American Legion to Kerry: APOLOGIZE NOW

INDIANAPOLIS, Oct. 31 -- The National Commander of The American Legion called on Sen. John Kerry to apologize for suggesting that American troops in Iraq are uneducated.

"As a constituent of Senator Kerry's I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "A generation ago, Sen. Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn't true then and his warped view of today's heroes isn't true now."

..."While The American Legion shares the senator's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I think there is a thing or two that they could teach most college professors and campus elitists about the way the world works.

"And while we are on the topic of education, why doesn't the senator and his comrades in Congress improve the GI Bill so all of today's military members - reserves and guard included - can achieve the educational aspirations that the senator so highly values?" Morin said. "The senator's false and outrageous attack was over-the-top and he should apologize now."

The American Legion is disgusted with Kerry and rightly so.

We know what a loser Kerry is. He's a lost soul.

What's also bugging me about this is the lib media's failure to report the story fairly. In my view, that makes them complicit in Kerry's insults.

They are focusing on the White House's supposed attack on Kerry rather than emphasizing how disgraceful Kerry's words are.

The lib media aren't demanding that Kerry apologize.

George Allen says, "macaca," and they go off the deep end.

No double standard there.

Nooooooooooo.

The Ugly Truth About John Kerry

John Kerry disgusts me.

He is desperately trying to spin his way out of taking responsibility for his brutal attack on the intelligence of our brave military men and women.

Read more.



I am calling for John Kerry to resign.

He disgraced his country as a young man and he continues to disgrace his country today.

Kerry said:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I guess Kerry still thinks it's the Vietnam era.

He wants to relive those glory days. He thinks it's 1971 and he's testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee again.



I personally know extremely intelligent young men that have made the choice to join the military during this time of war.

How dare Kerry suggest that serving the United States is for idiots and fools!

How dare he disparage the fallen and their grieving loved ones this way!

Once a Winter Soldier, always a Winter Soldier.

DISGUSTING
_______________________________

Kerry refused to apologize for his despicable remarks in a statement that was packed with lies and personal attacks.

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.”

“I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq,” Mr. Kerry went on. “It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.”

He tried to paint himself as the victim of partisan attacks, when in reality he has victimized our U.S. military personnel.

The only thing that can alter the impact of what Kerry said in Pasadena yesterday is a full and sincere apology.

He's not willing to do it.

KERRY: "I apologize to no one."
Big mistake.

Big, BIG mistake.
________________________________

Watch video of Kerry's "crystal clear" refusal to apologize for insulting our military here.

America SUPPORTS the Troops

Cheesehead Obama

It's a week before the election, and Barack Obama is multi-tasking.

He's campaigning for fellow far Left Dems AND on tour hawking his new book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.

Obama was at a Downtown Milwaukee rally this morning, trying to give Wisconsin Dem candidates a boost.

He also has a book-signing scheduled in the city today.

10/31/2006 Alverno College's Pitman Theater
Presented by Schwartz Books Ticketed event
Milwaukee, WI 53234

Wow. Rock star Obama is quite a powerhouse.

Rally the troops and sign books all in one day!

HE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT!


Greg Borowski reports:

With one week until Election Day, U. S. Sen Barack Obama (D-Ill.) touted Gov. Jim Doyle and other Democrats this morning at a sign-waving rally in downtown Milwaukee.

Before the rally, attended by 1,000-plus people, Obama was a guest at a fund-raising reception for Doyle held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Obama, who is weighing a presidential run, praised Doyle as "one of the finest governors in the country" and exhorted attendees to work for the Democratic ticket in the state.

Doyle?

"One of the finest governors in the country"?

Obama can't be serious about making a presidential run. A presidential candidate shouldn't go on the record and lie like that. It could come back to bite him.


It must be a generic line that Obama delivers at his combo campaign/book tour stops.

I'm sure he didn't know what he was saying. He wouldn't want to jeopardize his credibility with such a ludicrous statement.

Obama spent most of his 20-minute speech, though, focusing on "the audacity of hope," a phrase he acknowledged he ""pilfered" from his pastor - and, not so coincidentally, the title of his new book. He said the "audacity of hope" amounts to "believing the world that is not the world that has to be."

After citing key moments in history, Obama said: "At each and every moment, we have believed in the possibility of something better. That quality is essential to the American spirit."

Not a lot of substance there.

My questions for the presumptive next U.S. president:

What's your plan, Obama?

HOW, specifically, would you go about changing the world?

I've seen Obama interviewed -- a lot. I still have no idea what Obama's solutions to the world's ills are.

He's an empty suit.

In addition to Doyle, who faces a tough battle against U.S. Rep, Mark Green (R-Green Bay), Democratic candidates on stage included Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, attorney general hopeful Kathleen Falk, U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl and U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Milwaukee.

That's quite a cavalcade of Wisconsin radical libs and do-nothing Dems!

Doyle shows up in Milwaukee for fund-raisers and rallies. Too bad he can't be bothered to go to the city at times of crisis.

To be fair to Doyle, I guess that would be rather difficult, considering the city is in a perpetual state of crisis (thanks to do-nothing Mayor Tom Barrett).

I suppose Kohl decided to be at the rally because it wouldn't cut into his afternoon nap time.

Gwen Moore was there. Of course, she's among the ranks of "Dems for Impeachment."

Does Obama know how radical Moore is? Is he on board with the Impeachment Dems? He certainly doesn't mind being associated with them. That's clear.

"Weak on crime" Kathleen Falk has a lot of guts to show up in crime-ridden Milwaukee. I gather she felt it was worth the risk to bask in Obama's illusory glory.

I bet Russ Feingold is fuming over his senatorial colleague's popularity. Obama is in the spotlight now, leaving Feingold fumbling around in the shadows.

Feingold has been campaigning to be president for over a year, but the Wisconsin Dems don't bring him in for the rally. The Dem Party of Wisconsin felt it necessary to outsource for big guns in the battleground Wisconsin campaign.

Poor, poor pitiful Russ.

The rally took place at Pere Marquette Park in downtown Milwaukee. The event had been scheduled for nearby Turner Hall, but was moved outside as interest picked up in recent days.

...Noting that former President Bill Clinton would campaign with him on Friday, Doyle said: "You know, today we might just have a future president in town."

Is Doyle referring to Mark Green's appearance in Milwaukee later this afternoon?

That's nice of him to deem Green presidential material. Or is he talking about Tommy Thompson?

"A Clear Choice on Crime": Vote Green

One of the editorials in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is impossible to swallow.

"A Clear Choice on Crime" begins with a note from the Editor:

This is one in a series of editorials analyzing the gubernatorial candidates' positions on specific issues. We will end the series with an editorial recommending one of the candidates.

What could be more ridiculous than that???

I wonder which person the editorial board will endorse at the end of their series analyzing the gubernatorial candidates' positions.

Gee, the suspense is killing me.

What a joke!

The editorial begins:

Political foes like to outdo each other when it comes to being tough on crime. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle earned his credentials as a hard-nosed, lock-the-bad-guys-up attorney general - a posture he maintains. His Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Mark Green, has showed his toughness by proposing and backing laws stiffening criminal penalties.

But the state's top executive must be more than just tough. He must be smart. Our review of the record suggests that Doyle is both tougher and smarter than Green on crime and that in one critical area, Green is too soft. We base this on his views on guns.

Another surprise -- The editorial board blames crime on guns.

I didn't see that coming. Right.

Green faults Doyle for Wisconsin's rising rate of violent crime, particularly in Milwaukee. According to FBI data, the state rate fell by 2% in 2003 from the previous year and by 5% in 2004 and then rose sharply, by 15%, in 2005. The corresponding Milwaukee rate fluctuated more dramatically, falling by 7% and 12% and then soaring by 31% - worrisome, indeed. Though it wasn't as steep as here, an uptick took place throughout the nation in 2005 - suggesting the causes may transcend state borders.

Those figures are shocking. They really are.

I am certain that if a Republican governor had been at the helm while there was such a dramatic rise in the crime rate, there is no way that the JS editorial board would excuse it as being caused by something that transcends state borders.

Clearly, Doyle has failed, and failed miserably, especially in matters of controlling crime.

He has been a disaster.

A 31% increase in crime in Milwaukee isn't "worrisome." Not being able to find one's car keys is worrisome. This 31% jump is worthy of full blown panic.

It's disgraceful that the libs on the JS editorial board are willing to gloss over such an inexcusable performance by Doyle.

INEXCUSABLE.

Although crime-fighting is primarily a local job, governors play a role. To his credit, Doyle has met this responsibility. After a recent spike in violent crime in Milwaukee, for instance, he helped funnel $750,000 to the city for police overtime, with the backing of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee.

Doyle throwing a little money at the problem after he was shamed for being MIA during Milwaukee's bloody Memorial Day Weekend was not a solution. It was no where near an appropriate response to the bloodshed.

The wanton violence in Milwaukee received national attention. Mark Green challenged Doyle to respond. Doyle had no choice but to do something to defuse the situation as quickly as possible what with the election on the horizon. So, he sent a few bucks.

Unfortunately, Doyle's response to the crime problem was woefully inadequate. If it had been truly effective, the violence would be ebbing. It's not.

If Doyle had done his job, Joe Munz's life might have been spared.

Perhaps Betty Jones and two of her sons, Christopher B. Durant and Dexter P. Durant, wouldn't have been the victims of a triple homicide.

Those four murders took place in the span of less than 24 hours in mid-October. They highlighted what a mess remains in the city and the terrible price of failing to address it.

The Journal Sentinel chronicles these daily murders and beatings in Milwaukee, but its editorial board is satisfied with Doyle's efforts to address the anarchy.

For the JS to suggest that Doyle has crime under control is insane. Truly.

...In his first budget, Doyle took a bite out of revenue sharing, hurting efforts by cities to hire cops. But facing a huge deficit, he had little choice. Green might find himself in a similar bind.

This is so stupid!

Doyle had no choice but to cut funds that cities needed to hire cops?

And the board thinks that Green would have done the exact same thing?

That sounds so childish. "Green would have done it, too."

The board argues that Green would have made the same budget choices as Doyle. That's a leap that the board cannot make. The board's assumption that a Gov. Green would have virtually ignored the violence in Milwaukee Doyle-style is completely unfair.

I also don't buy that Doyle was forced to make budget cuts that hurt cities' ability to have adequate law enforcement. He could have found the funds to assist in keeping the state's people secure.

Is the basic safety of Wisconsinites a priority for Doyle or not?

Apparently, satisfying his big donors and catering to the demands of WEAC and other Doyle pet groups is more important to him.

On one important issue - guns - Doyle is head and shoulders above Green. Through his veto power, Doyle kept Wisconsin from adopting a misguided concealed-carry law. There are already too many guns out there, and there are some places they should never be, concealed or not. Green, in contrast, backs a concealed-carry law.

And here it is -- The Journal Sentinel's favorite scapegoat: GUNS.

The board refuses to acknowledge that concealed-carry laws have been shown to REDUCE crime in some of the 48 states that have them in place.

In effect, based on the numbers, Doyle's veto of concealed-carry actually has been an obstacle in crime prevention.

So, how does Doyle's obstruction put him head and shoulders above Green?

It doesn't. Doyle's policy is adding to the problem.

The editorial concludes with this:

Wisconsin is safer with Doyle at the helm.

That's false.

Not only is it false, it's a lie. The board is intentionally deceiving its readers by distorting Doyle's record on crime.

The editorial's conclusion is not grounded in reality.

When it comes to being tough on crime, Doyle has shown himself to be utterly incompetent. He has failed the people of Wisconsin.

There is definitely a crystal clear choice on crime.

Doyle is an appeaser. He tolerates crime.

Green won't.

If you're a Wisconsinite and you aren't satisfied with the soaring violent crime rates in the state, a vote for Doyle would be a horrible mistake.

Ditto for Kathleen Falk.

EXPLOITING THE FALLEN

We already know that The New York Times is a disgrace.

The paper is in dire straits. Some of that has to do with the general change in readers' habits. More and more people are getting information from the Internet and no longer subscribe to the hard copy paper.

In addition to that, The Times has been plagued with scandal and shoddy reporting. It's credibility as a legitimate news source and the paper of record is shot in the eyes of at least half the nation. It's an anti-Bush, often anti-American, propaganda rag.

The Times doesn't hesitate to splash national secrets on its pages. Nothing is off limits when it comes to undermining the Bush Administration.

Journalistic integrity is rare at The Times, from the top to the bottom. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger has set the tone.

For example, on May 21, 2006, Sulzberger delivered a "True Confessions" commencement address at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

He apologized to the graduates for failing to pass a liberal utopia on to the next generation and for allowing them to inherit a war.

Text

Apparently, the guy feels some personal responsibility for the dismal state of the world and he's working at rectifying it by crusading against the Bush administration.

What makes Sulzberger's personal battles so dangerous is that as he wages war against the White House, he's undercutting national security and putting all Americans at risk.

Today's edition of The Times doesn't leak any classified information.

It doesn't expose a program designed to protect the American people.

The problem with today's paper isn't the usual lies and smears designed to damage the President.

As gravely serious as the usual irresponsibility of The Times is, in some ways, what's in today's edition is even worse.

The Times exploits America's war dead and their survivors.

Just a week before the election, an emotionally charged photo essay by Doug Mills will greet readers of The Times.

Accompanying the photos, Thomas J. Lueck writes:

Burials at Arlington National Cemetery took on a grim regularity in October, when at least 103 American troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the toll had reached 99 by Saturday, making October the deadliest month since January 2005.

Military officials attributed the high number of deaths to a spike in violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began in late September and ended last week. They also pointed to a three-month campaign to win control of Baghdad from death squads that led to increased attacks on American troops.

But such explanations were little comfort to a 6-year-old girl weeping at the grave of her father, a mother clutching the flag from her son’s coffin, or a widow walking slowly through the rain behind her husband’s honor guard.

First, why now?

There have been deadlier months in Iraq. In the past, there have been more American fatalities in a month's time without The Times doing a pictorial on the funerals of the fallen. These photos aren't news.

Clearly, the intention is to exploit the dead and their mourners for political purposes.

It's flagrant abuse.

It's shameless.

Second, I find it disgusting that the "Muslim holy month of Ramadan" provides incentive to increase the violence.

Religion of peace?

There's something very wrong with that picture. Islamic extremists observe Ramadan by killing -- a horrible truth.

That should serve as an indication of how dangerous and truly sick our enemies are.

The point of The Times' pictorial, of course, is not to rally Americans to defeat terrorists. Instead, it attempts to use the photos to connect the sacrifice of the fallen and the pain of their loved ones with what it views as President Bush's ill-fated Iraq policy.

In effect, The Times wants you to believe that Bush is to blame. Bush is the enemy.

He's not.

Third, it's purely exploitative to picture the loved ones of the fallen in their grief.

Again, why now?

Although this October was an especially deadly month, others have died and funerals have taken place without The Times giving them front page status.

The timing of the photo essay is a sick, calculated, political move.

Unfortunately, this is not an aberration. It's not a sleazy October surprise from The Times.

The willingness to utilize any means necessary to achieve its end -- victory for the Dems -- is typical of The Times. However, that makes the tactic no less disturbing.

No compassion. No class. No shame.

Michael Steele and Ben Cardin Debate

On Meet the Press, Tim Russert moderated a debate between the candiates for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, Rep. Ben Cardin (D) and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R).

Actually, that's not true.

Russert debated with Steele. Russert shilled for the Democratic Party.

Transcript

It's clear to me why Russert was so aggressive with Steele. He was an attack dog because Cardin is such a terribly weak candidate.

The first twenty minutes of the program was spent on Iraq.

Steele's position was measured and intelligent. He said that when we leave Iraq we must make sure that we leave behind "an ally, not an enemy."

Cardin kept contradicting himself and looking absolutely ridiculous.

Cardin is demanding that troops be redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2007; but then he said that he's against timetables.

It really was laughable.

Did Russert point out how silly Cardin was being?

Just barely.

Basically, Russert gave Cardin a free pass with very few challenges.

Steele said that Cardin needed to consider what Iraq would look like on the last day when the last soldiers withdraw.

Cardin blathered on and on about Steele's website. He said that Steele had buried "168 words" on his Iraq position.

Repeatedly, Cardin talked about the inadequacy of Steele's website. He said that Steele had only 168 words and no plan for Iraq. He charged that Steele had made no major speeches and held no major events on Iraq.

Steele kept asking for Cardin's Iraq plan. Cardin responded with the same "168 words" mantra.

It was embarrassing.

Then, Russert questioned Steele about being a Republican.

Russert adopted the tactics that so many Dems have disgracefully used against the African-American candidate. Although he didn't come right out and say it, Russert attempted to use Steele's race to turn other African-Americans against him.

Steele said jokingly, "I've been outed. I'm a Republican."

That's right, Russert. No one knows that Steele is a Republican.

Russert tried to attack Steele by showing a clip of Steele speaking positively about President Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Russert put up a passage quoting Steele speaking favorably about Karl Rove.

Ooooooooh! Scary!!!

REAL African-Americans wouldn't say that stuff; only an Uncle Tom like Steele would. At least Russert didn't pelt Steele with oreos, like other "tolerant" libs have done.

Russert asked Steele, "Are you running as a proud Bush Republican?"

Steele responded to Russert's idiocy, "I'm running as a proud Republican."

Score one for Steele.

Steel went on to say that he considers himself to be a "Lincoln Republican."

Score another for Steele.

The increasingly desperate Russert then held up a bumper sticker -- "Steele Democrat."

He claimed that's false advertising.

How utterly lame!

Steele challenged Russert, "Have you heard of "Reagan Democrat"?

The impotent Russert then complained that Steele doesn't have a "Steele Republican" bumper sticker.

Steele laughed it off and said that would be a good idea. He thanked Russert for the suggestion.

Steele asked why he seems to be the only candidate who's expected to constantly label himself as a Republican.

The racial component of Russert's questioning was very apparent.

Russert asked Steele, "Would you be a reliable vote for President Bush?"

He said, "I would be a reliable vote for the people of Maryland."

Very good. Point for Steele.

If Russert was fair and balanced, he would have focused on Cardin's allegiance to radical Dems.

Why didn't Russert ask whether or not Cardin would be a reliable "weak on terror," "higher taxes," liberal vote in the Senate?

***Bias alert***

Russert took a break from his ineffective pounding on Steele and turned to Cardin.

Cardin has made it clear that he wants to "investigate the President."

Russert wondered, "Investigate about what?"

Cardin blustered for a while about the NSA wiretapping program. You know, the one that allows our government to monitor international calls to terrorists, the one that has no doubt played a role in preventing another massive terrorist attack on our soil in the five years since 9/11.

Of course, Russert didn't say a word about the misrepresentation of that program as domestic eavesdropping and how those opposing it are aiding and abetting our enemies, the terrorists.

Russert asked Cardin if he would consider impeachment? Cardin answered that he'd "consider an investigation."

Very lame.

Next issue: Stem cell research

Russert showed Cardin's repulsive Michael J. Fox ad.

Then, he showed Steele's terrific ad on stem cell research that features his own sister. She happens to be afflicted with MS.

Of course, he loves his sister. Clearly, Steele wants to find treatments and cures for diseases, to help her and all others who are suffering. He wants to follow the most promising medical research in the most ethical manner.

In short, Steele made clear that he DOES support stem cell research.

Steele said there's "only one person at this table who's voted against stem cell research, and that's Ben Cardin."

Steele was referring to a bill in the House that Dems refused to back.

The pasty Cardin blew a gasket, but his face didn't redden. (I didn't think he had any gaskets left to blow.)

The discussion drifted off into a debate about the bills in the House and the Senate and was a waste of time.

Still on stem cell research, Russert went after Steele, trying to make the case that his position was morally inconsistent.

Russert questioned Steele, "Should you close down fertility clinics?"

They routinely discard embryos.

Steele said that it isn't necessary at all to close down clinics. However, he would recommend looking into ways to deal with embryos that aren't used, such as setting up adoptions for those embryos (Snowflake babies) and other options.

Russert wouldn't let up. "How can you tolerate or allow embryos being discarded by clinics?"

Steele had already answered that.

Again, Russert pushed, "Would you forbid fertility clinics from destroying embryos?"

What an idiotic question! It's so extreme!

(I wonder where Russert stands on the issue. He's a big time lib, but he also claims to be a big time Catholic. How does he deal with his support of the destruction of embryos? I'm curious.)

Momentarily, Russert turned to Cardin and asked him about cloning.

Cardin said, "Human cloning is not acceptable."

(Allow me to digress and point out that my current governor, Jim Doyle, wants Wisconsin to lead the nation in human cloning. Republican Mark Green is against creating human life for the sole purpose of harvest and destruction.)

Cardin repeated this campaign season's BIG LIE -- that Dems support stem cell research and Republicans are against it.

He sounded like a fool, as all the Dem LIARS on stem cell research do, including Michael J. Fox.

Russert turned the debate to abortion.

He tried to sink his teeth into Steele again.

"Would you vote for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion?"

"Would you 'HOPE' that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade?"

Steele said that he believed in stare decisis and declared, "It's a matter for the states."

Russert got a little tough on Cardin by pointing out that he voted AGAINST parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

Cardin babbled incoherently. He said that parents should be involved in making decisions for their children and then he turned around and argued that they shouldn't be notified if their children want abortions.

He referred to abortion as medical care.

I'd put the procedure in a different category.

Russert brought up Cardin's support of partial birth abortion. Russert didn't make a big deal out of it because it's consistent with the position of his allies, the Dem party leadership (Nancy Pelosi) and Dem presidential wannabes (Russ Feingold).

Next issue: The Supreme Court

To Steele: "Is there anyone on the Supreme Court that you would have voted against?"

HAHAHAHA

Unbelievable!!!

Why didn't Russert ask if there has ever been an American president that Steele would have voted against?

It's a silly hypothetical.

Steele said it was a "gotcha" question. He remarked, "That's living in the past."

He said it's a "Woulda, shoulda, coulda" and laughed at Russert's nonsense.

Russert was obviously setting up an opportunity for Cardin to appeal to Dems. He said he would have voted against Samuel Alito and he would have voted against Clarence Thomas.

Russert asked Steele if he still considers Clarence Thomas a hero?

Can you hear the whispers, "Uncle Tom, Uncle Tom"?

Steele said that although he has some disagreements with Thomas, he admires him as the only African-American on the Supreme Court.

(That reminds me. Did Bill Clinton nominate any African-Americans to the Supreme Court? Did he? NO. The "first black president" didn't seize that opportunity.)

In a transparent effort to discredit Steele with African-American voters, Russert tried to say that Steele didn’t support affirmative action.

Steele corrected Russert and clarified his position. He DOES support affirmative action but with improvements to the system. Steele noted that NBC and other networks do not have African-Americans in upper management.

That had to hit Russert right between the eyes. Score another one for Steele.

When Russert questioned Cardin, he said simply, "Affirmative action?" Wow. What tough, probing questioning!

Cardin rambled a bit and then it was back to Steele.

On "runaway spending" in government, Russert demanded that Steele specify which programs he would cut?

Steele didn't hesitate to say that everything was on the table. Programs need to be judged on their merits and cuts made accordingly.

Naturally, Cardin babbled in a noncommittal fashion.

Much to Cardin's relief, Russert said, "We're out of time."

In sum, Steele was poised, confident, and intelligent. Cardin was the mirror opposite of Steele, fumbling and floundering.

Russert tried to crack Steele, but he failed miserably.

There is no question that the debate highlighted that Steele is the superior candidate, much to Russert's chagrin, I'm sure.

Bottom line:

Russert is a shill for the Democratic Party.

Cardin is a bumbling incompetent.

Michael Steele should be elected to the U.S. Senate.

_________________________________

The Washington Post covers the Steele - Cardin/Russert debate.

The spin is fascinating.

Matthew Mosk and Ann E. Marimow write that Steele was on defense. That's not how I saw it at all, not even close.

Steele was completely in control.

Michael J. Embryo

Watch this!

JIM DOYLE IS PRO-CLONE

Jim Doyle is PRO-CLONE.

If you believe that human clones should be created in labs for the sole purpose of doing experimentation that demands their destruction, then vote for Doyle.

He's on the record as PRO-CLONE. He vetoed AB 499, a bill that banned human cloning in Wisconsin.

Doyle's position on human cloning is so extreme that members of his own party are at odds with him.

In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Doyle disagrees with Bill Clinton on cloning.

Unlike Clinton, he supports replicating ourselves and using state and federal funds to do it.

Yes, indeed, Doyle is the PRO-CLONE candidate.

Come November, if you want to vote for someone who will fight to clone human life, vote Doyle.
_____________________________
Does that seem unfair, calling Doyle a supporter of human cloning?

Would you say it's wrong to be going around saying that Doyle is a PRO-CLONE extremist?

You might argue that it's misleading to leave out any reference to the distinction that Doyle and others make between therapeutic cloning (embryos cloned for research) and reproductive cloning (embryos cloned to be brought to full term and born.)

So, is it wrong to label Doyle as PRO-CLONE?

If one follows the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's techniques of labeling -- such as calling Mark Green ANTI-STEM CELL RESEARCH -- then, to be consistent, one would have to agree that it's fair to call Doyle PRO-CLONE.


(Just a reminder: An embryo contains the same genome, or total genetic content, that a living, breathing human being has throughout his or her life. The individual is a genetically complete human being as an embryo.)

Catholics and Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment

In typical Old Media style, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is campaigning and shilling for liberals.

True to form, the views of a handful of Left-leaning individuals are given far more weight than they deserve.

Why? The views promote the lib agenda.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

After Wisconsin's Catholic bishops weighed in with a letter to support a marriage amendment to the state's constitution, Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan said he was eager to "encourage, educate and exhort" parishioners without actually instructing them how to vote.

It turns out even some priests have publicly joined the debate. In recent weeks, a small number of priests have expressed reservations about the amendment, which would define marriage "as between one man and one woman" and deny "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

"SMALL NUMBER OF PRIESTS."

I repeat, a "SMALL NUMBER OF PRIESTS" have reservations about the amendment.

There are always dissenters. Does this small group warrant front page status?

When large groups of conservatives hold rallies or protests that counter the liberal agenda, the JS manages to ignore them.

Bias? What bias?

One theologian even called for the amendment's rejection last month in a "guest opinion" for the Catholic Herald, where Dolan is not only a columnist but the publisher.

GASP! Dolan allowed a voice of dissension in his newspaper!

That's newsworthy?

The implication is that Dolan is Stalin.

Of course, the "guest opinion" wasn't silenced. That should come as no surpise.

The JS once again demonstrates how clueless it is in terms of the Catholic Church.

Father Bryan Massingale, an associate professor of moral theology at Marquette University, wrote a lengthy essay in which he struggled with the idea that "the amendment, read in its entirety, poses a dilemma for many faithful people."

"The amendment upholds certain beliefs about the uniqueness of marriage," he wrote in the Sept. 21 issue. "But it does so at a cost, namely, potentially damaging impacts upon the welfare of individuals and their children."

He also dealt with the issue of homosexuality.

"Too often, discussions of this issue treat 'those' people - specifically, gays and lesbians - as if they were an alien species," he wrote. "They are not. They are our sons and daughters; our sisters and brothers; our aunts, uncles, and cousins; our friends, neighbors, students and co-workers; our priests, ministers and parishioners. 'They' are us!"

In my personal experience, I have not encountered any fellow Catholics that treat gays and lesbians "as if they were an alien species."

They are our loved ones.

I object to Massingale's disparaging characterization of people in favor of the amendment as being bigoted and lacking compassion.

That is unfair because it's untrue.

Massingale concluded that "voting 'no' on the marriage amendment, in my judgment, is the best way to respect all of our Catholic beliefs and values."

A reprint of Massingale's opinion piece was distributed in bulletins at several local churches.

Since then, Massingale's words have continued to reverberate within the local Catholic community, his essay providing something of a boost to opponents of the amendment while also angering others who support the measure.

"I do not see myself as a person in opposition to the bishops," Massingale said Thursday in a telephone interview. "I think we are in agreement about the importance of marriage. But how do you uphold that value without compromising the human dignity of any of God's people? I think that is the discussion that is currently under way in the church right now."

In other words, The Journal Sentinel thinks Massingale is a saint.

...But Massingale says he will likely steer clear of forums on the marriage amendment. Most such events "focus more on stirring up passions than promoting enlightened insight," he said.

"Archbishop Dolan has said all along that he values respectful discussion in the church," he said. "My essay was not challenging the authority of the bishops in any way. It was looking at our Catholic tradition and trying to deal with a dilemma that many people with good conscience feel when faced with this amendment."

Milwaukee Archdiocese spokeswoman Kathleen Hohl said Massingale is free to speak out on the issues and to share his views at local parishes.

I think Massingale is misrepresenting the amendment.

He acts as if the amendment somehow dooms non-married citizens to discrimination, abuse, and suffering.

That's not true.

What the amendment does is PROTECT a cornerstone of an ordered society -- marriage.

The Wisconsin Bishops write:

Although Wisconsin law already defines marriage in a way consistent with our Catholic tradition, we believe that an amendment to our state constitution is the prudent thing to do in light of judicial and legislative actions in other states.

That's the case for the amendment in a nutshell.

Just this week, it became evident why an amendment is prudent for those believing that MARRIAGE needs to be protected.

Two words: NEW JERSEY

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling.

That's known as legislating from the bench. That's precisely why an amendment has become necessary.

Activist judges routinely overstep their bounds. They create law rather than fulfill their duty to interpret laws. These judges should be interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it.

Catholics have seen it happen before. Over forty million human lives have been lost through abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling -- all that death courtesy of activist judges.

The Wisconsin Bishops are NOT calling for a lack of compassion for gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They write:

Support for this amendment does not imply or justify animosity towards any individual or group. Church teaching regarding the dignity of homosexual persons is clear: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided." (Catechism of Catholic Church #2358) Even as we ask Catholics to support this amendment, we also urge them to repudiate words and deeds that demean individuals with a homosexual orientation. Our support of this amendment has as its only motive the strengthening and defense of marriage, and should not be interpreted as hostility to any group.

Clearly, there is no intent by the Catholic Bishops to demean anyone.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese Priests Alliance, a grass-roots organization of 140 members, issued a statement this month in which it concurred with Massingale's analysis, although the organization fell short of calling on voters to reject the amendment.

"We share his well-founded fear that the amendment may be construed to deny rights and services, including health care, not only to those in civil unions but many other citizens of Wisconsin as well, irrespective of their marital status," the statement read.

The health care argument is used so frequently and it is so weak.

It's not valid to suggest that an amendment calling for the defense of marriage between one man and one woman demands that some Wisconsin citizens will be denied health care.

Assuring health care for Wisconsinites absolutely does not require that the state recognize gay and lesbian couples as married.

And the gay marriage advocates that claim gay and lesbian couples are banned from hospital rooms when their partners have a medical emergency always seem to fail to mention that any individual can grant any other individual medical power of attorney.

Regarding medical decisions, inheritance, or other matters regulated by the state, an individual can take the necessary legal measures to assure that his or her partner will have control.

A marriage license is not required for that.

Bottom line:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel exaggerates the dissension within the Catholic Church on the Marriage Amendment.

By cherry picking and distorting, it muddies the debate.

I think the libs there are trying to convince Catholics to reject the message of the Bishops as unchristian. Massingale's opinion, as expressed in his essay, is presented as more compassionate and just.

This is an orchestrated effort to sway Catholics to vote "no" on the amendment. That's particularly evident because Massingale wrote his dissenting opinion weeks ago.

So why did The Journal Sentinel wait until now to slap the story on the front page?

Do you think there might be politics involved? Hmmm?

Of course, it's a cheap political stunt. The timing is clearly strategic. Although the story's appearance in Friday's paper was obviously politically purposeful, I doubt it will change any minds.

Let's have an honest discussion of the issue. There is no need to be deceptive.
____________________________

It should be noted that if The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wanted to give its readers a thorough, enlightening article examining the debate within the Catholic Church on the Marriage Amendment, then a complete reprint of the letter from the Wisconsin Bishops should have accompanied the piece.

(The online version of the article does offer a link. In other words, to be informed, it's time to cancel your subscription. The hard copy of The Journal Sentinel is incomplete.)

Here is the letter.

Jim Webb's Imagination

Why is Jim Webb running for the Senate?

Instead of following a "Mr. Webb Goes to Washington" path, I think heading to Hollywood would be much more lucrative for him.

I would think that Webb would be extremely successful writing for TV and movies.

If his novels are any indication, the man's imagination runs wild with ideas that Hollywood would surely love to lap up.

I hope his works are purely products of his imagination and aren't based in his real life experiences.

Assuming that they are only creations from Webb's head, they are still weird enough to be of serious concern.

No, they're beyond weird. They're downright creepy, especially the passages that border on child porn and incest.

George Allen brought Webb's little known writing talents to light late yesterday.

From Drudge:

The press release, as provided by the Allen Campaign:

WEBB’S WEIRD WORLD

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land:

– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”

Bantam Books, NY, 1st Edition, 2001, (hard cover), page 333.
Quote is from para. 10,.Chap. 34.

– Something to Die For: "Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."

William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 36.
Avon Books, New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 35
Quote is from para. 29, Chap. 2 “The South China Sea,”, Section 2

– A Country Such as This: "[He] could see Jawbone and Ashley Asthmatic [two guards at a Vietnamese prison camp] napping together in the grass. They faced inward, their arms entwined. It looked like they were masturbating each other. It didn't surprise him. … It was common to see men holding hands, embracing, playing with each other. Some of them [the guards] had wanted him. He could tell in those evanescent moments between his bao cao bow, the obligatory deference when a guard entered his cell, and the first word or blow that followed it… Quick, grinding voices, turgid with repressed passion. An exploratory reaching of the hand near his groin…”

Doubleday & Co., Garden City, NY, 1983 (hardcover); page 396.
Bluejacket Books, 2001 (Trade paperback edition), page 396
Page numbers are the same in the Naval Institute Press (paperback) edition, 1983.
Quote is from fifth para, Part 5 “A Country Such As This,” Chap. 24, Section 1

It goes on with many more passages, but I think that's enough. You get the idea.

(There's more here if you're interested.)

Eye-opening, isn't it?

Maybe jaw-dropping is a better word.

The libs are already crying, "Foul," over this and trying to prop up Webb.

Read this utterly lame article from The Washington Post.

It is a lengthy probe into the "real" Webb, the reluctant candidate.

His imperfections are romanticized. He's a brooding artist, uncomfortable in a crowd, kind of an outsider, a maverick.

The article mentions his novels. Of course, it doesn't mention that they include some really sicko stuff.

James Webb will tell you that he is first a writer, with several best-selling novels to his name.

...Jim Webb did better with his fists than his schoolbooks, but he also wrote poetry and short stories. Although Webb later embraced such 20th-century masters as Ernest Hemingway and Graham Greene, the writers who spoke to him early on were journalistic observers such as John Steinbeck and James A. Michener. The latter's "Hawaii," in particular, captured his imagination as a teenager.

...After Webb's wounds forced him from the Marines, he went to Georgetown University's law school. There he felt the sting of contempt from antiwar classmates and faculty. He also began to write.

His first novel, "Fields of Fire," appeared in 1978, featuring as the protagonist Lt. Robert E. Lee Hodges Jr., who was a Kentuckian like Webb's grandfather and shared his name. The book went against the current of the times, offering a slap at the era of malaise and pacifism that some called the "Vietnam Syndrome." Webb's novel, for all its cautionary asides on bloodshed, teaches that no other experience is as terribly profound as combat.

I don't understand how The Post could run this article "as is" after the disgusting passages from Webb's novels are flooding the New Media.

There is absolutely no mention of the luridness of his writing.

I suppose the Left will say that Webb isn't a creepy guy. He's an artist, a storyteller extraordinaire. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the sicko passages have served to solidify the Left's support for Webb and energized the extremists.

He speaks their language.

With these passages out there, it will be nearly impossible for the Dems to sell Webb as a man beyond reproach to mainstream Virginians.

Wholesomeness doesn't seem to be very near and dear to Webb's heart.

I do think that it's legitimate for Allen to criticize Webb's writings.

They are a reflection of what's going on in Webb's head.

I don't think he's Senate material, certainly not if the Dems really care about the children.

I wouldn't trust Webb around the pages; and we know that the safety of the pages is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Right?

Also in today's Post, there's a discussion of smear tactics being used this political season.

Entitled "The Year Of Playing Dirtier," the article focuses on negative ads and decries the sorry state of politics.

Excuse me?

The Post is one massive negative ad campaign meant to attack Republicans.

Speaking of playing dirty, The Post staged an all-out assault on George Allen because he said "macaca." Unsubstantiated reports of Allen's allegedly racist behavior were seized upon by The Post and published as truth.

And now, The Post tries to pull off this holier-than-thou stance.

How hypocritical!

The Post's complaints about the dirty tactics of this campaign season are so ridiculous because The Post is part of the problem, one of the main offenders.

It's just as disengenuous as Webb making a claim that he respect's women or vows to uphold family values.

The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox

I think a potent dose of reality is in order.

Mary L. Davenport, MD supplies the desperately needed medicine.

She writes:

The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,

“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s…. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”

Mr. Fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is “the most promising” is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.

Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust.

Read more.



Thanks, RJay.

Michael J. Fox Stumps for Jim Doyle

A lot has been said in recent days about Michael J. Fox's political ads for Missouri Dem Claire McCaskill. She supports EMBRYONIC stem cell research, so he supports her.

Some think that the ads are powerful and will convince people to vote for candidates backing INCREASES in federal spending for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Others question why Fox's symptoms appear to be more exaggerated in the ads than they are when he's acting.

Others are turned off by the "pity factor" that fuels the ads.

The debate is far from over.

In fact, it's intensifying. Fox's ad blitz is coming to Wisconsin.

MADISON -- Today, Governor Jim Doyle launched a new campaign ad featuring Michael J. Fox that highlights their shared support for lifesaving stem cell research.

Here's a newsflash:

I don't know anyone against stem cell research.

Do you?

Fox and Doyle fail to highlight that they are talking about EMBRYONIC stem cell research, the kind that demands the destruction of human life.

Also left out of the Doyle campaign's statement is that EMBRYONIC stem cell research has yet to save any lives.

“I'm honored to help out,” Michael J. Fox said. “I'm a one issue guy. Jim Doyle is a real champion of stem cell research, and this research could potentially lead to cures for diseases that affect you, your families, and your neighbors.”

In this new ad, Michael J. Fox, who lives with Parkinson’s disease, connects his own hope for a cure with Governor Doyle’s re-election campaign. In his words: "What you decide can affect millions of people. Like me. Like your family,” Fox said. "Wisconsin holds a special place in my heart, because it's where stem cell research was born. The cures we are looking for may come from here."

Again, the term "stem cell research" is recklessly thrown around.

There is a distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research. EMBRYONIC stem cell research requires the destruction of the EMBRYO.

Fox isn't stumping for stem cell research candidates; he's stumping for EMBRYONIC stem cell research candidates.

He rejects strong supporters of stem cell research like Mark Green, because Green supports research that does not destroy human life. That's not good enough for Fox.

As Wisconsin’s Governor, Doyle will continue to do his part for Wisconsin and the nation, by fighting for patients and families living with debilitating diseases and standing on the side of hope.

“Allowing our scientists to search for cures to the world’s deadliest diseases is not about being liberal or conservative,” Governor Doyle said. “It’s about being compassionate. And respect for human life means you don’t turn your back on cures that can save lives.”

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Does he abide by any moral boundaries when it comes to medical research?

Is there anything that would make Doyle "turn [his] back on cures that can save lives"?

Perhaps using animals in research -- would that be off limits?


The fact is Fox and Doyle do the same thing. They play with the truth.

They purposely confuse the public by failing to mark the distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Why?

Why are they afraid to be specific about the sort of research that they support?

I'm sick of them misrepresenting the position of candidates that wholeheartedly support stem cell research that respects life.

IT'S DISHONEST.

Kagen Riding on Injun Time

About a month ago, I learned a new word -- "macaca."

I had never heard it before. I didn't know it was a slur or an offensive word.

Thanks to The Washington Post, days of front page coverage of Sen. George Allen's use of the term raised my consciousness of the inappropriateness of the horrible M-word.

The Left went bonkers over macaca, like it was the worst affront imaginable.

Eleanor Clift declared that Allen's "macaca" remark had destroyed his chances of ever becoming president. It was such a serious offense.

Obviously, no apology could salvage his tattered political career.

Today, I expanded my vocabulary again, sort of.

I had never heard the expression "injun time."

I'm still not sure that I really know what it means.

Democrat Steve Kagen, candidate for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District, used the phrase at an Aurora Healthcare forum.

Hear Kagen on tape.

From WisPolitics:

Dem 8th CD candidate Steve Kagen apologized today for apparently saying he was on "injun time" to describe his reason for arriving late to a forum.

According to a recording of the remarks, Kagen opened by introducing a staff member.

"I want to thank you for driving me around the district this morning. I really appreciate you getting me here almost on time," he says to laughter. "Our excuse, uh, in Oneida was, well we are on injun time. They don't tell time by the clock. Our excuse here is I'm a doctor and we're never on time."

"Injun time."

Isn't "injun" a derogatory term?

I think most people would recognize it as unflattering.

Kagen not only used an offensive word, he was apparently referring to an offensive stereotype when he used it.

STOP THE WASHINGTON POST PRESSES!!!

We have a racist candidate!!!

We need this splashed on the front page of every publication in the country and leading every news broadcast.

...Christine Mangi, spokeswoman for Kagen opponent John Gard, said the quote was "unfortunate."

"We don’t like to see slurs like this taking place," she said. "In this day and age, we would expect people wouldn’t use words like that."

Kagen is a racist, insensitive buffoon.

So where is the outrage?

It's reserved for Republicans, of course.

Kagen said he was sorry that some people may have been offended.

Here's the statement that Kagen released. I think it's intended to be an apology, even though he doesn't come out and say that he's an offensive oaf.

"I did not mean any harm by my words, and I humbly apologize if I offended anyone. That was not my intent. Instead of words, however, let's talk about actions. I have been a great supporter of Native American issues during this campaign and am proud of the strong relations I have with Native American communities in the 8th Congressional District. John Gard, meanwhile, has repeatedly taken aim at Wisconsin's Native Americans, working to dismantle tribal sovereignty, targeting Indian economic development, and shamelessly using the tribes as a political pawn against the Governor." -Dr. Steve Kagen

So when Kagen is caught on tape making a slur, we're all just supposed to drop it and pretend it didn't happen.

Kagen's Indian remark was one of several "outlandish" statements he's made in the campaign, including a debate line about how he'd personally "take out" a terrorist if he ever encountered one on an airplane, Gard said.

I would call Kagen's statements "outlandish," wouldn't you?

Rather than staging protests to condemn Kagen, Dems and tribal leaders wanted everyone to know that they aren't very bothered by Kagen's remarks.

Several tribal leaders came to Kagen's defense, saying other issues were more important and the expression "Indian time" was not offensive. Use of the term "injun," however, was called derogatory by one tribal leader.

Menominee Tribal Chairwoman Karen Washinawatok said the term "Indian time" is commonly used among Native Americans, whose concept of time traditionally was much different from European settlers.

"It's not at all derogatory... it's the time we were meant to be there," she said. Washinawatok, however, said the word "injun" was derogatory.

Oh, okay. I've got it.

"Injun time" is a problem, but "Indian time" is not at all derogatory.

So it would be acceptable for me to say that an airline runs on "Indian time."

Or, the concert was scheduled to begin at 8:00 pm, but it didn't. It was that darn "Indian time" again.

That works for me. I wouldn't want to offend any Native Americans, but since it's perfectly alright to say "Indian time," I'll be glad to use it often.

Oneida Tribal Chairman Gerald Danforth said "Indian time" was "one of those cliches for why you might be late for an event." Danforth said he thought it was humorous that Kagen had used the term.

"I had to laugh. I didn't give it much more thought than that," Danforth said.

Funny. Really?

REALLY???

I think it's funny that these leaders are focusing on "Indian time" rather than what Kagen actually said, "INJUN TIME."

I would think that would make an enormous difference in terms of how forgiving they want to be.

The National Republican Congressional Committee today blasted Kagen for "his racially insensitive comments" and forwarded a critical press release from a South Dakota Republican congressional candidate, Bruce Whalen. WTMJ-AM talk radio host Charlie Sykes accused Kagen of essentially making a racial slur.

And why would that happen?

BECAUSE KAGEN USED A RACIAL SLUR.

It's on tape. He said "injun."

Why are the tribal officials giving Kagen a pass?

This is why:

Danforth and Washinawatok said there were many more important issues to the tribes than the Kagen remark.

Washinawatok said Kagen had visited the Menominee reservation many times and that she supports his candidacy. Danforth said the Oneida tribe had taken no official position on the congressional race.

Gard's push to give the state Legislature a say in approving Indian gambling compacts was objectionable to Washinawatok. Gard lead role in criticizing tribal gambling deals negotiated by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2003 also put him at odds with many Wisconsin tribal officials.

It's hard to respect Danforth and Washinawatok.

By going easy on Kagen, they appear extremely hypocritical. Do they want the dignity of Native Americans to be upheld or not? Do they sincerely care?

Do you think that they would react in the same manner if John Gard was caught on tape talking about "injun time"?

How about Mark Green?

What if he picked up on the phrase?

Would that be alright with Danforth and Washinawatok, or would they be on the warpath ready to scalp him?

Oops! Is that offensive?

I'm sorry. Let's pass the peace pipe and let bygones be bygones. Let's talk about what a racist scumbag George Allen is.

Election 2006: What About Mahmoud?

What do Democrats plan to do about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

What's their plan?

We don't know.

We should know, shouldn't we?

I think it's important, especially since the Dems have been declared victorious. It's a given that Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House, and Barack Obama is poised to run the country.

The Dems are so confident that the lib media probably already have their graphics of a Blue U.S. map ready to go for their election night coverage.

Some spineless conservatives have all but conceded defeat.

But what about Mahmoud?

He's rambling again.

From the Islamic Republic News Agency:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Monday said that over the past decades the potentials of the Iranian nation have increased ten folds, unlike those of Iran's ill-wishers which have shrunk by one tenth.

...Turning to the opposition of adversaries to development and progress of the nation, the chief executive underlined that Iranians will not allow their rights to be violated, even slightly.

"The enemies intend to prevent our progress by their unfair plots.

However, they should be aware that today the nation is seeking its full right to access nuclear energy and will not give up under any condition," he added.

The president underlined that Iran's policy is based on dialogue as well as promotion of peace and tranquility.

"Our nuclear activities have been within the frameworks of laws and regulations and we intend to continue complying with the relevant laws.

"The current problems and disasters facing man are mainly rooted in the disregard of some bullying powers for law, justice, spirituality and the limit of their own rights. They even go beyond their legal rights and seek hegemony over the world nations," he added.

Ahmadinejad noted that the bullying powers dismiss any move towards independence and by infiltrating into pivotal international decision making centers and seeking authority beyond their legal rights intend to impose hegemony over the world nations.

The president pointed to the ups and downs the Iranian nation has been through and said that it is now on the threshold of achieving its goal.

"The Iranians have been through a major part of such an effort through close cooperation and is determined to take the final step to materialize its nuclear goal," he added.

Addressing the country's ill-wishers and adversaries, he said, "Friendly approach towards a powerful and civilized country like Iran is in your own interest. You have misbehaved with Iranians over the past 27 years to no avail."

He called on the enemies to stop such misconduct, recognize officially the rights of other nations, encouraging them to solve any problem through talks.

The president referred to empathy as the mystery of the nation's victory and expressed confidence that the Iranians will firmly continue their resistance to materialize the set goal.

Iran is defying the United Nations.

Ahmadinejad is thumbing his nose at the world.

VIENNA, Austria -- Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program even as the U.N. Security Council focuses on possible sanctions for its defiance of a demand to give up the activity and ease fears it seeks nuclear weapons, diplomats said Monday.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge the information to media, told The Associated Press that within the past few weeks Iranian nuclear experts had started up a second pilot enrichment facility.

While the 164 centrifuges were not producing enriched uranium, even the decision to "dry test" them showed Iran's defiance of the Security Council. The council had set an Aug. 31 deadline for Tehran to cease all experiments linked to enrichment, which can produce the fissile material for nuclear warheads.

Madame Speaker Pelosi, now what?

President Obama, now what?

Does the "historic Pelosi" have a plan?

Does "rock star" Obama have what it takes to deal with a nuclear Iran?

Ahmadinejad is ignoring that favorite panacea of the Dems, the United Nations.

What will the Dems do?

Turn to Jimmy Carter for advice?

Will they tap the foreign policy genius of national treasure Madeleine Albright?

Maybe Mike Wallace can have another sit-down with Mahmoud.

I want to know how the Dems plan to react to Iran's steady progress toward going nuclear.

Nuclear proliferation is an important issue.

Issues? What issues?


_______________________________
Poison Pero notes that Mahmoud likes the Dems' plan.

It's NOT Mark Foley, Stupid!

Do voters care about the economy?

I thought the economy is supposed to be the major driving force behind voting behavior.

If so, the Dems may be in for a rude awakening the morning after Election Day.

NEW YORK -- Blue chips resumed a three-month rally after stalling Friday; the Dow briefly surpassed 12,100 and reached a new trading high of 12,117.95, eclipsing the old mark of 12,049.51 set last week. Broader market indexes also gained, shrugging off concerns about the Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates later this week.

"The picture being painted is pretty easy to suggest that the pressure on the economy from higher oil prices is easing," said Richard E. Cripps, chief market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus. The price of oil, which fell to lows for the year Friday from its mid-July highs, is making investors more bullish on sectors like retail, which stand to benefit if consumers have more spending money.

In midday trading, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 110.22, or 0.92 percent, to 12,112.59. Blue chips passed 12,000 for the first time last week.

Broader stock indicators also surged. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 8.71, or 0.64 percent, to 1,377.71, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 17.71, or 0.76 percent, to 2,360.01.

The Bush Plan has worked!

Remember that the Dems predicted Bush's cuts would spell disaster. They've been whining about the tax cuts for years.

How WRONG they are!

If the Dems controlled Congress, what would they do regarding the economy?

Read it and weep.

Congress Daily reported today that the Democratic Party's ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Rangel (D) of New York, all but guaranteed tax increases in the Democratic agenda if they take back the house in November. When approached about whether tax increases across the income spectrum would be considered, Rep. Rangel responded, "No question about it."

Let's talk about REAL issues.

The Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media have spent the past weeks trying to convince Americans that this election is about FORMER Rep. Mark Foley's IMs.

Why would they do that?

Naturally, they don't want anyone talking about the surging economy and the drop in gas prices.

There is absolutely no question that the Dems are unfit to manage the economy.

Case closed.

OBAMA OVEREXPOSED

Barack Obama's face is everywhere -- the cover of TIME, countless articles and TV appearances. You can't get away from him or the low hum of presidential buzz.

He was interviewed by Charlie Rose last week.

On last Thursday's Today Show, Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer spoke of Obama as "electrifying" and a "political rock star."

His potential as the future of the Democratic Party was critiqued by loony lib goddess Maureen Dowd in her column, "Obama's Project Runway."

Frank Rich, another New York Times lib soldier, wrote about Obama on Sunday.

And the crowning jewel -- Tim Russert had an EXCLUSIVE interview with Obama on this week's Meet the Press.

How ridiculous to refer to any recent interview with Obama as an "EXCLUSIVE"!

It would be an exclusive to NOT have him as a guest or the subject of a column.

On the Meet the Press website, the interview is hyped this way:

Sunday, Oct. 22
Exclusive! Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), the man Time magazine dubbed "The Future of the Democratic Party," discusses domestic politics, foreign policy, & the 2006 elections.

Watch the interview here or read the transcript.

Thrilling, isn't it?

The Left is absolutely agog over Obama.

OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA.

Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold must be so jealous. Everyone's talking about Obama. When was the last time you heard ol' Hillary or Russ referred to as a rock star? Probably NEVER.

Frankly, I don't see Obama's appeal. I don't get this Obama-mania. What do people know about him?

Simply put, Obama doesn't deserve all this attention. His popularity is so superficial and contrived.

I do see potential in Obama; but this guy isn't ready to run for the big job, not yet.

Last summer after Hurricane Katrina, I predicted that Obama was positioning himself for consideration to fill the number two spot on the 2008 Dem ticket. It appears that may be the case. He's not ready for that either. What has he done? What has he accomplished to be elevated to that position at this point?

He has been trying very hard to project that he can be all things to all people, but he can't.

The reality is Obama is a lib. He's not a moderate. He just plays one on TV.

Here's some perspective from June 27, 2005:

Barack Obama gives a glimpse of his true colors in this week's issue of Time.

Regarding how Lincoln influenced his own life journey, Obama writes:

"In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat - in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles. He also reminded me of a larger, fundamental element of American life - the enduring belief that we can constantly remake ourselves to fit our larger dreams."

Obama questions Lincoln's motives in ending slavery, casts doubt on the purity of his principles, and dismisses the significance of one of our nation's most important documents.

"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

Obama delivers a final slap at Lincoln when discussing his own election to the U.S. Senate.

"He may not have dreamed of that exact outcome. But I like to believe he would have appreciated the irony."

I suspect these comments will someday come back to haunt Obama, especially in any national campaign.

His address at last summer's Dem National Convention played well across America, impressing Republicans and Independents. His remarks on Lincoln, however, show Obama to be less moderate and mainstream than he appeared to be in the summer of 2004 when he was on the national stage.

I don't know. I doubt that Obama's remarks about Abraham Lincoln will come back to a haunt him. In fact, now I'm certain they won't.

It is interesting though to watch the media create Obama, to see them develop a persona for him that's actually quite different from the man he really is.

Read more instances of Obama's pronounced Leftist, "out of the mainstream" slant here and here and here.

He's not the moderate that he and the libs want you to think he is.

60 Minutes: Nancy Pelosi's Thick Skin

October 2, NEW: Nancy Pelosi on The View
____________________



CBS didn't need to tap into any phony documents for this 60 Minutes segment.

This wasn't a hit piece meant to sway a presidential election, like Dan Rather's 2004 story on President Bush's National Guard service.

Mr. Bush had signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard, and early on, the young pilot got glowing evaluations from his squadron commander, Col. Jerry Killian.

Killian called Lt. Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "performed in an outstanding manner." That is part of the public record.

But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

...Col. Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.

Robert Strong was a friend and colleague of Col. Killian who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era. Strong, now a college professor, believes these documents are genuine.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being," says Strong. "I don’t see anything in the documents that is discordant with what were the times, what was the situation and what were the people involved."

...In a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Col. Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush. Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not do an interview for this broadcast.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job."

What a load of forged crap! But I digress.

Back to tonight's 60 Minutes--

Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Lesley Stahl.

Although Stahl started off the piece by confronting the House MINORITY leader with her incivilities toward President Bush and Republicans, there were very few tough questions. No "gotcha" stuff at all.

No, this segment wasn't a hit job. It was not meant to destroy Pelosi. This was a coronation.

It was entitled, "Two Heartbeats Away."

Apparently, CBS has not only determined that the Dems will take control of the House, but Pelosi is a lock to be the Speaker. Thus, after the Vice President, she would be next in line to become President -- just two heartbeats away.

That's called counting your chickens before they hatch.

First, the civility issue -- Pelosi promises to restore civility to Washington.

As Stahl points out, that would be quite a trick considering Pelosi has called the Republicans "immoral, corrupt, and running a criminal enterprise."

Pelosi responded with, "When I called them those names I was being gentle."

Good grief.

Stahl then read some of Pelosi's thoughts on Bush, an "incompetent leader," and "not a leader, has no judgment."

Pelosi chuckled like the witch from "Hansel and Gretel," and shrugged that off by saying, "We're professionals."

She said that she has to make a distinction in the public between Republicans and Dems "so we can win."

The real killer: Pelosi said, "This isn’t personal."

She is one icy ... icy one.

Pelosi remarked, "I have very thick skin."

And referring to Republicans, she said, "I don't care what they say about me."

By "thick skin," she of course is speaking metaphorically, meaning she can withstand criticism.

Physically, it's easy to see that Pelosi's skin has been stretched very thin. I really think that was such a mistake for her to mess with her face. Elderly women like her can be very attractive. There's something so undignified about that mask-like look.

She didn't shy away from the fact that she is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. She takes pride in liberal positions, even though she chose to dodge the gay marriage issue when Stahl asked about it.

On Iraq and Republicans, Pelosi said, "This issue is them. The issue is the war that they got us into."

Right. And what about the majority of the Dems that got us into Iraq? Don't they count? Pelosi has a very selective memory.

She insisted that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

"The War on Terror is the war in Afghanistan."

I wish she'd make up her mind on that one.

In June of 2005, Pelosi declared that the war in Afghanistan was over.

Back then, speaking to a reporter, Pelosi said, "I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?"

A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."

The woman is absolutely clueless.

Not long into the 60 Minutes interview, everything turned warm and fuzzy.

Repeatedly, Pelosi kept referring to herself as a mother and grandmother, as if those labels automatically make her kind and nurturing.

She was raised in a strict Catholic family, with five older brothers.

I don't know. Is she a practicing Catholic now?

Since Stahl brought up her Catholic past, she should have asked how Pelosi reconciles that with her rigid pro-abortion positions.

A little later, hubby Paul Pelosi was trotted out.

He's very successful. Pelosi is the eighth richest member of the House. (Cosmetic surgery isn't cheap.)

What did the audience learn about Mr. Pelosi? He buys Nancy's clothes, because she doesn’t like to shop.

I don't see anything wrong with a husband buying his wife an article of clothing now and then, but being in charge of her wardrobe is a bit unusual.

Stahl then talked to daughter Christine and asked how Pelosi rules the roost? Apparently, Mother Pelosi was a drill sergeant.

She was a control freak as a mother and has brought that same discipline to her party, keeping her troops in lockstep, allowing no dissension.

At the end of the interview, Stahl declared, "She's poised to go down in the history books."

Again, isn't that a bit premature?

Yes, it is.

Stahl said, "Nancy Pelosi is tough as nails."

Pelosi preferred to soften her image and remind everyone that she's a mother and grandmother.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

But Pelosi did say that she's set to "break the marble ceiling" and become Speaker of the House, something that she thinks would help all women.

(Not the ones that are aborted, of course.)

She says that she wants to show that women know how to use power.

Not only is Pelosi dissing Condoleezza Rice, but she's also not giving her fellow lib Madeleine Albright any credit as a female political trailblazer.

Stahl wondered if Pelosi will have trouble reining in the Dems' lust for revenge.

What about impeachment?

Again, she dodged that, which is such a joke. Pelosi has been front and center when it comes to threatening the Bush administration.

Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

Pelosi claims that impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney is not her goal.

"Making them lame ducks is good enough for me," Pelosi said, trying to crack a smile.

In general, it was a disappointing interview, very low on substance.

Worst of all, Stahl didn't ask the burning questions that most Americans familiar with Pelosi want to know:

Exactly how many surgical procedures did it take to get Pelosi's face to look that way?

When she sleeps, do her eyelids close?