Rick, the "Real Ugly American", picks apart a post written by a former employee of a Pacifica radio station (notorious for its Left-wing content) and sees a trend that looks awfully applicable to today's Democrat party.

An interesting read.

Posted by: Gary at 09:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Leave it Ace to link to something like this. Messages left by people drunk out of their minds. Funny stuff. But since they're drunk, keep in mind that the F bombs are a-flying.

Posted by: Gary at 08:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

As of right now two more Democrats have gone on record for a "Yea" vote on Alito, WV Sen. Robert Byrd and SD Sen. Tim Johnson (Daschle's replacement). Adding these two to NE Sen. Ben Nelson you have three Democrats plus the 55 Republicans (assuming of course Chafee (RI), Snowe (ME) and Collins (ME) bite the bullet and vote "Yea"). That's a total of 58.

Democrats Feinstein (CA), Salazar (CO) and Landrieu (LA) are on record as saying they are against a filibuster over Alito. According to Byron York at NRO, the scuttlebutt is that Reid doesn't have the votes for a filibuster. But try explaining that to a moonbat.

My guess is that the remaining uncommitted Democrats are playing a big game of "chicken" to see who'll commit to voting for Alito so they won't have to. If Frist files for cloture on the current debate tomorrow than a vote could come Monday. If that's the case, expect a full court press by Left-wing interest groups this weekend to push for a filibuster anyway.

If the final vote comes out as 59-41, the Left will incorrectly believe that a filibuster would have been successful and lose their freaking minds.

And I will giggle my ass off.

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Rick Moran has pulled together a lot of resources that support this breaking story. According to Saddam's number 2 in command of the Iraqi Air Force, the Iraqi stockpile of WMDs was ordered to be transported to Syria via commercial jets in 2002 - 56 trips in all - as the U.S. and its coalition allies made preparations to remove Saddam from power.

His post, "Oh Those Pesky Iraqi WMDs!", scratches that "nagging itch" that has been at the back of his mind (and mine as well) over what happened to all these weapons that everybody knew he had.

Despite the Old Media's attempts to ignore this, this really needs to be verified and Syria must be investigated. Yeah, sure. I'd really love to tell those on the Left "told ya so", but more importantly if there is a possibility that these WMDs still exist they pose a huge threat not only to the region but to the United States.

Posted by: Gary at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a Dodge Viper!

You're all about raw power. You're tough, you're loud, and you don't take crap from anyone. Leave finesse to the other cars, the ones eating your dust.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

h/t: Wonder Woman

Posted by: Gary at 12:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't if odd that 2008 is still two years away and the supposed "anointed one", Hillary Clinton, is already running into troubles with her Democrat base. Jonah Goldberg writes in the LA Times today about the reasons that many of her biggest supporters are getting fed up with her.

At every turn, Hillary Clinton's Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication — either by her fans, her enemies or herself. One telling episode came when she published her massively successful autobiography, "Living History." The book tour was nothing short of a coronation, confirming her gravitas and commitment to "the issues." She portrayed herself as resigned to the fact that she'd have to answer Barbara Walters' questions about her personal life, but she always made it seem like she'd rather wrestle with the hard issues of public policy. But when the Washington Post actually tried to ask her about something other than how she cried over her husband's sexcapades with an intern, the senator from New York "declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book."

Hillary Clinton's latest reinvention paints her as a moderate, even an Iraq war hawk. Few people buy it. Reporters regularly assume her motives are opportunistic rather than sincere, focusing on how every pronouncement will position her for the 2008 presidential race. National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, for example, recently observed, "She certainly sees it in her interest to get to the right of the president on many issues, especially in the area of national security."

Her husband had a list of flaws as long as his resume, but one thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that he was, and still is, a master politician. America has never seen anything like him before and perhaps never will again. It truly is a gift for someone to be able to so connect with people - even people who don't like him - and distract them from the fact that his principles are defined by poll numbers and political expediency.

Hillary is woefully deficient in this skill and people understand this. It's not something you learn, it's something you're born with. Hillary did not win a Senate seat in New York on her charm or command of the issues. She won because a lot of people felt sorry for her that she had to tolerate her husband's philandering and felt she needed an opportunity to strike out on her own. In 2008, nobody is going to elect someone who plays the victim. With such important issues of National Security on the line, voters will want someone who will make our enemies the victims.

They will also want someone who is decisive. When Presidential candidates can't figure out who they are or what they believe in and constantly try to "reinvent" themselves, the electorate rejects them. It didn't work for Al Gore and it didn't work for John Kerry. It certainly won't work for Hillary, whose naked ambition isn't even fooling her biggest cheerleaders, the MSM.

And yet, for all this take of frustration and dissatisfaction over her among Democrats, she's still the one to beat for the nomination. And Hillary isn't going to be deterred. Like Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction", she's determined and she's not going to just go away - "I won't be ignored, Dan!" How this continues to play out over the next twenty-four months is going to be one of the most fascinating political stories we've seen for a long time. Maybe ever.

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

Return of the King, Book Six, Chapter Four is posted.

Posted by: Gary at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

For the Moonbat Left. The folks at MoveOn.org are making their email pitches to try and "stop" the confirmation of Samuel Alito. Heh.

Here's their goal:

"The next few days are the last chance we have to influence the Senate before the final vote. So, today, we're aiming to send in 10,000 letters to the editor to newspapers around the country, opposing the nomination of Samuel Alito and Bush's plan to put himself above the law.

You can write and submit your letter online right now, at: [Link included]

Filling the nation's editorial pages with citizens' letters connecting Alito and the Bush power grab is one of the most effective ways we can show the Senate that we understand the stakes and are counting on them to stand up. And it's important to act now, because the Democrats and moderate Republicans who oppose Alito have still not decided if they will mount a filibuster to block his nomination—but they must decide soon."

Will it be enough to coax the Dems into trying for a filibuster? Oh boy, I sure hope so.

Posted by: Gary at 08:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

A day after Canadian border guards ran from a shoot-out involving two escaped murder suspects from California, one Tory MP has vowed to arm them in the near future. Can't really blame the poor guys for bolting when they had nothing to aim at the suspects besides their index fingers.

The MP, Vic Toews, further commented about Canada's unarmed border guards, "I think it does nothing for our national image."

Never mind your image, how about the safety of your citizens? Hello?

Posted by: Gary at 04:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Of the political landscape in the real world, that is. Dan Gerstein, a former communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman, spells it out for the moonbats of his party in a column from last Sunday's Wall Street Journal.

And that's the heart of the problem with our party and its angry activist base. It's not so much that we're living in a parallel universe, but that we have dueling conceptions of what's mainstream, especially on abortion and other values-based issues, and our side is losing. We think that if we simply call someone conservative, anti-choice and anti-civil rights, that's enough to scare people to our side. But that tired dogma won't hunt in today's electorate, which is far more independent-thinking and complex in its views on values than our side presumes.

That point was driven home in an incontrovertible analysis of the 2004 election results by Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck. They found that the American polity has undergone a great shaking out, where conservatives now vote almost universally for Republicans and liberals for Democrats, and that Republicans have won the presidency twice in a row because they're doing a better job of pulling moderates/independents their way--in particular married women and white Catholics who are uncomfortable with the Democrats on values issues. Judging from the dreadful tack our party took in the Alito process, it's clear that we haven't yet internalized these political realities--most likely because our anger at George Bush continues to blind us to them. Many Democrats just don't want to acknowledge that he's president and is going to pick conservative justices--let alone that the two we got, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, are about as good as we could hope for.

This episode shows we don't have any leader in power who will tell our base that we're not going to become a majority party again by telling the majority they're out of the mainstream. We do badly need leaders with courage--the courage, that is, to push our party (to borrow a phrase) to move on, to accept that we can't win with the same lame ideological arguments in post-9/11 America, and that we must develop an alternative affirmative agenda that shows we can keep the country safer, make the economy stronger, and govern straighter than the ethically challenged Republicans. Then we can worry about picking the nominees instead of fighting them.

h/t: Human Events Online's AlitoBlog

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Has it really been fifteen? Already?

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Hugh Hewitt absolutely eviscerated LA Times columnist Joel Stein in an interview on his radio show yesterday. Stein, who penned an appalling essay published in the Times that starts off with the statement "I don't support our troops", seem to squirm while attempting to more fully articulate his moonbat positions on the military as the transcript shows Hewitt grilling him like a porterhouse steak.

Here's a portion:

Hugh Hewitt (HH): I want to make sure I quote it correctly. "I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car." Evidently, supporting the troops is a bumper sticker position?

Joel Stein (JS): It's not. Supporting the troops is. I think a lot of people have bumper stickers, and really don't do anything else, and are against the war, and have the bumper sticker anyway.

HH: "And at the end, I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after Vietnam." That's big of you. "But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea." What I'm trying to figure out is what do you think is a good idea for the military to do?

JS: Well, again, that's not what my column was about, and that's something that people talk about constantly, and people give opinions on. There's a lot of Americans who are against this war and still think we should have a military.

HH: Now wait. This is the last...well, let me give you the two last paragraphs of your column. "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War. But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health, and a safe and immediate return. But please no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable." So you obviously do not honor their service?

JS: I don't honor their service? The people serving in Iraq right now?

HH: Yeah.

JS: I honor them as human beings, and I want them home safe.

HH: But you don't honor their service?

JS: And honestly, I think that all these...for people who don't believe in the war and are putting up these stickers saying they support the troops anyway, my fear is that it's prolonging the war and putting them in further danger they don't need to be in.

HH: But Joel, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about what you honor, and you obviously don't honor military service.

JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any...I just think that...

HH: You do honor military service?

JS: Yeah. No, I'm grateful for people that serve in the military.

HH: But you don't support our troops?

JS: I don't...I don't believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don't believe in.

HH: And so, that would be everything I've named thus far. So I guess...did you support and honor the troops in the Pentagon on 9/11?

JS: Sure, yeah.

HH: All right.

JS: All the troops that are here to defend our country, I'm very, very grateful for. I'm grateful for the police...

HH: Provided they don't leave the country?

JS: Yeah, provided they don't fight in wars that I think are endangering them for no reason.

HH: And the moment they do, you stop honoring them?

JS: The moment I do, I think it's a poor idea to show support for them and prolong that engagement.

Reading through the transcript, I can't help but recall a quote from the movie "Goodfellas" when Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito says "You know Spider, you're a f*****' mumbling stuttering little prick. You know that?"

UPDATE: From around the 'sphere:
Captain Ed:

Supporting the troops really just means that you appreciate that they stand ready to carry out the policies of the United States in defense of our freedom and liberty, as expressed in the policies of our elected government. That has no bearing on any particular mission or enterprise, but instead comes from the sacrifice offered by our fellow citizens in uniform to give their lives so that we may remain free -- free to select our own leaders, free to write blogs, free to disagree with each other ... and in Stein's case, free to make an ass of himself by writing one of the most ill-conceived pieces of tripe published in a major media outlet.

Let’s break this down. Patriotism means “love and devotion to one’s country.” Dissent means “to withhold assent or approval.” Showing love can include disagreeing, but most often is an expression of approval and acceptance. Unless you’re a bumper sticker lefty, in which case according to the one on who’s car I spotted the ratty sticker, the highest form of love of country that it’s possible to show is one that constantly withholds approval of that country. Period. Being a bumper sticker, there weren’t any qualifiers like “when it’s clearly, unambiguously wrong” or “when it’s run by totalitarians like Stalin and Hitler and freedom has to be won back.” Just any old time, the best thing you can do for your country is to disapprove of it.

Very nice. I guess that makes me a very patriotic Frenchman.

WhatÂ’s most disturbing is that the same person who thinks that bumper sticker is true enough to make it a part of their car is actually allowed to operate that car on the same roads as the rest of us.

In the final breakdown, the sticker really is an exercise in self-flattery. “I disagree with this country. And that makes me better than you and all those deluded fools sent off on that war and stuff.”

The underlying assumption of [Stein's column] is that wars are fought by Administrations, not by nations. By joining the military a soldier is volunteering as an extension of the Bush Administration. Hence, the soldier is complicit in Bush's alleged crimes.

While Administrations may start wars, they do not fight them. Nations fight wars.

There was no war against the Nazis. We fought Germany. And the Roosevelt Administration did not fight in WWII, America did. America is at war. When did the Left stop being part of America?

This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America.

There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.

In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for--it is inciting to treason.

UPDATE II: Another article by the unfunny Stein that shows how he really feels about the military.

h/t: The Corner, via Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Gary at 10:15 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1276 words, total size 8 kb.

1 That's so strange...I had a different take. I listened to Dennis Prager talk about it earlier in the day, then blogged about it. I missed Hewitt because of work; but found out about him having Stein on his program. So I listened to the audio and followed the transcript. Personally, even though I agree Stein's ignorance is shameful, what I got from reading his article is this point: that the people who claim they support the troops but not their mission are wusses and liars- to others and to themselves. That's the whole point Stein was trying to make. He was just trying to be honest about it, rather than chant the Leftist lie that they support the troops, when they secretly feel otherwise, and their actions speak otherwise.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 10:33 AM (nrGCx)

2 Well, that's his story. That he's just being honest about it. It's also his rationalization for the column. But what he keeps dancing around in the interview is his utter contempt for the military in general - disingenuously grasping for nice things to say about it. This makes him a bigger wuss and a bigger liar than the people he criticizes.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 11:08 AM (QoxB+)

3 Rough week for Stein. He even made Atrios' Wanker of the Week.

Posted by: Cynical Nation at January 25, 2006 11:51 AM (vC1jc)

4 How does it make him a bigger wuss and a bigger liar? He's not lying by openly admitting to not supporting the troops! The liars are the ones who claim to support the troops, but at every turn, commit actions that speak otherwise. He's calling those "supporters" out on it. Yes he's clueless and out of touch in his views of the military. But this is missing the point of the article itself. And I also saw the comments over at Atrios. Sucks to be him when he's getting it from the left and the right.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 01:30 PM (nrGCx)

5 I'm not talking about the stated premise of Stein's column, I'm talking about the interview. Stein says he doesn't support the troops on this particular mission but when Hewitt presses him he's unable to clarify under what circumstances he does support the troops. If Stein were truly honest he would come right out and say he wouldn't support the troops under any circumstances. His own words betray him in his column when he refers to the military as "a fighting tool of American imperialism". (Another example of Stein's real feelings about the troops is in the latest update to this post). He wants to be able to say, "hey, I don't support the troops in Iraq, but it's cool because at least I'm upfront about it - not like those other phonies". He's trying to rationalize his position while hiding his true contempt for the military. He just didn't expect Hewitt to call him on it.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 02:47 PM (PLHs9)

6 Ok...let's discuss the interview, then. I think what it reveals, more than an outright hatred of the military, is that he really hasn't thought that deeply on the matter. Hugh Hewitt probed him for specifics on why the ingratitude of the military, and he sounded unprepared. He wanted to discuss the point of his article, which went right by Hugh. Hugh was fixated on the substance of his anti-troop support position. Stein sounds like he hasn't really thought along the lines that Hugh is pressing him on. Not that he is trying to lie about his position. He sounded like he was reflecting upon his own feelings on the spot; not making up lies to cover his ass. He stands by his column. And Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin are picking him apart when they should be grateful for his column. THEY missed the point. Michael Medved is on-air right now, talking about it and has my same exact position. Actually, he goes even further. Joel Stein's article is a gift for those of us on the right of this war issue.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 03:28 PM (nrGCx)

7 Both the article and the interview reveal a lot about Stein and the Liberal camp in general. It's a mindset. Theirs is still pre-9/11. They'll admit we're at war but they'll say its only because we choose to be.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 03:53 PM (PLHs9)

8 Absolutely true. The difference between Stein and the others is, the others live in denial that they in fact don't support the troops. They might care about the soldiers (I'm sure a good many don't, and think of them as baby-killers) and want them home safely; but that's different than supporting them. When Dick Durbin slanders them by comparing Guantanamo to Gulags and death camps and makes front page news on al Jazeera...that is not supporting our troops. When John Murtha says he would not join our military today...that is demoralizing and not supporting our troops. Believing the white phosphorus spin at Fallujah...that is not supporting our troops. And yet, they always say "don't question our patriotism" and "we support the troops, but not their mission".

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 10:36 PM (nrGCx)

9 Swiped a photo of him from his own website. What do you think?

Posted by: Wordsmith at January 25, 2006 11:52 PM (nrGCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Courtesy of Attorney General Gonzales:

This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance—a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence, including the interception of mail between the British and Americans.

And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime—all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves only the interception of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda or its allies.

The conflict against al Qaeda is, in fundamental respects, a war of information. We cannot build walls thick enough, fences high enough, or systems strong enough to keep our enemies out of our open and welcoming country. Instead, as the bipartisan 9/11 and WMD Commissions have urged, we must understand better who they are and what they’re doing – we have to collect more dots, if you will, before we can “connect the dots.” This program to surveil al Qaeda is a necessary weapon as we fight to detect and prevent another attack before it happens.

Well, that's what were doing. And it couldn't be simpler to understand. Which is why I hope Democrats keep attacking on this issue. And why I hope they keep screaming "impeachment". If a majority of Americans didn't support impeaching a President for lying about sex with an intern, they sure as heck aren't going to look kindly at a call for impeachment for protecting their lives. Bring it on, I say. The backlash will be so hard, LBJ will feel it.

Posted by: Gary at 04:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Hollywood is reporting that a theatrical film of the TV show is in the works.

[Rawson Marshall] Thurber, who wrote and directed the hit comedy "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," is not making a spoof but rather something akin to the tone of the show, which mixed humor and danger. The story line for the film sees Magnum, with the help of his former military pals, searching for a missing buddy.

I mean, honestly, who?

Posted by: Gary at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

"Look, I'd rather be photographed with a pair of Rosie O'Donnell's panties on my head that have to sit through that movie."

Posted by: Gary at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

But first, the 18 Senators each get 10 minutes to speak, which sets the actual vote for no earlier than 12:30pm. The 8 Democrats are taking the opportunity to lay out why they think they're justified in voting "no". Their comments are for the benefit of the Left-wing interest groups and are directed at the other Senators of their party.

But in the end, the 10 "yea" votes from the GOP Senators are the only ones that matter. And the Committee is expected to send the nomination to the full Senate. So far only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has gone on record as saying he will vote for confirmation. That's 56 at a minimum.

Whether or not more Democrats (particularly those in Red States who voted for John Roberts) will join Nelson is uncertain. They are: Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mark Pryor (AR), Bill Nelson (FL), Mary Landrieu (LA), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Kent Conrad (ND), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Robert Byrd (WV) and Jay Rockefeller (WV). That would make 66 the maximum.

So the spread right now is between 56 and 66 votes. Ill guess Alito gets no more than 61 votes, probably fewer than that.

UPDATE: Chuck Schumer really is a slimy, reprehensible sumbitch.

UPDATE II: The vote is done. 10-8 in favor. Now on to the full Senate.

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

I was reading through the returns of Canada's Parliamentary election last night. I didn't realize just how many political parties they have. Of course, most of them didn't win a single seat but they must each have enough support to get on the ballot. Not surprisingly, they have a Green party, a Libertarian party and an Independent party. So does the U.S.

But they also have Communists, Marxist-Leninists, a PC party (is that for "politically correct"?) and even a Marijuana party. Now you'd think these particular groups would pool their resources and band together, being as they have so much in common. That's what they've done here in the States.

They call themselves Democrats.

Posted by: Gary at 07:35 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

There is a detectable giddiness among Conservative Canadian bloggers today as they head to the polls to strip the Grits from power. And I'll second Ottawa Core's compliment of the uber-saucy North American Patriot! Good luck, folks!

Could an actual Tory majority be in the works? It's a long shot, but I'd love to see that if for no other reason than to see Michael Moore cry.

Tune in to Captain's Quarters for live returns.

UPDATE: Projections indicate a minority Tory government. BQ has made some gains as well. Conservatives didn't fair as well as expected in the Eastern Maritime provinces but a minority win is what was predicted by most. Post-mortems should follow tomorrow.

Posted by: Gary at 03:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Aw...Shucks, Gary. A couple more days of this shameless flattery, and I'll be compleely intolerable I too, would like to see Michael Moore cry...but I was hoping to accomplish this with a swift boot to the jewels. Hmmm...lemme think...nope. I like my idea much better! Wish us luck, Peaches.

Posted by: Wonder Woman at January 23, 2006 03:52 PM (Zr+vT)

2 You know, I'm very thankful we do not have a parliamentary system. What a mess.

Posted by: rightwingprof at January 24, 2006 04:12 PM (hj1Wx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Return of the King, Book Six, Chapter Three is posted.

Posted by: Gary at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Phin's Blog.

Posted by: Gary at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.