No, he's not playing bass for the rock band. Republican Alan Schlesinger has got himself some gambling and ethics issues.

Hey, I'll be honest. I live in Connecticut. I'm a registered Republican. And I've never even heard of this guy. And honestly, I'd vote for Lieberman anyway.

Dems (especially the Lefties) will probably get all giddy over this, especially if Schlesinger drops out. But in reality, this is bad news for Lamont supporters. If Lieberman goes independent, the latest Quinnipiac poll puts him at 51% support over Lamont, who has 27% and Schlesinger with 9%. Schlesinger doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell as it is. But if he drops out, guess where that 9% is going to go? You guessed it. Liebs then polls 60% to Lamont's 27%. Hell, Lamont can even have all those undecideds and Lieberman wins in a landslide - with no formal ties to the Democrat party.

And every day it looks more and more like that will be the scenario. We'll know for sure in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Gary at 11:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

With less than a month to go until primary day, Sen. Joseph Lieberman has bitten the bullet and registered to run as an independent should he be defeated by Ned Lamont for the Democratic nomination.

Actually, he's gone that route one better by registering a new party: Connecticut For Lieberman. This way as long as he secures the necessary petition signatures, his "party" will appear higher up on the list in that voting machine than if he just ran as an individual.

Cynical, perhaps. Why does a guy with so much name recognition need to be higher up than, say, Waldo Whats-his-name or some other nitwit who gets on the ballot? He really doesn't. I think the key here is that if he has to pursue this avenue he can craft his campaign in a way that enhances the name recognition and attracts more independents and Republicans his way. I don't know just how many more, but hey every advantage helps.

Lamont's campaign tipped its hand a little too early when it tried to force Lieberman into a corner by looking for a pledge to back Lamont should he win the nomination. Had they kept their powder dry and waited for this exact moment, they could have pounced on the three-term Senator as being disloyal to his party and hammered that home for three plus weeks.

Even though Lamont and the LoseOn.org crowd will adopt that strategy anyway, it will probably be less effective since they've already tried it. Lieberman's internal polls must show that this tactic has done all the damage that it's going to do already. And published polls show that Lieberman would win bigger as an independent than as a Democrat anyway. If you're a registered Democrat (not affiliated with the nutroots) who has paid very little attention to this whole brouhaha, who are you more likely to be motivated to come out on election day for? A known quantity like Lieberman or some guy you've never heard of like Ned Lamont, who happens to have a (D) next to his name?

I still think Lieberman will win on August 8th. But there are so many variables here - summer vacations, low turnout, apathy - that this move is the smart one. Whether or not it will be necessary remains to be seen.

Posted by: Gary at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids? I mean, they are (or were) a country music group and country music fans have pretty much left them behind since they not only insulted the President on foreign soil in a time of war but have completely dissed their old fan base at every opportunity. Something didn't add up in my mind.

Lorie Byrd writes this morning what I had suspected about this as well as some advice for Democrat politicians:

"The new Chicks CD sold well the first couple of weeks, topping the charts. It is hard to imagine with the cover of Time Magazine, a 60 Minutes feature and an avalanche of favorable media, that the CD would not be a top seller. I recently heard Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. say he went out and bought a copy the first week.

I suspect that many who never would have paid a dime to listen to the Dixie Chicks when they were a kitschy country band, went out and purchased a copy as a political statement.

Although sales the first week put the CD at the top of the charts, compared to the previous Dixie Chicks CD, sales were down considerably. Concert ticket sales in some venues have been so slow that some shows may even be cancelled.

The example of the Dixie ChicksÂ’ rejection by many country music fans is one that carries a lesson those marketing any product would do well to heed. It easily translates from musicians and fans to politicians and voters, too. When politicians treat voters as ignorant and backward for not accepting their position on an issue, the voters are likely to go elsewhere."

UPDATE: 11:15am
Then again, if Natalie Maines can't understand the NYC subway system, how can we expect this dim bulb to understand her fans?

h/t: HotAir.com

Posted by: Gary at 09:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Guess she can't read a subway map...nor can she ask directions. I rather doubt many New Yorkers would know her by sight, so she doesn't have to worry about being mobbed!

Posted by: Pam at June 23, 2006 08:56 PM (OdalM)

2 Odd? Not at all. Most people are only fooled once. After buying the Dixie Twits CD, they realized how awful the dixie twits sound musically...hence the slump in concert ticket sales. ----------------------------------- Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids?

Posted by: Skye at June 25, 2006 10:07 AM (bZ0mc)

3 Steve Johnson of Chicago Tribune said it's proof that far more people than you would think still can't handle the idea of a strong-minded woman. I say people can handle strong-minded women. It is the dumb ones who keep on talking people cannot handle.

Posted by: Tess at June 26, 2006 02:49 AM (ZSAtj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's relentless (and fruitless) pursuit of a well-photographed "frog march" for Karl Rove fizzled (or should I say, "Fitz-led"). The primary reason - his case is bullshit, always has been. The editors of OpinionJournal.com put it plainly:

"In the end, it seems Mr. Fitzgerald was trying to trap Mr. Rove over the minor matter of his failure to remember a conversation with Time reporter Matthew Cooper. But Mr. Rove is the one who later volunteered information about the conversation to Mr. Fitzgerald, after a check of White House records reminded him of it. A perjury or obstruction accusation based on that inconsequential discrepancy would have been prosecutorial misconduct.

The Rove decision also finally discredits the accusation that there was some grand White House conspiracy to smear Mr. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has brought no charges concerning the original leak, which means there was no underlying crime. His entire case--and this entire "scandal"--has been distilled to charges of perjury and obstruction against one man, former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

And that one case comes down to nothing more than the fact that Mr. Libby's memory of conversations with three reporters differs from that of the reporters themselves. Think we're exaggerating? Here's how the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton, summarized it in a recent ruling on evidence: "The charges against the defendant are based entirely [our emphasis] upon what the defendant has said was discussed during his conversations with these news reporters."

The image of Fitzgerald as a partisan (and incompetent) hack will be reinforced in the minds of anyone who does not refer to the President as Chimpy McHitler on a regular basis. And the lump of Fitzmas coal left yesterday in the Left's stocking will morph into a dry, stale turd.

And - once again - I will giggle myself silly.

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

The unhinged Left's public enemy number one cleared of any charges in the Plame affair despite numerous fishing expeditions and repeated testimony...CHECK!

The unhinged Left looks utterly stupid having staked their future on this bullshit investigation that isn't...CHECK!

A big old lump of coal in the unhinged Left's Fitzmas stocking and a nice big flaming bag of poo on their doorstep...CHECK and MATE!

Nice try, moonbats!

Time to focus all of Rove's mojo on the November elections...free of distractions.

"Now, witness the firepower of this fully-armed and operational battle station!!!"

DNC Chair Howard Dean, the King Of Reynolds Wrap himself, took it in stride this morning:

"...this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America..."

Posted by: Gary at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (aka Kos) is now 0-20 for candidates he and his band of Lefty nutcases have backed thanks to Brian Bilbray's win in the CA-50 Congressional race yesterday. Moonbats are still consoling themselves with the fact that the margin was only 4.5%. That's all well and good but the fact remains that Democrat candidate Francine Busby still LOST.

The folks at RedState put into context what this really means as a precursor to the Fall elections:

"Let's do a recap, shall we? Bush's approval numbers are in the 30s. These "generic Congressional ballot" numbers that we see trumpeted give Democrats wide double-digit leads. And here's the most important part:

The Democrats are running this fall on a "culture of corruption" strategy. This special election was to replace a guy who's currently sitting in jail, who had a BRIBE MENU for goodness' sake. Early in the night, the NBC affiliate in San Diego showed a clip of Busby with her supporters, and in a statement that was (apparently) in response to a question about a hypothetical situation in which she would achieve victory the way it is defined everywhere but the left side of the blogosphere, she said, "Anyone who writes this off as 'This is just because of Cunningham' is wrong." I thought to myself then, yeah, but what does it mean if she loses? Right now, the only question I have about the "culture of corruption" strategy is whether we can convince the Donks to keep it.

After all, another string of victories like this would apparently suit both sides just fine."

UPDATE: 3:10pm
Bob Novak weighes in:

"For all the hype and the money spent on the race between former Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) and Francine Busby (D), Busby, in her loss to Bilbray, failed to exceed significantly the percentage won here by John Kerry in 2004. This is significant, because although she will have another shot at Bilbray in November, the turnout should have favored her yesterday, since Republicans had no other races to drive their turnout and Democrats had a gubernatorial primary.

The outcome proves that even with corrupt former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham’s name fresh in the news, low turnout, a weak candidate like Bilbray and dissension within the GOP ranks (that led to negative Republican campaigning against Bilbray), Democrats cannot win here. Even here, where it should have mattered most, the “culture of corruption” mantra wasn’t enough to convince voters to pull the Democratic lever."

Posted by: Gary at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.

The National College Republicans came up with an idea to comment on the whole "global warming" scare and have a little fun in the process.

"Freeze out cataclysmic environmental scare tactics with a little humor. The Oklahoma University College Republicans gave out free snow cones to students for an event they called "Global Cooling Day."

Stage an event like this one to grab the attention of your campus and raise awareness on the real facts of the global warming phenomenon. Engage with students and debunk some of the myths and cool the hyperbole surrounding the issue.

OU CRs simultaneously used the event to promote their first meeting, sign-up members, and sell CR shirts. A tent and tables were set up at the busiest spot on campus, and OU CRs gave away nearly 1,000 snow cones each day.

Prior to your "Global Cooling Day" event, arm your College Republican chapter with solid talking points on the issue, and then kick-back and enjoy the sun. The facts are on your side...

...Consider staging a similar event on your campus--but make it a beach party instead. Kiddie pools, sand, bikinis--you get the idea."

"As more and more experts continue to confirm the harmful effects of global warming, the College Republican National Committee is urging its membership to mock the threat by throwing beach parties this summer. The College Republicans actions demonstrate the misplaced priorities and short-sightedness of the future of the Republican Party, according to the Democratic National Committee. As College Democrats continue to fight for issues that young Americans care about like an affordable college education, Republicans continue to push their out of touch agenda.

"The College Republicans' beach parties mocking global warming are just another example of the misplaced priorities and short- sightedness of the Republican Party," said College Democrats of America President Grant Woodard. "The College Republicans' ignorance toward the seriousness of global warming and climate change shows a Party more focused on partying than talking seriously about the issues facing young people across America. While College Republicans party on this summer, College Democrats will be knocking on doors, working to get Democrats elected nationwide. With young leadership like this, Republicans should prepare to get burned in the upcoming elections."

Who do you think will have the edge in influencing the youth vote? Hmmm.

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Peggy Noonan writes this morning in her WSJ column about a minor movement aimed at the 2008 Presidential Election. There's a new party a-brewin': Unity '08. The idea is that some moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are trying to create a fusion ticket for President.

Noonan laments the current polarization of U.S. politics and bitter rancor that passes for the current level of partisanship. Could we be seeing the seismic shift in party affiliation that has failed so many times in the past, she wonders?

I'm inclined to think...nah. more...

Posted by: Gary at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

Tony Snow, that is.

Before he even takes the podium for the first time as official White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow shot off a round of emails to his prey the WH Press Pool criticizing the major networks for the way they've distorted their coverage of the President.

“The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,” blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office.

Minutes earlier, another e-mail blasted CBS News, which has had an unusually rocky relationship with the White House since 2004, when CBS aired what turned out to be forged documents in a failed effort to question the presidentÂ’s military service.

“CBS News misleadingly reports that only 8 million seniors have signed up for Medicare prescription drug coverage,” Wednesday’s missive said. “But 37 million seniors have coverage.” On Tuesday, the White House railed against “USA Today’s misleading Medicare story.”

“USA Today claims ‘poor, often minority’ Medicare beneficiaries are not enrolling in Medicare drug coverage,” the press office complained. “But by April, more than 70 percent of eligible African Americans, more than 70 percent of eligible Hispanics, and more than 75 percent of eligible Asian Americans are enrolled or have retiree drug coverage.”

The Drive-By Media are on notice: Like the infamous Howard Beale in the movie, "Network", Snow (as the voice of the President) is mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore!

I absolutely cannot wait for Snow's first press conference. This is going to be soooooooo good. Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Announcement just came in.

Well, we need a replacement who'll go in and purge the agency of Clinton-toady leakers. And I have a suggestion: more...

Posted by: Gary at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

The editors at National Review Online cheer the Tony Snow appointment as WH Press Secretary. And they give Conservatives another reason to be up about this move by the White House:

"As former editorial editor of the Detroit News and the Washington Times, he is well versed in policy and understands his fellow conservatives. He wouldn't have been blindsided by the outcry against Harriet Miers or the Hill revolt over the Dubai ports deal. He shares conservatives' frustration with expansions in the government's size and scope. And he will bring important perspective to Bush aides, who at times appear out of touch with their supporters' sentiments, and have been unable to tell which criticisms of the president would have resonance and which wouldn't."

Posted by: Gary at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

UPDATE: 4/26/06 9:00am
It's all over but the official announcement, which comes this morning. Tony Snow is in as WH Press Secretary. This going to be fun.

Captain Ed makes an interesting observation:

"As other bloggers on the left have made clear, Tony has had his differences with this administration over the past five years. (Who hasn't?) Tony may have wanted to make sure that the next three years would bring policy efforts for which he could have great enthusiasm. I doubt Tony would have given up his lucrative positions at Fox and in syndication in order to represent policies in which he did not believe. His hiring may not have explicit policy implications, but it hints at some possible shifts."

It's looking more and more like this is going to happen. But then the story is from CNN, so you never know.

Here's my two cents (that nobody asked for). Generally, the White House Press Secretary is responsible for releasing information authorized by the Oval Office and to field questions from reporters. Now, having Tony Snow be that person may reinforce the idea to those on the Left that FoxNews belongs to the Bushies. Mark at Decision '08 has this exact reservation. Of course, that's unfair. Snow is a political analyst for FoxNews who makes no secret of his personal philosophy nor should he in his current capacity. He's supposed to offer opinion and take sides. If only the Liberal political commentators on cable news would be so honest.

But the bottom line is: who cares? Would the Left view ANY choice for this post as a "good choice"? I think not. They don't play nice. They don't think that they have to.

More and more, Liberal reporters are using press conferences to grandstand and couch their questions in such ridiculous ways. How many times has Scott McClellan had to deal with a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question? And reporters like NBC's David Gregory won't accept answers that they don't like. Don't even get me started on Helen Thomas. White House press conferences have been a joke lately; simply opportunities for reporters to try to score points against the Administration and make unsubstantiate insinuations. Rush Limbaugh hasn't dubbed them the "drive-by media" for nothing.

Well, Tony Snow is not going to stand for that crap. He'll be composed. He'll be polite. He'll be professional.

But he also know how to make these assclowns look stupid when they ask stupid questions. If this pans out, I look forward to seeing clips from these press conferences instead of wincing while the White House Press Corps plays "beat up on the fat kid".

I think the Administration is finally learning that they can't win with these people. It's important to be civil but it's time they went on the offense.

Posted by: Gary at 10:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

Compared to, oh, 4,700 who don't. BrainShavings has a great graphic that puts this into a nice visual perspective.

Go check it out.

Posted by: Gary at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

The FEC has just ruled that it won't regulate politics on the internet.

In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person's Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

Posted by: Gary at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Blog Bud Rick Calvert at The Real Ugly American scored an interview with Weekly Standard co-editor and FoxNews' co-"Beltway Boy" Fred Barnes to talk about his new book, "Rebel-In-Chief".

I myself just finished the book and found it to be a compelling study of the style and vision of President George W. Bush. Not surprisingly, Barnes book is a glowing assessment of this Presidency. But more importantly, he gets to the heart of why his supporters love him and why his detractors hate him - he's a rebel who came to Washington and shook up the status quo.

Kudos to Rick for an excellent job. Go read it now to read Barnes' thoughts about Bush, Politics and even Blogs!

Posted by: Gary at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

The bogus methodology of the latest ABC/Washington Post poll picked apart by BullDogPundit.

The MSM. They never learn, do they?

Posted by: Gary at 09:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Just when the angry one thought she was out of the woods in her Senate re-election bid, there is a new challenger. In the wake of Jeanine Pirro's withdrawal from the race for the NY GOP nomination, Kathleen Troia (KT) McFarland is stepping up to make sure Hillary doesn't get a free pass to another six years in the U.S. Senate.

McFarland, a foreign policy and defense expert who served in the Reagan White House, launched her website this weekend. I had seen a story on this on Friday, but I had thought it was still in the prelimary stages. Apparently, this is for real. She has a pretty impressive resume.

At the very least, this should put a crimp in Clinton's recent attempts to appear credible on National Security and Homeland Security. This is going to be interesting (and maybe even fun). I'll be watching this one closely.

Posted by: Gary at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't normally cite polls (except to debunk them) but this one, the Battleground Poll, at least provides the data and methodology to support its findings. In fact, it's actually two reports - one Republican interpretation and one Democrat interpretation. And their authors, Ed Goeas and Celinda Lake, respectively, tend to try and use the data to offer their respective parties some constructive advice.

The biggest conclusion: According to the majority of those polled, politicians in general suck.

The political environment in Washington has gotten especially toxic these days and voters - Democrats, Republicans and Independents are really getting fed up with it. Ironically, they're not especially fed up enough to vote out their own representative but their overall opinion of Washington is abysmal.

From the Republican Analysis (.pdf file):

“Can Republicans lose control of Congress? The data would suggest that under the current political environment it is possible, but does not yet lead one to believe it is probable. Republicans should take solace in the fact that the overall numbers have not changed [since five months ago] and voters view Democratic leaders as negatively as Republican leaders. If the political environment does not change, the outcome of the 2006 elections becomes increasingly a roll of the dice – dependent on how the campaign’s are run, party and interest group resources, and intensity of base voters to turn out to vote.”

“While emphasizing the need for change, Democrats need to be aware that voters do not place the blame for the corruption entirely on Republicans. In fact, many voters see this as endemic in our government, and as such, it pervades both parties. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of voters say that the blame lies with both parties equally. However, among those voters who do put the blame on one party 20 percent say it is Republicans who are the cause and just 11 percent say it is Democrats. It should be noted that those likely to lay blame with one party are stronger partisans.”

And those folks out there still crowing over the latest C-BS poll of the President's job approval rating (which has already been exposed as highly flawed), should heed what Democrat Celinda Lake has to say:

“A warning to both parties – voters have an even more negative view of Congress’ job performance than they do of the President’s (37 percent approve, 56 percent disapprove – 38 percent strongly.”

Posted by: Gary at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

This is interesting. The Hartford Courant is reporting the Congressman Chris Shays (4-CT), a Republican, intends to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman in his re-election bid.

No doubt the Democrats in opposition to Lieberman will take this opportunity to reinforce their charge that the CT Senator is really just an elephant in donkey's clothing. But keep two things in mind. First, Shays in not your standard Republican. He's a Liberal weenie. Second, Shays and his fellow Republican Rob Simmons (2-CT) may very well be using this tactic as a quid pro quo for their own re-election bid this year.

Shays and Simmons are facing tough re-election campaigns from their Democratic opponents, Diane Farrell and Joseph Courtney, respectively. Farrell, who also ran two years ago, has used the war as a cudgel against Shays, although she is supporting Lieberman.

While Simmons could benefit by running on the same ballot line with Lieberman, the congressman's campaign manager, Chris Healy, all but ruled out Simmons' signing off on such a gambit -- even though Republicans are unsure if they can convince a serious candidate to oppose Lieberman.

In any case, this is a Democrat matter. And Shays, Simmons or any other Republican should really mind their own business and focus on their own issues.

Posted by: Gary at 07:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Here we go again. CBS (the network that tried to pass phony documents about Bush in the TANG story last September) is at it again with a new poll. An "all-time low" proclaims the headline! As usual, the methodology is bogus. It's respondents are "adults" not "likely voters" meaning they could be any dope who picks up the phone but never votes and it undersamples Republicans.

I always get a kick out of the excitement this kind of thing generates among the Democrats because it always reinforces in their minds that their goofy moonbat rantings and ravings are paying dividends for their political hopes. Forget the fact that they're focusing their efforts against a guy that is running for anything anymore. Keep it up, guys!

John Hawkins at Right-Wing News puts the poll in perspective:

Of course, you could make the argument that the CBS poll is just a poll of adults and it's not meant to give people an accurate picture of how people will vote. But, if it's just a garbage poll that doesn't have any bearing on election results, why bother doing it in the first place? For political purposes, any poll that doesn't use likely voters and doesn't have a breakdown of party affiliation that's at least roughly similar to the numbers from the last election isn't very important or useful.

And here's the best part - they can gin up any poll they want and even make the case that the President's approval ratings are in negative numbers. It doesn't change the fact that he's going to be in the White House (along with his evil henchmen) for the next THREE YEARS.

And he's going to lead however he sees fit because - unlike the last President - Bush wipes his butt with these polls and then laughs about it. Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 07:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.