clinton of course was on board with ideas initially brought forward by others including one of her rivals, Senator Joe Biden. That is surrendering carefully. Now she says it could take a year to withdraw safely while in the NYT report above in May of this year she proposed voting to end Presidential authority as early as last October 11th with no careful withdrawal as part of the surrender.

According to the NYT, ‘Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.’

The Times goes on to say, ‘Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.’ What gives this report ample weight is the fact that you don’t see the NYT criticizing a liberal every day. It would not be a surprise if they did because the evidence is so compelling they could not ignore it. Tough to defend a liberal position in the first place, doing it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just plain silly even for the NYT. Another example that try as she will, Hillary Rodham Clinton is not Presidential.

As Karl Rove indicated, no candidate in the history of the Gallup Polls has ever won with unfavorables as high as those of Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the war in Iraq the Democrats have another candidate in the Kerry mold who was in favor of the war before being against it. So how did that strategy work out for John Kerry? So much for the quote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that surrender in Iraq is ‘the will of the American people.’

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Mark My Words, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, Faultline USA, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

About all this news does is etch the stamp of far left liberal on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s forehead. Although she began as a Republican until meeting Bill Clinton, Hillary really has no allegiance to anyone but Hillary. One would hope spooks were apolitical at least as far as party is concerned. A liberal ambassador is not a headline grabber. And a liberal CIA operative is probably not either. But it does seem strange when it comes up in conversation, or the news.

Hillary Rodham Clinton panders for votes in an interesting style. She tries to mimic and be the embodiment of whomever she is courting for votes. From practicing a pathetic immpression of Southern speech to adopting a temporary attachment to civil rights, Hillary Rodham Clinton sells snake oil. But having an endorsement from a controversial pair suggested to have damaged Kerry’s campaign may not be what the flim flam lady ordered.

But it does give this blog another excuse to use the pic of Valerie Plame again. A Dixie Chicks pic is available too. Now if they endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton would that be the kiss of death to her campaign or just bolster the kook fringe?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Valerie Plame Hubby Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary Clinton

By Jackson Simpson
Jul 16, 2007
Many people refer to Valerie Plame’s husband Joe Wilson as a political hack. The left wing activist is a hero to the fringe part of the base and does carry some weight with that slice of the Democratic Party. In what sounds like a job interview Joe Wilson has announced that he is endorsing Hillary Clinton. “I’m delighted to fight the fight with her. … The person who has always reached out to us has been Hillary. … I think Hillary is a fighter. … She is a wonderful individual. … More diplomacy the better. There is no daylight between us on Iran,” he said.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 )
Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 53
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —46
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Every now and then it is nice to see someone else draw the same conclusion. The item below does a nice job of presenting the problems caused by the Democratic party after their midterm launch to majority status. Certainly the GOP had failed us in many ways and appeared unable or unwilling to make corrections. With the Dems agenda stalled or failing and that same stubborness to continue as before, 2008 may bring a swift end to any hopes they had for a long run as the majority. The country suffers from these political failures while politicians can continue or become lobbyists and cause more problems.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

And then consider the do-nothing Democrats

By DONALD LAMBRO
Posted: May 26, 2007
Americans are giving the Democratic-run Congress failing grades after five months of bickering and stalemate that has stalled or killed their chief legislative priorities.
The Democrats’ latest report card came in a recent Gallup Poll that showed their job-approval ratings had sunk to 29%, several points below even President Bush’s low job-approval numbers, which Gallup said were “holding steady” at 33% since April.
Democratic strategists and independent pollsters say their party will pay a political price in next year’s elections if they cannot show the American people they can do the nation’s business. But as Democrats near the midway point in this first session of Congress, the prospects that anything on their must-pass list of domestic legislation will be enacted appear bleak.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Blue Collar Muse, Stageleft, Maggie’s Notebook, stikNstein… has no mercy, Big Dog’s Weblog, On the Horizon, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

This post on Senator Harry Reid opens with evidence to support the position that not only does he lack the ability to determine when it is time for politics and when is it time to support the troops. He also lacks the class to fulfill his obligation for proper respect for visiting heads of state or other dignitaries He has no problem with Nancy Pelosi’s poor judgment on ‘diplomatic’ missions to Syria but he cannot see his way clear to attend a state affair in honor of the Queen of England.

Harry Reid Passes on White-Tie Affair With British Queen

KLAS-TV, NV - May 7, 2007
Nevada senator Harry Reid decided to not accept his invitation, but many others will be there. It was a day of high pomp and pageantry and the weather …

But with Harry there are always bigger fish for us to fry. Like his adverse affect on the American people and worse, the troops serving in defense of our country. There is a headline out there and at least one blog reference to an op-ed post that makes very little sense. For those of you on the right or independents, here is some more fodder for why many on the left are proving they have lost their minds.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can make bipartisan history on Iraq

By Brent Budowsky
May 09, 2007
George Washington must be banging his fist in heaven at the damage inflicted from home on American troops in Iraq.
Enough. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can change American history by standing hard for 60-to-90-day funding for the war, requiring a new vote by August, and leading a landmark new policy supporting troops and vets.

First of all, the initial link was to a post on one of TPM’s user areas with a blog reference from a user who linked to the above op-ed at The Hill.com. The reason it was interesting on first glance was trying to guess how the Dems could make bipartisan history on Iraq. After reading the TPM poster’s comment it was still a mystery. This inquiry was not made any easier by the poster with a link to their site and a bad link to the Hill. Leaving an extra ‘/’ at the end of a link would normally be excused as a simple typo. But in this case it only served to suggest there was little that would make sense in all of this bipartisan history talk.

After reading the op-ed at the Hill, the author of the opinion is just as much in error as the person posting the comment at TPM. Excuse the assumption that a comment at TPM and a link to an op-ed the commenter found appealing are all three left biased. Especially when the resume’ history given by the author of the op-ed includes work for various Democratic party entities.

The dribble presented by the sources above draw the conclusion that Reid and Pelosi can get credit for fixing everything the way the left wants it, renaming it patriotic and in support of the troops and convincing the public and the other side of the aisle that this is the right thing to do. That these two people contend they actually believe their own words is one of the most incredible collections of madness on display lately. If this is the standard fare that one can expect from those who support the Democratic party, it should be easy to eliminate their newly found majority in the next election.

There are some scary folks out there on the left. This would not be the first mention of that fact. But it is the first time this blog has not dismissed it as just a little craziness around the fringe. The comment at TPM could have been discounted as just such a fringe anomaly. But an op-ed posted at the Hill is more disconcerting that people in actual jobs and positions within the Democratic ranks share the insanity of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Fortunately, there are numbers growing to combat this insanity. A recent effort widely reported and responded to as well as being mentioned on this blog is the We Win, They Lose initiative. In addition, one group that has been around for a while and is openly against Harry Reid is Oppose Senator Harry Reid. These are just two of the recent additions to the sane world that seek to overcome the dangerous ideas of the fringe left. Again, we would like to declare we are non-partisan, independents. But that does not preclude taking action opposing insane positions on the left or supporting sane initiatives on the right. We only wish that there were more cases of the reverse but lately that is not the case.

Here is a story written about Oppose Senator Harry Reid:

Harry Reid the Target of Activist Group

By Josh Hart
May 8, 2007
Harry Reid, the name-calling US Senate leader has come under fire from a group that wants to challenge US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to end his silence on Reid’s ‘the war is lost’ mantra that gained so much attention earlier. The group plans protests against Reid in Nevada and DC calls him ‘an embarrassment to Nevada.’

Both political parties are capable of wrongdoing. The problem with allowing the Dems wrongdoing is that it is much more dangerous than that of GOP mistakes. GOP wrongdoing can be fixed. The same cannot be said of the wrongdoing supported by the Dems. Complete lack of support for the troops and success with the war in Iraq is a widely held position in the Democratic party. It is held by all 2008 Democratic party candidates. By failing to openly oppose her husband’s wrongdoing in office Hillary Rodham Clinton shows her complicity, not any admirable quality of the phrase ’stand by your man’. If they commit bad acts, you don’t stand behind them unless you concur.

Edwards and Obama also fail to support the troops. The Dems support partial birth abortion and oppose the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Carhart. This has changed this writer from a long time pro-choice stance to that of entirely against Roe v Wade, etc. This would indicate their support of embryonic stem cell research would result in turning abortion clinics into stem cell farms. All of which I thought laughable in the past. Their response to the Supreme Court decision uncovered their true intentions with an indisputable admission of guilt.

The sins of the GOP thus far can be resolved and any damage repaired. But the dangerous path the Dems seek has begun to scare the hell out of me. I still find it hard to believe they could be this far off base. Their other viewpoints on national security, border control, defense, health care, education and Global Warming, etc., have helped to shine light on an ideology that must be confronted. It will be tough to remain independent if the Dems cause the need to regularly favor their opponents. Party politics is still unpleasant on either side. The GOP is just not as dangerous as current Democratic party philosophy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Allie Is Wired, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Wake Up America, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Senator flip-flop Kerry has the audacity to be politically correct and call a policy change a policy reversal. God knows he doesn’t have the brass ones to refer to it as flip-flopping. Wouldn’t want to start that conversation again.

And Senator Kerry, what will you say if the “direct talks” do not achieve the desired result? Will you say you are then against them before you were in favor? Having more than one approach does not constitute a policy reversal. You have been known to be for something right before you were against something. But in the much repeated statement of the current Presidential Administration, all options are on the table and he is just using one more. If that doesn’t work the other options will be considered.

If the President does not do what you ask, you blame him for what happens. If he does something you want, you characterize it to suit yourself. Why don’t you stop belly aching and try to provide assistance rather than political sound bites?

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Dialogue with Iran and Syria Overdue
March 2nd, 2007

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.