Kyra Phillips' Top Ten

If you hadn't heard of Kyra Phillips before this week, you probably are familiar with her now.

She's the CNN anchor and correspondent who left her microphone on when she took a bathroom break during an address by President Bush, being broadcast LIVE from New Orleans on Tuesday.

Phillips was caught with her guard down in the bathroom, chatting with another woman. She not only used a vulgarity on LIVE TV, but she announced that her sister-in-law is "just a control freak," on LIVE TV!

That little incident has turned her into a mega star (I can't back that up).

Her newfound celebrity status did make her worthy of delivering David Letterman's Top Ten List on Thursday.

Phillips is obviously making hay out of a very embarrassing situation.

Before Letterman introduced her, he explained her story and suggested that she was a victim of incompetent directors at CNN.

Phillips, wearing a black suit, came out giggling, and stood center stage.

Before getting to the list, Letterman asked her how things were at home.

Phillips said, "Peachy."

Letterman then brought up the touchy subject that she called her sister-in-law a "control freak."

Phillips replied, "Aren't we all control freaks?"

"It takes one to know one," she added.

Category: Top Ten Kyra Phillips Excuses

10. Still haven't mastered complicated on/off switch.

9. Larry King told me he does this all the time.

8. How was I supposed to know we had a reporter embedded in the bathroom

7. I honestly never knew this sort of thing was frowned upon

6. I couldn't resist a chance to win $10,000 on "America's Funniest Home Videos"

5. I was set up by those bastards at FOX News

4. Like you've never gone to the bathroom and had it broadcast on national television

3. I just wanted that hunky Lou Dobbs to notice me

2. Okay, so I was drunk and I couldn't think straight

1. You have to admit, it made the speech a lot more interesting

Poor Kyra. She's smart to make light of the matter.

In terms of her career, it was just a simple mistake. It was funny. Of course, I'm sure her sister-in-law didn't find the humor in it.

Actually, the conversation that I wish I had overheard was the one that she and her husband and his sister had after Phillips told the world what she thought of her husband's wife.

That had to be priceless.

_________________________________

The Kyra Phillips excuse that wasn't seen on Letterman--

FINALLY-- Voter Fraud Charges in Wisconsin

From WisPolitics:

Waukesha County DA Paul Bucher said he charged former Dem state Senate candidate Donovan Riley today with voting twice in the 2000 election, once in Wisconsin and once in Illinois.

Bucher, who is seeking the GOP nomination for AG, said the felony count carries a penalty of up to four years, six months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

Riley dropped out of his primary challenge of incumbent Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, last week amid Bucher's investigation into the voting allegations.

Obviously, Riley's life has taken a dramatic turn.

He dropped out of the race, but he'll still be on the ballot.

I can't wait to find out how many votes Riley will get.

The attempt by far Lefties in the 7th district to unseat Plale crashed and burned.

The best laid plans of libs and loons often go awry, especially when their candidate for state senate is a crook.


________________________________

View the Criminal Complaint.

Diversion

I thought President Bush's address to the American Legion Convention was excellent.

As usual, the lib media give Bush's speech a negative spin.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

With just over two months until Election Day, Bush said opponents of the war in Iraq who are calling for a plan to bring home troops would create a disaster in the Middle East.

No anti-Bush bias there.

Riiiiight.

"Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic but they could be — they could not be more wrong," the president said. "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies — Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban."

The president chose a friendly audience in one of America's most conservative states to begin his pre-election series of speeches defending his war strategy. The three-week campaign is tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict," Bush told thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

The President addresses the American Legion convention EVERY YEAR.

It's always a high profile event.

Note to AP reporter Nedra Pickler: The American Legion chose the site of its annual convention, booked years in advance.
See?

Reno, NV - August 24-30, 2007

Phoenix, AZ - August 22-28, 2008

Louisville, Kentucky - August 21 - 27, 2009

Milwaukee, Wisconsin - August 27 to September 2, 2010

Bush didn't "pick" Salt Lake City, in "one of America's most conservative states," to deliver his speech.

...Even in Utah — which gave Bush a wider margin of victory than any other state in the 2004 election — the president's appearance was a source of dispute. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, led thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators on a march through the city Wednesday. He called Bush a "dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president."

And the lib media loved it!

Anderson should be ashamed of himself.

He acted like the mayor of a city in Iran rather than Utah.

Anderson took office on January 3, 2000. So he was the mayor when Salt Lake City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Did he stage protests against the Chinese Olympic team, calling the Chinese human-rights-violators?

Or, did he welcome the entire world with open arms?

Hypocrite.

The White House countered by organizing a campaign-like rally at the airport for Bush's arrival Wednesday night. A couple thousand cheering supporters, who got tickets from the governor's office and the congressional delegation, stood under flood lights and cheered as Bush pledged to stay in Iraq.

The suggestion is that the White House rounded up thousands of people to pretend to support Bush, as if the enthusiasm at the rally wasn't genuine.


That's nuts. Pickler just wrote that Utah is one of America's most conservative states. Support for the President of the United States is sincere.

Duh.

The pro-Bush American Legion did not have any anti-war speakers or nationally prominent Democrats scheduled to speak at its convention, which attracted at least 12,000 veterans. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed the group earlier this week as part of the high-powered campaign to build support for the war.

Veterans support Bush. Is that a surprise?

Why would the American Legion want to hear from any prominent Dems, other than Joe Lieberman?

I would love to see John Murtha address the convention. Do you think he would have the courage to do that? I don't. I think that's outside his comfort zone.

It's so easy for Murtha to spout off when talking with like-minded Tim Russert. Accepting bouquets of flowers from CODEPINK is about all that Murtha can handle.

Think about it.

Does NARAL invite pro-life speakers to their gatherings? Do they get a spot on the roster?

Does a KKK representative speak at the NAACP convention? (Robert Byrd doesn't count.)

The convention offers speakers that interest the vets. Makes complete sense to me.

This AP article seems to be cutting on the American Legion for supporting Bush, painting it as some sort of fringe group.

That's not too cool to be anti-vet, anti-troops.

The vets understand what it means to confront an enemy. They understand the stakes. They understand how precious freedom is. They understand its cost.

The lib media don't.

Bush's address was filled with great points.

I especially liked this:

Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in Iraq. It would come as news to the number two man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, "the place for the greatest battle." It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and other countries, who have to come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy.

It's hard to believe that these terrorists would make long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting, or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad, for a so-called "diversion." Some Americans didn't support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein; many are frustrated with the level of violence. But we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century -- so we will defeat them in Iraq.

It's hard to believe that these terrorists would make long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting, or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad, for a so-called "diversion."
Counter that Dems.

Bush illustrated just how clueless they are. The differences between Republicans and Dems, when it comes to national security, are so clear.

Simply put, the Dems are not fit to wage the War on Terror. They are appeasers.

They don't understand the enemy. They don't comprehend the threat.

Bush does.

The Art of Hate

The Left's ultimate fantasy

President Bush has many enemies.

They can be divided into factions.

There's the nutcase/terrorist/madman group -- Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Mashaal.

Then there's the millions of followers of these maniacs -- Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamofascists, Palestinians and their sympathizers.

Of course, the Democrats make up another rabid anti-Bush group. The ones who call Bush "King George," serial power abuser, war criminal, shredder of the Constitution, Big Oil buddy, torturer, liar, law-breaker.

(Recognize the disgraceful EX-president Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden?)

And there's the millions of followers of these irresponsible, and in some cases subversive, Americans -- Blue America, celebrities, the glitterati, the liberal elite.

The mainstream media -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Aljazeera -- make up another powerful Bush-hating faction.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention one more faction, the radical loons on the Left -- Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, CODEPINK, Amnesty International and other so-called human rights organizations, NARAL, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and other assorted Leftist nuts.

And then we have the artistic community -- creators of expressions of positively creepy works of "art" that encourage hatred toward President Bush and promote violence against him.

Remember this "artwork"?


Al Brandtner's work titled "Patriot Act"

The latest "kill Bush" expression comes from filmmaker Gabriel Range.

From ThisisLondon:

This is the dramatic moment when President George Bush is gunned down by a sniper after a public address at a hotel, in a gripping new docudrama soon to be aired on TV.

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

I've stayed at the Sheraton in Chicago.

I wonder if it will become a mecca for pilgrims, an anti-Bush destination point, a tourist attraction.

It's possible that Bush-haters will now flock to the hotel, considering it a magical place, where dreams come true, the Left's Field of Dreams.

"If you assassinate him, we will come."

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its 'War on Terror'.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

GAG!

And who's the killer? A Swede?

Are racial profilers the villians?

Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a "thought-provoking critique" of contemporary US society.

He said: "It's an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

"It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic.

"I'm sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is.

That sounds reminiscent of how The Da Vinci Code was promoted, framing it as a "thought-provoking" mystery as opposed to an offensive piece.

"It's not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good."

HUH?

A fantasy about the assassination of the American president has no "good" behind it whatsoever.

Of course it's sensationalist, and it's simplistic.

People wish Bush dead -- simple.

Read more, from Reuters and the BBC.

Times Online reports:

Death of a President uses digital trickery, archive footage and actors to imagine the murder of President Bush and the descent into national paranoia which follows.

The feature-length drama will be screened on More4, Channel 4’s digital sister channel next month after receiving a big-screen premiere at the Toronto Film Festival.

I predict a five minute standing ovation after the premiere screening of the film, with movie mogul Al Gore screaming, "Encore."

Channel 4 hopes to sell the film to US broadcasters but Americans in London declared the film tasteless and feared it could encourage extremists in their home country.

CBS, network that originally planned to air the Ronald Reagan hit piece, would probably love to get its hands on this. So would every other US network, with the exception of FOX.

The broadcast networks can't touch it and they know it; but some cable outlet with ratings in the cellar, one with nothing to lose like MSNBC, might pick it up.

Here is a synopsis of the "artistic expression":

The film is set next autumn, when "US foreign and domestic policies have polarised the country’s electorate". Arriving in Chicago to make a speech to business leaders, the President is confronted by a large anti-war demonstration.

Unperturbed, the President goes ahead with his visit. But as he leaves he is gunned down by a sniper. While a nation mourns, the "state apparatus" turns its attention to the hunt for his killer. A Syrian-born man is identified but the truth may lie closer to home.

The assassination scene explicitly recalls the attempt on President Reagan’s life in 1981. John Hinckley fired six shots at close range as the President left the Washington Hilton hotel.

Good grief.

...[The film's director Gabriel] Range told The Times: "We studied hours and hours of footage of Bush. The scenes are created by a mixture of special effects, stock footage and digitally compositing our actors onto the archive of Bush."

Mr Range secured permits to film the murder scene on location in a Chicago hotel.

He denied charges of sensationalism. "The film is based on meticulous research and interviews with FBI agents and people on the other side of the war on terror," he said.

"It is a serious and sensitive film. There is no way it would encourage anyone to assassinate Bush and usher in Cheney’s America."

Oh no, we wouldn't want to usher in "Cheney's America," now would we?

This is BS. It really is.

I can honestly say that I would have been outraged if some nutjob made a film about the assassination of Bill Clinton when he was president. This shouldn't be a partisan thing.

I hope Dems speak out and condemn the Bush assassination film, even if they are actually eagerly awaiting its release, a guilty pleasure.

It's tasteless, not to mention potentially dangerous, to depict the assassination of a world leader. Every American should take personal offense.

I'm not advocating censorship. I do think that Range has the right to make his hateful film. The Bush-hating audience has the right to see it. Lib critics have the right to laud it, showering it with praise -- "thought-provoking," etc.

Accordingly, decent people have the right to object to such a disgusting depiction and express their condemnation.

I sincerely believe that Range considers his creation to be a serious film.

I buy that, because Range is obviously seriously deranged.

Suicide Killers

On National Review Online, Cliff May has posted portions of an interview with Pierre Rehov.

Rehov is a French documentary filmmaker. His latest work, Suicide Killers, presents his interviews with the families of suicide bombers and recruits for that duty.

He offers insight into the twisted mindset of Islamic fascists.

Some excerpts--

Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?

A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. … I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.

This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed.

They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

Even after 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, and the various foiled terror plots, I still think that many don't understand the nature of the enemy we are facing.

They are in love with death.

Killing the infidels is their calling.

How do you negotiate with that?

What can the UN do to convince them to live in peace?

Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. …

The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

This is why they're called Islamic fascists.

Many don't like that term, but that's what they are. They are driven by their radical interpretation of Islam.

And they are fascists.

The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of Fascism:

1. Often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Clearly, the term fits. We are at war with Islamic fascists.

Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?

A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. ..

Notice that Rehov's views are in direct opposition to what the liberals believe.

The libs bend over backwards to be politically correct. (No profiling! That of course means no common sense.)

They think that the suicide bombers are the byproduct of U.S. policy. We created the monsters. We have only ourselves to blame.

In short, the libs believe WE are the enemy.

They see appeasement as the solution to terrorism. They call the targets of the terrorists (citizens of Israel, the U.S., Britain) war criminals for acting in self-defense.

Rehov, on the other hand, believes that there is no appeasing these religious fundamentalists, fanatics, murderers, worshippers of death.

I see his point.
_____________________________

Read more of the interview here.

Mad as Hell

Calling Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett...

You have a problem. It's called "crime."

Your constituents are "mad as hell and [they're] not going to take this anymore!"

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

[Ald. Bob Donovan, chair of the Common Council's Public Safety Committee,] announced the beginning of his "Enough is Enough" petition drive at at the intersection of S. 28th St. and W. National Ave. Wednesday.

The petition demands that Mayor Tom Barrett, the Common Council and the Milwaukee Police Department devise and implement a comprehensive plan to combat crime.

"More citizens have died on the streets of Milwaukee in the last eight months than all of the Wisconsin soldiers killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war," said Donovan, who was flanked by about 40 residents.

That's an interesting comparison, isn't it?

"If a man named Rudy Giuliani can turn a city the size of New York around than Tom Barrett ought to be able to do it right here in Milwaukee," Donovan said.

EXACTLY.

Of course, Barrett is no Giuliani.

Still, Barrett has no excuses for being derelict in his duty. And, obviously, he has no comprehensive plan to combat crime in Milwaukee.

Will the "Enough is Enough" petition accomplish anything?

It will draw attention to the city's problems. That's good. Barrett needs to be held accountable.

The petition might even prompt Doyle to cough up some additional funding.

But if enough really is enough, Milwaukee residents should see to it that Barrett makes history by being Milwaukee's only one-term mayor since World War II.
________________________________

Read Milwaukee Police Chief Nan Hegerty's email to Bob Donovan here.

Dear Alderman Donovan:

Be careful what you ask for. We are doing the best we possibly can to address your needs as you relate them on behalf of your constitutents.

We have put an inordinate amount of resources into your Aldermantic District to address issues such as prostitution, disorderly behaviors in the Jackson Park area and quality of life issues in general. If I pull all resources from quality of life issues and dedicate them to the areas where we are experiencing the most violent crime it will cause us to stop responding to many priority 3 and 4 calls for service which are the majority of calls that your constitutents complain about.

Take it easy on the MPD at your press conference. I know you understand that we are balancing what we have to try to address all law enforcement related issues...

This is not a good response.

The Doyle Way

The Dems are always whining about President Bush's abuse of power. "Culture of Corruption" became one of their favorite descriptive phrases for the Bush administration and Republicans.

Remember Russ Feingold's goofy Internet video, the one that FactCheck.org ripped apart?

Sen. Russ Feingold's leadership PAC sponsored an Internet video making an unfounded suggestion that President Bush is being urged to eavesdrop "on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with [him] - court order or not."

A Feingold spokesman says the ad is a parody. Funny or not, it makes an accusation for which there's no evidence.

Feingold himself says in the video that "our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power in 200 years." We think he's forgetting such things as FDR's forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in World War II, and Lincoln's summary jailings of Confederate sympathizers.

How lame!

Then there was this from Hillary Clinton:

Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.

Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.

And from Harry Reid:

“I am deeply concerned to learn that the White House has once again put its partisan agenda ahead of the needs of the American people. By repeatedly editing government documents on global warming to cater to the special interests, the Bush administration has once again shown that it will abuse its power by any means necessary.

“What concerns me most is the pattern of behavior this incident points to... .

“It is time for the Republicans and the President to stop their abuse of power and focus on the needs of American people. Democrats believe it is time to cleanse Washington and restore the commonsense center to fight for the priorities of American families.”

I could go on and on and on... .

It's nauseating, and this is just a tiny sampling of the libs' insanity.

The Dem mantra, led by mad Dr. Dean, has been "Culture of Corruption" and "abuse of power" since Bush started his second term. That has been their message. It's all negativity, always on the attack. The Dems have nothing positive to offer the American people. They want power back at any price.

Similarly, Governor Jim Doyle will pay any price to get reelected. He's another shameless Dem who's willing to lie and cheat and virtually sell his soul for political power.

If you want to find REAL CORRUPTION, if you want to witness power being abused, then look at Wisconsin state government under Jim Doyle.

The corruption and dirty tactics are everywhere.

On Wednesday, the ugliness got uglier.

Brookfield -- The state Elections Board on Wednesday told Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Green to return $467,844 in donations from political action committees not registered in Wisconsin - money Green had transferred from his federal campaign fund in 2005.

On several 5-2 votes, the board upheld a complaint from the non-profit Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which said Green's transfer of cash from his federal fund to a state fund violated a rule the board adopted last year.

Four Democrats on the board were joined by a Libertarian in voting against Green. Two Republicans on the board sided with Green.

"This is really a victory for voters," said Mike Buelow, research director for the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. He said the decision paves the way for giving the public a better understanding of who is contributing to Wisconsin candidates.

Right. "A better understanding of who is contributing to Wisconsin candidates." That makes me gag.

And are voters getting a better understanding of how Doyle awards contracts?

Are voters getting a better understanding of Doyle's tactics to get campaign contributions?

That understanding would be a victory for voters. It would be a victory for clean government.

..."Today's decision is emblematic of the corruption that has invaded state government under Jim Doyle," Green campaign manager Mark Graul said in a statement.

Although there were predictions that the fight will end up in court, Graul told a reporter that he did not expect to ask a judge to set aside Wednesday's orders.

Instead, Graul said, the Green campaign will tell the Elections Board the $467,844 has already been spent.

Elections Board Executive Director Kevin Kennedy said that response won't fly.

"Part of the penalty is, you shouldn't have accepted it, you've got to give it back," Kennedy said.

If no one blinks, this may have to be settled in court.

Graul said the Elections Board has allowed candidates for state and federal office to move donations between state and federal campaign accounts for 28 years, and the Green campaign simply followed those precedents.

As usual, precedent only matters to Dems when they're talking about Roe v. Wade.

Wednesday's board decisions were "orchestrated" by Doyle and his aides, Graul said.

"That decision was made before those folks walked into that room today," Graul said, referring to votes by the four Democratic appointees.

...[Sherwin Hughes, Doyle's designee on the board,] called the votes "bipartisan," since the four Democrats were joined by Libertarian Party designee Jacob Burns.

What a really stupid comment! A Libertarian voting with the Dems is hardly bipartisan.

...Burns said no one from the Democratic Party or any Doyle aide had met with him or tried to influence his votes.

Two other appointees of Democratic Party leaders on the board, Carl Holborn and Kerry Dwyer, declined to comment.

That's strange, REALLY strange.

Why would they decline to comment?

It's a very straight forward question. Were you told how to vote or not? Yes or no?

Based on past patterns of the Doyle administration's behavior, you have to wonder what sort of promises or favors Holborn and Dwyer received for their votes.

...The board votes reversed a 2001 decision that allowed Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who was then a member of the House running for governor, to convert about $327,000 from his federal fund to his state account to help finance his campaign for governor.

A complaint over Barrett's transfer of the money came from the campaign of Doyle, the then-attorney general who won the election. The Elections Board dismissed the complaint in 2001.

Ah, yes. Tom Barrett.

Read about his gubernatorial campaign finances here.


Barrett, circa 2001

Last week, the board's legal counsel had recommended that the Green transfer be allowed because of transfers allowed since the 1990s. The governor's race is expected to be the most expensive in state history, with Doyle expected to spend up to $12 million.

The board voted against the advice of its own counsel!

How can one not conclude that politics were at play?

...Rick Wiley, executive director of the state Republican Party, called the Elections Board's actions a partisan move.

"The fact that they have singled out Mark Green and not demanded that Tom Barrett return his cash shows how vindictive Doyle's appointees to the Elections Board (have) become," he said in a statement.

Joe Wineke, chairman of the state Democratic Party, decried the assessments by Republicans, noting that the two GOP board members who voted sided with Green. He said Doyle's supporters did not predetermine the outcome.

Wineke said the Democratic Party would take the matter to court if Green did not pay up and prosecutors did not act.

"We're not going to sit here and let Mark Green violate the law," he said.

Again, GAG! Double gag!

Mark Green responded with this statement:

Defying the advice of its own attorney and 25 years of precedents, the Wisconsin State Elections Board voted Wednesday to retroactively change it's rules governing the transfer of federal campaign funds to a state accounts. In response to the Board's decision, Mark Graul, campaign manager for gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, issued the following statement:

"Today's decision is emblematic of the corruption that has invaded state government under Jim Doyle. Under Jim Doyle government decisions are made to benefit his campaign interests - while the taxpayers get the short end of the stick.

"Jim Doyle's allies on the State Election Board defied their own attorney's legal advice, state law and basic principles of fairness in their effort to help the struggling campaign of Governor Doyle. The Election's Board action is literally trying to change 25 years of rules two months before Election Day - to affect only Mark Green.

"Mark's campaign will continue to abide by state law and the State Elections Board's rules - as we have from the start of this campaign. On November 7th, voters will have the opportunity to reject Jim Doyle's corrupt brand of politics in favor of Mark Green's hopeful vision for a brighter future for our state."

That's a great statement.

It highlights the character of Jim Doyle and his minions. Lack of character would be more accurate.

There's no question that the board's decision was pure politics. The question is: How much did Doyle pay to get it?

It's time to reject Doyle's dirty government.

COURIC IS A LIGHTWEIGHT

From frumpy to FABulous!

To use an astronomical analogy, CBS determined that its new star Katie Couric was a "red giant."

Fearing the red giant would burst in a supernova explosion, the powers that be decided it would be in the network's best interests to present Couric as slimmer and trimmer and brighter.
From Don Kaplan, in The New York Post:

Talk about a miracle diet - Katie Couric has become the Incredible Shrinking Anchorwoman.

Thanks to a computer "slight" of hand, the Tiffany network has made the new face of "CBS Evening News" instantly drop about 20 pounds.

It looks more like a 25-30 pound drop to me.

In a picture widely distributed to the media last month, a normal-looking Couric wore a frumpy light gray suit and her trademark smile.

But thanks to Photoshop, the popular editing software, the same photo, printed in a CBS magazine, shows her looking much, much thinner - and her suit has become a few shades darker.

Couric, who was made aware of the picture's alteration yesterday, joked that she liked the original better.

"There's more of me to love," she quipped.

See, those are the kind of quips that turned me away from Couric and Today years ago.

I've never looked back.

The picture was taken in May when Couric, 49, appeared at the CBS "Upfront" presentation at Carnegie Hall.

It was later widely distributed by CBS as an official photo of its new $15 million-a-year anchor- woman.

Then the computer generated version appeared in the latest quarterly edition of Watch!

It's produced and edited by the CBS press department and distributed to network employees, news-media outlets, affiliates, network gift shops and Paramount-owned theme parks.

Network officials say the magazine has a circulation of around 400,000.

"The picture was retouched without the knowledge of Ms. Couric or CBS News management," a CBS spokesman said.

As far as the magazine goes, an insider insisted the publication was just following normal industry practice when it shrunk Couric.

I think it's worth noting that "normal industry practice" has had a part in creating generations of girls and young women with eating disorders and body image issues.

He claimed that just about all magazines tinker with photos - even though some top photographers and photo editors at news organizations have lost their jobs in recent times for doing just that.

Most media experts say that whenever a photo is altered in any way, the public should be alerted, although it's more of a problem if it occurs at newsmagazines rather than a magazine a company publishes about itself.

Retouching a celebrity's photo cannot be compared with the alteration of news photos.

I assume that everything about the people we see on TV and in movies is carefully packaged and primped and fake. They're vain. Illusion is what they sell. So what else is new?

News photos, on the other hand, cannot be transformed. Tampering with them is tampering with the truth.

Because Couric is CBS' new anchor for its evening news, there are some issues that come into play in this photoshop makeover that distinguishes it from the typical celebrity redo.

Is Couric part of CBS' entertainment division or the news division? Is there a difference? Is CBS News infotainment?

CBS appears to be focusing more on Couric's weight physically than her intellectual weight in terms of credibility as a journalist.

Doesn't Couric need to lend gravitas to the CBS Evening News???

Like Uncle Walter before her, shouldn't viewers be turning to Aunt Katie?

Would CBS have given a man the same extreme makeover?

Do you think so? I don't.

CBS allowed Dan Rather to go with that creepy buzzcut. The network obviously didn't care what he looked like. Not surprising considering that it didn't care what he said.

And what about Bob Schieffer? He's not exactly prime beefcake.

And what about Mike Wallace or Morley Safer?

Do you think CBS would let a woman pushing 90-years-old stick around? I don't.

It's hard not to conclude that CBS gave Couric the photoshop treatment because she's a woman.

So much has been made of Couric making history as the first solo female anchor of a network news broadcast. By altering her image, the message is sent that a woman's worth is dependent on the physical attractiveness of her body rather than the quality of her mind.

CBS claims to be a pioneer, taking a step forward in the empowerment of women, when in reality, the network has just taken women on a giant leap backward.

I think the altered image of Couric is the clearest indication yet that CBS is changing the way it presents news.

CBS has abandoned the Edward R. Murrow, hard-boiled tough guy heavyweights for a lightweight Couric.

The Couric photoshop job is a metaphor for what's happening to CBS News.

Of course, we've known for years that CBS is a propaganda arm for the Left. Now, the network has dropped the pretense that its news division is a serious, credible outlet. The charade is over.

CBS News has been Oprahfied.

The Wisconsin Club

Making the rounds of some Wisconsin sites, I came across two posts that started me thinking about the state of the Wisconsin Blogosphere.

Apparently, it includes a rather close-knit community.

Aaron says:

I haven't found another blog community that functions the way we do. There's something special about Wisconsin blogging.

Chris says:

I believe at the moment the Wisconsin Blogosphere community is different than blogging in most of the country. We actually have a community that does not only exist online but in the physical world. We do things together we have picnics and blog summits and Xmas parties. We drink Right and We drink Liberally, we drink at the State Fair, we meet for lunch. We are known to meet to watch a football or baseball game at one another’s house. I do believe you see a bit more of this on the right but having the BBA as our Town square/Town meeting hall makes it easier for us than the people on the other side of the aisle.

We actually know a lot about each other, many of us actually could pick other bloggers out of a line up because we have met them in person usually more than once.

...I have yet to see a blogging community that is as close as Wisconsin's, The NYC bloggers come close but I don’t think they reach the Potluck dinner feeling that Wisconsin blogging has. There always seems to be room at the table for any and all late arriving guests too. Think how many new blogs have joined our community in the last 6 months?

I don't know.

I'm not familiar with the blogging communities of other states. Actually, I don't feel that I'm all that familiar with the blogging community of my own state. (By the way, I'm from Wisconsin.)

It's too big, too diverse to make generalizations that have anything resembling validity.

The Internet connects Wisconsinites with varied interests -- politics, sports, music, schools, etc.

And let's not forget other interests, like illicit drugs, neo-Nazism, and porn, to name just a few.

I'm not familiar with it, but it's certainly possible that the Wisconsin blogosphere has an active red light district.

Who knows? The Wisconsin blogosphere may be even more "special" than some of us have imagined.

I do know from personal experience that online communities can become very close. Participants/friends can seem as real as individuals sitting in the same room.

I think it's great that Wisconsinites have found each other via the Internet and become friends, and socialize in person. It's wonderful that these people have a real sense of community.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not taking a swipe at this group of friends from Wisconsin. To the contrary, I'm highlighting the power that the Internet has to connect people. It's testament to the networking that takes place and the positives that come from it.

The purpose of this post is merely to point out that the Wisconsin blogosphere is a very Big Tent.

So don't feel bad if you haven't been at the picnics.

The Inconvenience of Ernesto

Ernesto is no Katrina.

From The Palm Beach Post:

Despite a weakening Tropical Storm Ernesto, whose sustained winds range from 25 to 30 mph, forecasters warned that gusts as high as 51 mph and downpours likely will snap limbs, reduce visibility and endanger drivers and pedestrians. At the Lake Worth Pier, a 45 mile per hour gust was recorded at 7:17 a.m.; the National Hurricane Center meteorologists also received an unofficial report of a 51 mph gust in Boca Raton at 8:20 a.m.. Palm Beach International Airport recorded a 40 mph gust at 9:51 a.m.

Those wind gusts don't even make "severe thunderstorm" status.

"It hasn't been a totally quiet storm," said National Weather Service meteorologist Rob Molleda. He noted that as of 10 a.m., Florida Power and Light had 7,652 customers without power. Crews will work to restore power as long as Ernesto's winds remain below a sustained 35 mph.

It's horrible to be without power. I'm not diminishing the hardships that causes. However, a squirrel gnawing a wire on a sunny day can cause more power outages than Ernesto did in Florida.

Ernesto also contributed to at least one traffic fatality, due to wet road conditions, Molleda said.

Sadly, traffic fatalities occur daily, even in the best driving conditions.

...The weak and relatively dry storm caused no damage or flooding in Palm Beach County, Assistant County Administrator Vince Bonvento said this morning.

"It just died out," Bonvento said. "Fortunately, I guess, it just never materialized. It just started breaking up a lot quicker then they anticipated when it hit the land mass, which is good for us. We'll just use this opportunity as another learning exercise."

..."Wind-wise, it's a non-event for Palm Beach County," said meteorologist Eric Swartz. "Don't look for sustained tropical force winds pretty much anywhere," he said.

But localized rainfall of 3-4 inches in some low-lying areas of the county could still cause flooding, Swartz said.

...The heaviest rainfall documented so far was along southwest Florida, with most falling off shore. According to SFWMD estimates, about 2 inches had fallen in the Everglades National Park in a 24-hour period ending at 6:30 a.m., making it the hardest hit area by Wednesday morning. Areas of Miami-Dade saw a half inch to one-and-a-half inches in the same period.

Thankfully, Ernesto really fizzled out.

It's not good news for Al Gores's An Inconvenient Truth. A hurricane season packed with monster storms would help advance the agenda of the global warming "sky is falling" alarmists, not to mention interest in his movie.

I'm reminded of environmentalist wacko Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s intitial response to Katrina.

From one year ago--
__________________________________

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. displayed a disturbing lack of judgment when he chose to blame Hurricane Katrina on President Bush and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. He marginalizes himself by making such ridiculous accusations.

Being the radical environmental extremist that he is, Kennedy doesn't hesitate to attack his political foes, even as the extent of the devastation from Katrina is still being calculated.

He didn't have the decency to wait for the dead to be counted.

He writes:

On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

The science is NOT clear, AT ALL.

I would like him to explain the connection between human-induced global warming and monster storms of the past. If the global warming he blames on Bush and Barbour caused Katrina, what caused monster Hurricane Camille?

Camille hit thirty-six years ago.

Strongest hurricanes that struck the United States, measured by central pressure readings

1. Florida Keys, 1935, 892 millibars, 26.35 inches

2. Camille, 1969, 909 millibars, 26.84 inches

3. Andrew, 1992, 922 millibars, 27.23 inches

4. Florida Keys and Texas, 1919, 927 millibars, 27.37 inches

5. Lake Okeechobee, 1928, 929 millibars, 27.43 inches

6. Donna, 1960, 930 millibars, 27.46 inches

7. Galveston, 1900, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches

7. Grand Isle, 1909, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches

7. New Orleans, 1915, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches

7. Carla, 1961, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches

A quick glance at the strongest hurricanes to hit the U.S. debunks Kennedy's theory. The science supporting a relationship between human-induced global warming and destructive hurricanes is murky at best.

For example:

1997 was an unusually quiet year in the tropics, one that crossed up forecasters and was a welcome relief from the ferocious 1995 and 1996 seasons.

The year's meager totals -- seven named storms, three hurricanes, one major hurricane with winds of more than 110 mph -- fell well below the seasonal average of 10 storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes.

Only one storm made landfall in the United States this year. For the first time since 1961, no storms formed in August. And only one storm developed during August and September, the traditional peak of hurricane activity. The last time that happened was 1929.

_________________________________

Forecasters were wrong about 1997. They predicted a rough hurricane season, but it didn't happen. It's still early, but so far, 2006 hasn't lived up to the dire warnings of forecasters either.

Kennedy concluded his 2005 rant with this:

Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

How dramatic and WRONG!

In sum, it was a thoroughly classless move for Kennedy to blame President Bush and Governor Barbour for Katrina.

It was a thoroughly clueless move for Kennedy to equate "climate chaos" with "our destructive addiction" to oil.

The Drunken Driving Debate

"You suck" didn't make its way into a debate between Republican attorney general candidates during their debate sponsored by the Milwaukee Bar Association on Tuesday.

We're making progress!

Some substantive differences between the candidates did emerge.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Bucher, the Waukesha County district attorney, called for the state to take a harder stance on impaired drivers, saying he favored criminalizing first-time offenses. The candidates appeared at a forum in Milwaukee sponsored by the Milwaukee Bar Association.

Bucher called drunken drivers "a menace" and said there needs to be a change in the public attitude about the seriousness of the issue. Criminalizing first-offense drunken driving, however, wouldn't necessarily mean incarceration and adding stress to already crowded jails, he said.

Van Hollen, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, didn't directly respond during the formal session. But afterward, Van Hollen said he opposes criminalizing first-time drunken driving. His emphasis would be on repeat drunken drivers and more serious criminal offenders, he said.

Van Hollen also said he opposed legalizing highway sobriety checkpoints, another drunken driving change Bucher favors.

Such checkpoints area "a big government tool that takes away the presumption of innocence," Van Hollen said. The Wisconsin Tavern League has endorsed Van Hollen.

Bucher wins this issue.

Drunken driving can have deadly consequences. I agree with Bucher that the public needs to recognize that getting behind the wheel while impaired is an extremely serious matter.


Punishment should reflect that.

I see no reason to go easy on drunk drivers. What's the up side?

Only apologists for driving under the influence want to give first-time offenders a pass. I think many of them are in a preemptive CYA mode. That "There but for the grace of God go I" attitude can get someone killed.

In all likelihood, the first time someone is stopped for driving drunk is not the first time the individual has been in that condition while operating a car.

Moreover, a first-time offender is no less likely to injure or kill someone than a repeat offender.

The danger posed to the public is the same.

I like Bucher's "get tough" approach on this. Why give people a pass the first time?

Do people get a pass when committing their first rape or first murder?

When the public's safety is the issue and lives are literally on the line, there's no room to be lenient.

As far as sobriety checkpoints go, I don't think Van Hollen's argument that they take away the presumption of innocence stands up as a reason to oppose them.

Don't airport searches take away the presumption of innocence?

Searches at sporting events and concerts and Summerfest also take away the presumption of innocence.

You can't get into a courthouse without a search.

How is a sobriety checkpoint any different than all of those instances?

The searches are done to ensure the public's safety. I don't want a drunk driver putting my family at risk in the name of "presumed innocence."

Who's more innocent?

The person killed by a drunk driver or the first-time offender that plowed into that person's car?

Debate This

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has thrown down the gauntlet. He has challenged President Bush to a debate, a verbal sparring match to be televised live.

I guess Ahmadinejad felt upstaged by the Hurricane Katrina anniversary celebration. He needed to do something dramatic to get some headlines.

He succeeded.

From The New York Times:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meant to use Tuesday to focus attention on his challenge to the president of the United States: a face-off in a live televised debate.

But at a freewheeling two-hour news conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad also found himself challenged by local reporters who questioned the government’s economic program and its tolerance of a critical press.

The marathon question-and-answer session offered a window into one of the many contradictions of Iranian politics and governance: even as the government grows more authoritarian, it is openly criticized and challenged on its performance.

This was Mr. Ahmadinejad’s fourth news conference since taking office a year ago, and it came just three days before a deadline set by the United Nations Security Council for Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

The president used the opportunity to continue Iran’s defiant posture toward the West — the United States and Britain in particular. He made it clear that Iran would not meet the deadline and that it would risk sanctions.

It is an interesting contradiction. Not all of the Iranian people are willing to go along with the madman Ahmadinejad's plan for the country and its role in the world.

Ahmadinejad has to walk a fine line.

He wants to be the little Hitler, but he can't push too far and alienate the people.

“I announce that I am fully prepared to debate world and international issues with George Bush in a televised debate,” he said in his prepared remarks. “Of course, only under the conditions that this debate is broadcast live and without censors, especially for the nation of U.S.”

Personally, I would love to see a debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad.

Mike Wallace could be the moderator. Or Dan Rather -- he'd be great.

It would make for fascinating TV.

The debates that Bush had with Gore and Kerry, losers in 2000 and 2004, had their entertaining moments. Gore's sighing in the first debate and the way he threateningly approached Bush in the third one are memorable moments in American politics. Kerry's goofy "global test" remark is another.

I think Bush would be great with the Iranian president.

I suppose Ahmadinejad has studied the tapes of Bush's debates with Gore and Kerry. He probably is even more pompous than they are, and is confident that he could easily beat Bush going head to head.

Bush, though not slick or a wonk, can be quick. He cuts to the chase. Ahmadinejad is probably underestimating Bush and overestimating his own abilities, just as Gore and Kerry did.

Contrary to popular lib belief, Bush is not an idiot. Let's be honest. Some of the supposedly brilliant Dems are dolts.

Although the White House immediately dismissed the challenge as a diversion, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks appeared intended to further three objectives: to position Iran as taking the moral high ground by making the United States look like the party unwilling to talk; to drive a wedge between the United States and Britain on one side and France and Germany on the other; and to reiterate Iran’s determined refusal to give up its enrichment program.

Simply put, Ahmadinejad didn't meet his three objectives.

And of course it was a diversion.

...The news conference veered off into an unruly question-and-answer session, with reporters praising the president, questioning him and some jumping from their seats demanding that their questions be taken. The president politely admonished one reporter, saying he needed to behave better.

One reporter said he had no question but wanted to recite poetry.

A reporter for a small newspaper called The Path of the People stood to ask a question and said: “I was hoping when you arrived I would share my pain with you. Now I have no pain in my heart, only happiness.”

It sounds like a bizarre scene; but when you think about it, it's no stranger than White House press conferences.

Bush has to keep the unruly reporters in line.

And Helen Thomas' recitations, though hardly poetic, are odd little speeches. Often, she behaves like a drunken heckler at a Comedy Club.

Many in the White House press corps like to share their pain. However, I don't think that they are tranformed to a state of bliss in the course of a press conference; but they do make it personal. David Gregory is a case in point.

But as the conference continued, Mr. Ahmadinejad found himself challenged on several issues of local importance, most focusing on the economy or on efforts to silence criticism of his government in the press.

One reporter said the government’s decision to spend billions of dollars to subsidize gasoline amounted to welfare for the rich, an assertion the president disputed. Another said that although the president claimed to support the press, his spokesman sought to have the judiciary investigate critical reporters.

“This contradicts what you said,” the reporter said into the microphone as Mr. Ahmadinejad listened. The same reporter said the president’s interior minister had denied permits to 14 groups wanting to hold demonstrations.

The president responded quickly, dismissing the complaints, and he tried to move on. But the challenges kept coming — not one after the other, but more consistently as the confidence in the room seemed to grow.

I give credit to the Iranian press for not letting Ahmadinejad exploit them.

The president, in his now trademark cream-colored suit and open collar with no tie, entered the packed conference hall from a side door. He climbed up onto a platform and briefly held his right hand over his head in a sort of hero’s greeting to the crowd.

He smiled through much of the conference, joked with questioners, and bobbed and weaved around many questions. He avoided answering directly when asked if Iran would be willing to take steps to prove that it was not after a nuclear weapons program, or if it would be willing to have face-to-face talks with the United States.

Ahamdinejad went into his 60 Minutes persona -- smiling and joking.

Charming!

But Mr. Ahmadinejad did give some insight into sometimes ambiguous meaning of some of his statements. On Saturday the president said, “We are not a threat for any country, even the Zionist regime that is the enemy of the countries in the region.”

A reporter asked if that represented a change in position from his earlier call for Israel to be removed from the region. He replied by saying that swatting a baby’s hand to stop it from putting its fingers in a fire is not a threat.

“We are a peaceful country,” he said, “but recognize legitimate defense as our legal right.”

Ahmadinejad reminds me of Bill Clinton.

He just lies when it becomes necessary. I think he eventually believes his own lies.

...On the topic of debating his American counterpart, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s objective seemed as clear as when he sent Mr. Bush a letter last spring asking him to re-examine his foreign policies in the light of his Christian values.

During his interview with Ahmadinejad, Mike Wallace read those portions of that lame long letter, giving the impression that it was a rational communication.

It wasn't.

While the White House dismissed the letter, and many of Iran’s own intellectuals scoffed at it, the Iranian president won points among his growing legion of followers in the region. Political analysts said he was hoping for the same response with the debate proposal.

It's funny that The Times talks about "his growing legion of followers in the region" right after the case is made that Ahmadinejad is challenged and clearly has a large band of feisty detractors.

“He is saying we want to talk, but Bush is refusing,” said Mustafa el-Labbad, an expert in Iranian affairs based in Cairo. “He wants to embarrass him by saying, ‘We are willing to negotiate, but he is refusing.’ ”

Ahmadinejad may score points among his loyal followers for the debate challenge, but others will realize the truth -- that the Iranian president is a vain man and likes to appear on American television.

Is it the make-up?

Say Something Conan

When Jay Leno signed off The Tonight Show, he said, "Stay tuned for Conan. First show right after the Emmys."

It seemed like a promo, urging the audience to watch O'Brien address his performance as host of the Emmys.

I thought it was crass. It was clear to me that NBC was trying to boost its ratings and profit from the Emmy controversy.

The awards show opened with a taped tasteless plane crash spoof that Conan O'Brien did live, just hours after Flight 5191 crashed in Lexington, Kentucky, killing 49 people. On Monday, NBC issues a statement, apologizing for the "unfortunate timing" and any "unintentional pain it may have caused."

Apparently, NBC and O'Brien decided that statement was enough.

During O'Brien's monologue, drummer Max Weinberg said to O'Brien, "Great job on the Emmys."

The audience cheered in agreement.

Conan said thanks. "We had a good time."

O'Brien did address a controversy in his monologue

He started a joke, "Big controversy over at CBS." He was referring to Survivor’s new season with racially-segregated teams. He said that they got the idea from the Third Reich.

O'Brien didn't mention the Emmys controversy at all.

When he got to the desk, O'Brien said, "Briefly, I’d like to mention… ."

I thought that was it. Here comes the apology. Instead, he thanked his staff and writers. He said, "They made it all happen."

O'Brien talked about taking the redeye back from LA. He said that he was worried about sleeping on the plane, so he took an Ambien. Blah, blah, blah.

He didn't say one word about the controversial opening spoof and all of the uproar. Nothing.

Then, after a break, Donald Trump entered as the first guest. Trump complimented O'Brien and told him that he did a great job, but nothing about the plane crash bit. He said, "You did so well." Trump asked the audience, "Are we proud of him?" The audience applauded its approval.

Mark Marin, comedian and former Air America personality, was the next guest. He, too, praised O'Brien for his Emmy hosting stint.

It was the elephant in the room and O'Brien said nothing.

That was inappropriate, too.

Kyra Phillips' Sister-in-Law

Kyra Phillips lets down her guard.
CNN's Kyra Phillips is probably still in shock.

She took a bathroom break during a live broadcast of an address by President Bush in New Orleans.

The problem: She failed to turn off her microphone when she left the set.

So the CNN audience was treated to some private moments with Phillips.

I imagine that is the ultimate fear for on-air personalities and reporters, having a microphone pick up something that's not meant for public consumption.
Watch the video.

It is laugh out loud funny, especially the zinger at the end.

Here's the transcript by Megan McCormack of NewsBusters:

Kyra Phillips: ""assholes.Yeah, I'm very lucky in that regard with my husband. My husband is handsome and he is genuinely a loving, you know, no ego.[unintelligible] you know what I'm saying. Just a really passionate, compassionate great, great human being. And they exist. They do exist. They're hard to find. Yup. But they are out there."

[unidentified woman]: "We'll see. He's going to come, you know, he's set for an extended visit.[unintelligible]"

Phillips: "I mean, that's, that's how you figure it all out, those extended visits. [laughter]"

[unidentified woman]: "Yeah, but my mom, I think she really likes him."

Phillips: "Mom's got a good vibe? Good."

[unidentified woman]: "Yeah, my brother's the one that.[unintelligible]"

Phillips: "Brother-of course, brothers have to be, you know, protective. Except for mine. I've got to be protective of him."

[unidentified woman [unintelligible]

Phillips: "Yeah. He's married, three kids, but his wife is just a control freak."

[unidentified woman #2]: "Kyra."

Phillips: "Yeah, baby?"

[unidentified woman #2]: "Your mic is on. Turn it off. It's been on the air."

Remember President Bush's recent open mic incident?

Unaware that he could be overheard, Bush said to Tony Blair:

"You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

Of course, a CNN personality and the President of the United States aren't in the same the league at all.

Bush was talking about a terrorist group that was making war with Israel. It's a totally different ball game. Absolutely.

But in terms of pure embarrassment, Phillips' televised live exchange will probably have more devastating, far-reaching consequences.

--Her mic being on when it shouldn't be is bad.

--Being in the bathroom with a live mic, using a vulgarity, is worse.

--Telling the world that your sister-in-law is a control freak is a total disaster!

The "control freak" must have completely freaked out! She must have gone ballistic!

I really doubt that Phillips' sister-in-law just laughed it off.

Feingold Exploits Katrina

Using The Huffington Post as his forum, presidential wannabe and sometime Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold seized the Katrina anniversary to score some political points with the Left.

Not surprisingly, The Huffington Post offers a plethora of pieces "celebrating" Katrina.

Feingold writes:

With the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina tomorrow, as so many Americans remember the horrifying images of the disaster, the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will be dealing with reality they face today - that in a lot of neighborhoods it looks like a hurricane hit a week ago, not a year ago.

Over the past year, in my listening sessions in Wisconsin, I have heard from so many people upset with the federal government's response to Katrina and their emotional pleas to not forget about the people who lost their homes, their communities and their way of life.

I am so sick of Feingold using the people in Wisconsin to advance his presidential goal.

He's always blathering about his listening sessions, as if he has his hand on the pulse of Middle America.

What a load!

The fact is Feingold's "up to an hour" listening sessions in Wisconsin counties are more liberal, pro-Feingold political rallies than an exchange of ideas or challenges to his perspective.

I'd like Feingold to listen to me. I'd like to have a chance to express myself to the presidential candidate... I mean MY senator.

I would say that it's disingenuous to place blame for the disastrous response to Katrina SOLELY on the shoulders of the federal government.

I think Feingold knows that, which makes his statements that much more sleazy.

On a trip to New Orleans in July, the painful realities about life were everywhere - abandoned businesses, and homes and neighborhoods that were totally destroyed by the hurricane and its aftermath. The challenge of rebuilding is enormous. But what's even tougher is trying to rebuild in a way that helps everyone come back, not just people with access to lots of resources and lots of different options.

There are so many ways that Gulf Coast communities still need help - creating jobs, rebuilding the school systems, and gutting damaged homes so that they can be rebuilt. But when you see those blocks and blocks of neighborhoods that were destroyed - with no sign of reconstruction - it's clear just how much help the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast need to find affordable housing.

Housing has to be affordable so that the Gulf Coast can get back to work. So many of the people who are the lifeblood of the tourism industry - like hotel and restaurant workers - want to call New Orleans home again, but they can't move back if they can't afford any place to live.

...We've got to do something to help displaced residents - particularly low-income people - who want to move back to New Orleans. I have put together a few different ideas into one bill, building on really good work on housing issues by some of my colleagues in the Senate. It doesn't tackle every problem, but it will help address some of the tough housing issues facing New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. It includes housing vouchers to help make rents affordable for the lowest income people and families. It also makes housing like the Katrina Cottages - which are more like homes, and less like trailers - more available to those who want them. There have been a lot of problems with the FEMA trailers, so it's important to give people the option of living in a more permanent home. And finally it allows HUD to handle temporary rental assistance programs from here on out, instead of FEMA, which isn't equipped to handle housing issues like these for the long haul.

Oooooh! Another Feingold plan!

He has all the answers, doesn't he?

If only Feingold were president, New Orleans would be a shining city by now.

...A year after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, there is so much that we can still do - and that Congress can do -- to help the Gulf Coast recover. Looking ahead, we've got to reform the Army Corps of Engineers, which built the levees in the first place, to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. I'm really pleased that the Senate passed several Army Corps reform measures I wrote with Senator John McCain. But we also have to focus on the here and now -- what people are facing on the Gulf Coast today. As we look at the images of the hurricanes a year later, and we remember what people went through, we also have to recognize how far we have to go, and rededicate ourselves to helping the people of the Gulf Coast make it home again.

And so ends another of Feingold's presidential campaign speeches.

Nancy Pelosi's Huffington Post piece is even more shameless than Feingold's drivel.

"Anybody knows not to mess with me" Pelosi, Speaker of the House wannabe, employs a disgusting political opportunism as she reflects on Katrina.

She writes:

It's no secret that the Bush Administration values politics and press opportunities over policy. But the dichotomy between the White House media campaign marking the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the harsh reality Gulf Coast residents have been facing these past 12 months is unconscionable. President Bush has devoted more time and preparation to this public relations blitz than to helping the people of the Gulf Coast.

Yeah, right.

The President has spent more time preparing for his "public relations blitz" to the Gulf Coast than he has devoted to efforts aiding the hurricane's victims in the past year.

That is positively idiotic.

She charges Bush with exploiting Katrina when in reality SHE and FEINGOLD and their Dem cohorts are engaged in a massive propaganda campaign staged around the hurricane's anniversary.

In sum, it's disgraceful.

New Orleans Today

President and Mrs. Bush marked the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans today.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- President Bush bowed his head in prayer Tuesday in remembrance of the hundreds who perished in Hurricane Katrina and acknowledged that his administration's response to the disaster was unacceptable.

"We're addressing what went wrong," he told residents at a high school gymnasium in an uplifting speech that spoke to the heroic efforts of rescuers and the death and despair left behind when the floodwaters receded.

"Uplifting"?

How odd for the AP to refer to anything President Bush has to say as "uplifting"!

One thing that tends to be lost in the lib media's observance of the Katrina anniversary is the incredible bravery and professionalism with which the Coast Guard rescued tens of thousands of people.

I'm glad the President reminded the nation of the efforts of the rescuers. I don't think that they've received the credit they deserve.

"Unfortunately, the hurricane also brought terrible scenes we never thought we'd see in America," Bush said. "Citizens drowned in their attics. Desperate mothers crying out on national TV for food and water. A breakdown of law and order and a government, at all levels, that fell short of its responsibilities.

"When the rain stopped ... our television screens showed faces worn down by poverty and despair. And for most of you, the storms were only the beginning of our difficulties.["]

...Bush was applauded loudly when he promised to ask Congress for legislation giving Louisiana a bigger share of royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling. The state now receives less than 2 percent of the royalties, and Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Louisiana's congressional delegation are demanding more.

Although the lib media prefer to focus on the federal government's shortcomings (naturally), Bush is correct in stating that there were failures AT ALL LEVELS of government.

Dems, of course, and their mouthpieces in the lib media want to use the Katrina anniversary to bash the President.

From USA Today:

On the verge of Katrina's one-year anniversary, Democrats from New Orleans to New Haven, Conn., to New York are launching a coordinated political assault on the Bush administration's response to the devastation that struck the Gulf Coast.

Democratic lawmakers began arriving in the stricken region Thursday, making a stand that will culminate Monday when about 20 House Democrats convene in Bay St. Louis, Miss., for a town hall meeting. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana plans to deliver the Democratic response to President Bush's Saturday radio address.

Party leaders sense that the Bush administration's performance in the aftermath of last year's hurricanes and lingering problems rebuilding the region are as politically damaging to the president — and by extension, other Republicans — as the war in Iraq.

"The bad thing is that no matter what happens in Iraq, Katrina is done," Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said in an interview Thursday. "It happened. You can't undo it. It's a huge scar."

If you hear any libs today complaining that Bush is in New Orleans for a shameless photo-op, keep Dr. Dean's strategy in mind.

The Dem plan is to exploit Katrina's victims' pain for their own political gain.

(Yikes! That sentence sounds eerily like a conservative version of Jesse Jackson.)

The president also said the city's rebirth must include improvements to the poor-performing school system. First lady Laura Bush, in remarks introducing the president, urged teachers nationwide to come to the region to teach.

"We know that families can't move back unless there's schools for the kids and so education is one of the most important parts of the recovery," she said.

"This city occupies a unique place in America's cultural landscape and the recovery won't be complete until New Orleanians return home and their culture is restored," she said.

Laura Bush has such class.

She's right. A cornerstone for the rebuilding of New Orleans is education and successful schools. Without question, education is a cornerstone for progress and prosperity in all of society.

Although the reconstruction in the hurricane-ravaged region is a long and arduous process, there is hope.

I think President and Mrs. Bush conveyed that.

Katrina Revisited: Hurricane Makes Landfall

Let's not rewrite history.

Let's read it.

One year ago today, Hurricane Katrina pounded Louisiana and Mississippi.

I recall the early morning reports from New Orleans. Reporters stood on rain-soaked streets and spoke of how the city had dodged a bullet once again. The Category 5 storm, the predicted devastation, didn't happen. The media seemed disappointed that the story wasn't bigger.

Relieved New Orleans residents were interviewed, expressing their excitement over their good luck that the monster storm had spared them.

Remember?

The weakened yet still powerful Katrina veered toward Mississippi just before making landfall and spared New Orleans a direct hit.

This story was published in The New York Times on August 30, 2005.

Hurricane Katrina pounded the Gulf Coast with devastating force at daybreak Monday, sparing New Orleans the catastrophic hit that had been feared but inundating parts of the city and heaping damage on neighboring Mississippi where it tossed boats, ripped away scores of roof tops and left many of the major coastal roadways impassable.

Packing 145-mph winds as it made landfall, Katrina left more than a million people in three states without power and submerged highways even hundreds of miles from the center of the storm.

Officials reported at least 35 deaths, with 30 deaths alone in Harrison County, Miss., which includes Gulfport and Biloxi. Emergency workers feared they would find more dead among people believed to be stranded under water and collapsed buildings.

While Katrina proved to be less fearsome than had been predicted, it was still potent enough to rank as one of the most punishing hurricanes ever to hit the United States. Insurance experts said that damage could exceed $9 billion, which would make it one of the costliest storms on record.

In New Orleans, most of the levees held but the storm breached one and flood waters rose to rooftops in one neighborhood. Katrina’s howling winds stripped 15-foot sections off the roof of the Superdome, where as many as 10,000 evacuees were sheltered.

Some of the worst damage reports came from east of the historic city of New Orleans with an estimated 40,000 homes reported flooded in St. Bernard Parish. In Gulfport, Mississippi, the storm left three of five hospitals without working emergency rooms, beachfront homes wrecked and major stretches of Mississippi’s coastal highway flooded and unpassable.

“It came on Mississippi like a ton of bricks,” the state’s governor, Haley Barbour, told a midday news conference. “It’s a terrible storm.”

...Katrina was downgraded from Category 5 — the worst possible storm — to Category 4 as it hit land in eastern Louisiana just after 6 a.m., and in New Orleans, officials said the storm’s slight shift to the east had spared them somewhat. The city is below sea level, and there had been predictions that the historic French Quarter would be under 18 or 20 feet of water.

Still, no one was finding much comfort here, with 100 mph winds and water surges of 15 feet. Officials said early in the day that more than 20 buildings had been toppled.

In short, it was reported that New Orleans weathered the storm, with Mississippi bearing the worst of Katrina's wrath.

One year ago today, I wrote:

Thankfully, the storm weakened before landfall. New Orleans is NOT under water. The catastrophe that was feared hasn't happened.

That's not to say that there isn't tremendous damage. However, it could have been worse.

Now, Katrina has been downgraded to a Category 3.

Photos were picked up by many news outlets to illustrate the damage in New Orleans.




Debris from a fallen building covers several buildings in downtown New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina battered the Louisiana Coast on Monday, Aug. 29, 2005.

What's notable about the first photos out of New Orleans was that the scenes of Katrina's damage were caused by wind, not rain.

The problem was bricks, not water.