by Gary Gross at 01:38 PM

Salena Zito has a must read post on her Primary Colors blog that talks about the disconnect between superdelegates and voters. It's a stinging rebuke of the Democrats' nominating process, too.

Joe Andrew, a Democratic National Committee chair for five minutes, lives and operates out of Washington, D.C. But when it comes to giving news conferences about the presidential campaign, his podium is in Indianapolis. That is where Andrew went from Beltway boy to Hoosier to make his "big" announcement on changing sides from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

And the whole word gasped.

Well, not really the whole world. In all honesty, the collective gasp was heard from within the Beltway, that patch of geography where the chattering elite class of politicos live, breathe and eat.

But drive 15 minutes in any direction outside of the Beltway, and no one knows who Joe Andrew is or why his deflection should affect their vote.

Here is the problem that the media seems to ignore in this race for the Democrats: While there is plenty of headlines and pontifications about superdelegates moving their support to Obama, there is a curious dismissal of Clinton's string of strong wins with the John Deere voters.

The reality is that elitist Democratic Washingtonians love being in the power chair. They love to think that their's is the final opinion, that their's is the opinion that matters most.

As blogs become the voice of Mainstreet America, the superdelegates' opinions matter less and less. That's where the disconnect is most clearly seen. At the center of this is Howard Dean, the man who fancies himself as an outsider. In reality, he, like Markos Moulitsas, is a Washington insider with a brash voice pretending to speak for the people.

  Continue reading "Stop Telling Me It's Over"

by Gary Gross at 03:18 AM

Michele Bachmann, my representative, has been unfairly criticized for signing a pledge that she wouldn't accept earmarks. Her political opponents didn't bother finding out why she made this pledge. Thursday afternoon, I got a mailing from Rep. Bachmann that explains her position on earmarks. It also tells about what she's doing to take the corruption out of the earmark process. First, here's Michele's explanation on why she took the pledge:

Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.

That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.

Contrary to what her political opponents say, Rep. Bachmann isn't opposed to earmarks:

  Continue reading "Rep. Bachmann on Earmarks"

by Gary Gross at 02:41 PM

Wow!!! Greta van Susteren just posted something on the Pastor J-Wright-Obama controversy. To say that it was a blistering attack on Sen. Obama's observational skills is understatement. First, here's what the AP is reporting on Sen. Obama's statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.

Let's give Greta credit for asking the most pertinent questions in this paragraph:

  Continue reading "Greta Takes Obama To The Woodshed"

by Gary Gross at 04:16 AM

When the final analysis is written about this year's Democratic nominating process, this statement will surely be proven right:

Before this year's historic campaign, poisoned at the root by overt and ugly sexism and covert and coded racism, Democrats have never been asked to choose quite so nakedly which absolutely necessary demographic they would like to do without. Here is the question, a cynic might suggest, that the Democratic Party must answer this summer: Do we want to lose because we drove away blacks or because we drove away white women?

Early in the process, GOP strategists rightfully worried about Hillary's and Obama's big turnouts. What's needed, in my opinion, is something that happened right after George Bush's re-election. That's when the Nutroots pushed Howard Dean down the DNC's throats. From Day One, disaster was predictable, even inevitable. The Nutroots saw the Clinton/DLC connection as GOP lite. The Clintons saw the Nutroots as McGovernite losers. In other words, they hated each other.

In fact, it's more accurate to say that this rift first started with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He repeatedly said that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That rift got wider in August, 2006, when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That night, a new type of Democrat was born: Lieberman Democrats. Brendan Loy typifies Lieberman Democrats, socially and economically liberal but hawkish about national security.

Let's return to the present. Pennsylvania's primary is a perfect illustration of the split that's becoming more apparent each day. Blue collar Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Rich, white liberals will join African Americans in enthusiastically voting for Sen. Obama. Once Sen. Obama wins the nomination, alot of Hillary's DLC supporters will leave the Democrats' coalition and vote for John McCain.

While it'd be wrong to think that these DLC types to abandon the Democratic in dramatic numbers, their defections would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

What's that got to do with this year's race? Sunday night, I talked with a political insider in Pennsylvania. This insider told me that Sen. McCain has a definite shot at putting Pennsylvania in the red state column, regardless of the candidate. That figures to be the case in other blue collar states across the country.

by Gary Gross at 03:03 PM

In this Newsweek op-ed, John Kerry declares that Sen. Obama is the "truly transformative" presidential candidate. What he forgot to say is that he's inept when it comes to putting together economic policies.

This year, Democrats know we have an embarrassment of riches—two terrific candidates. But one is truly transformative. Obama isn't just winning elections; he's exciting millions of new voters. In North Carolina, 165,000 people have registered this year alone, three quarters of them eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Skeptics question whether Obama can win working-class voters, but in Virginia and Wisconsin, two states the party aims to carry in November, he romped through—winning every demographic group across the lines of education, religion, ethnicity, race and income. With critical Senate races in places like Colorado and New Mexico, Democratic leaders are excited that the "coattails" of an Obama campaign can win a new generation of Red State Democrats. Last February, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine was asked whether a Democratic candidate could carry Virginia for the first time since LBJ did it in 1964. "The right Democrat could," he replied. Two days later, he endorsed Obama.

Statistically speaking, Sen. Kerry is right; Sen. Obama did carry working class voters. That was then, this is now. It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Obama wouldn't have done well with working class Democrats had he made his bitter comments earlier in the cycle. Had voters known then what they know now, it's likely that this would've been a completely different race.

Sen. Kerry's statement that "the party aims to carry" Virginia this November is boilerplate stuff. I pointed out in this post, it appears as though Virginia, Missouri, Ohio and Florida are solidly in the Red column. Just because Democrats can "aim to carry" the state doesn't mean it's a done deal.

  Continue reading "John F. Kerrry: Obama "Truly Transformative""

by Gary Gross at 05:48 PM

The aftereffects of the Philadelphia Fiasco continues much as I expected. One of the highlights from the Philadelphia Fiasco for Republicans was Sen. Obmama's answer on capital gains taxes, which I spoke to here:

MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.” It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

Today, Larry Kudlow takes that answer apart as only he can do. Here's the part that zeroes in on Obama's chest:

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

Larry Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "bungled his answers on tax policy" carries some weight with financial types. The more that Sen. Obama talks about tax fairness instead of solid tax policy, the more incompetent and inexperienced Sen. Obama looks.

Kudlow pointing out the people who'd get hurt by Obama's tax policy certainly won't help Sen. Obama with the middle class voters he'll need to win in November. Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles" will surely be used to attack Sen. Obama as incompetent and not qualified to the next president. This paragraph isn't helpful to Sen. Obama's campaign:

In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Finally, this might be the most damaging portion:

Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, nobody questioned his expertise on economics. Clearly, people are questioning Sen. Obama's economic expertise. That can't bode well for him this fall.

by Gary Gross at 12:41 PM

This article in the Chicago Sun-Times seems to make a case that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn have become productive members of society who don't deserve the ridicule they're currently getting. Check out this section of their article:

But friends like Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said Ayers should not be a campaign issue.

Katz met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground splintered. She noted Ayers' work with Mayor Daley to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools and likened him to Black Panther-turned-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.

"What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush...did 40 years ago has nothing to do with" the presidential campaign, Katz said. Ayers "has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth."

Ms. Katz seems to be suggesting that we see both the good and the bad that Ayers has done. I don't see the need to do that in this instance because the evil things that William Ayers did 40 years ago are that evil. Furthermore, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to forgive him while he remains unrepentant.

Let's put the proverbial shoe on the other foot for a moment. What if a reporter found out that John McCain had some ties with Tim McVeigh back in the 1980's? Does anyone think that the media wouldn't have be right to examining just how tight the ties were between those men? I'd bet the proverbial ranch that MoveOn.org and Kos would say that that's proof of Sen. McCain's extreme right wing tendencies.

Let's take this a step further. Some lefties are saying that Obama is the victim of guilt by asasociation, both with Ayers and with Pastor J-Wright. Let's ask the next logical question. Which other presidential candidate had ties to an unrepentant terrorist while attending a church with a racist pastor?

What I find amusing is that Sen. Obama's defense, and the defense by his supporters, is that Hillary Clinton is just as guilty because Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground:

Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, on Friday defended Obama's handling of the Ayers matter and noted Clinton has ties to the Weather Underground through her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“In the debate, Obama called the acts Ayers committed 40 years ago ‘detestable,’... and any attempt to connect him with those events is outrageous,” LaBolt said. “While Obama, Mayor Daley, and others in Chicago’s academic and civic communities have known Bill Ayers in recent years...President Clinton pardoned a member of the Weathermen who participated in a heist that left two police officers and a security guard dead, and commuted the sentence of another, and we have yet to hear where Senator Clinton stands on President Clinton's actions.”

It's interesting that Sen. Obama's spokesman tries rationalizing his ties with Prof. Ayers by tying Hillary to the Weather Underground. That isn't the way to get this issue resolved. All that does is show a stark contrast between the Democrats' candidates and John McCain.

Apparently, Mr. LaBolt doesn't understand that that argument won't work against John McCain.
I just found this must read post on Lynn Sweet's blog:

For those who have forgotten or weren’t born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8–11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8 October-11, 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 – Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department.

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore die in t. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 – Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters.

27 July 1970 – Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 – Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 – Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 – Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 – Bombing of The United States Capitol. ” [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 – Bombing of the Office of California Prisons. [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 – Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 – Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 – Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 – Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 – Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy. [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 – Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 – Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 – Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 – Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 – Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York.

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation.

October 20, 1981 – Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article

When you read that extensive list of terrorist attacks, it's important to focus on Ayers' quote in the NYTimes, saying that he felt that "we didn't do enough." Does anyone in their right mind think that they "didn't do enough"?

In the final summary of this relationship, what will be known is that a major political party's presidential nominee had rather dubious ties to an unrepentant terrorist. When people learn that, I suspect that they'll say, in overwhelming numbers, that Sen. Obama should've immediately denounced Bill Ayers' terrorist attacks and immediately distanced himself from Ayers.

by Gary Gross at 11:02 AM

Yesterday, Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay Rep. John Boehner the damages stemming from a 1998 lawsuit. Here's the gist of Judge Hogan's ruling:

A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney’s fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.

There's alot of history behind this ruling. Here's a nice summarization of that history:

Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of leaking the contents of a conference call that a Florida couple had illegally taped from Boehner’s cell phone in 1996.

In the call, Republican leaders, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (1979-99), discussed responding to ethics allegations against Gingrich, who served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999.

McDermott at the time was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel.

The attorney’s fee payment comes on top of $60,000 in damages that McDermott already has paid Boehner out of his legal expense fund.

In December, McDermott paid Boehner $50,000 in court-ordered punitive damages, $10,000 in statutory damages and another $4,169 in interest, according to public disclosure filings. The payment was made shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in Boehner’s favor.

What's hillarious is McDermott's statement after being notified of the ruling:

  Continue reading "Court to McDermott: Pay Up"

by Gary Gross at 10:29 PM

The message that the anti-war protesters sent in getting the Vets for Freedom event canceled at Forest Lake High School was that an event with military vets isn't to be tolerated. They aren't the only people that deserve criticism. I'd say that FLHS principal Steve Massey also deserves criticism heaped on him for caving to political pressure from a fringe liberal blog.

Despite the planned event getting canceled, Vets for Freedom did hold an event, stopping at the American Legion Post 225 in Forest Lake. Here's a brief recap from the Forest Lake Times:

After threats of an anti-war protest on Monday forced Forest Lake High School to cancel a visit by the Vets for Freedom national heroes tour, the group successfully made the visit to Forest Lake. On Tuesday, the Vets for Freedom bus rolled into the parking lot at American Legion Post 225 which was selected as alternate site for the tour.

Pete Hegseth is the executive director of the organization and a 1999 Forest Lake High School graduate who served with the Army in Iraq. Hegseth said on Tuesday he was disappointed with the school decision to cancel the event as it was an opportunity for students to hear stories from military personnel who have served their country. Hegseth said the high school program would not have taken a position on the Iraq War but would have conveyed a message to students about the importance of patriotism and military service to country.

  Continue reading "Can't Have That Happening"

by Gary Gross at 10:56 AM

Silvestre Reyes' dishonesty is showing. Here's where Rep. Reyes goes wrong in his March 20th Strib op-ed:

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.

Rep. Reyes is spinning this beyond acceptable levels. He's writing about Rep. Michele Bachmann's op-ed about the expiration of the FISA reform bill known as the Protect America Act (PAA). In the law that expired, FISA was updated temporarily. It expired after 6 months.

Everyone who knows anything about intelligence gathering knows that FISA deals only with foreign surveillance, hence the name Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has nothing to do with surveilling Americans.

Let's first examine why the PAA was enacted. A FISA Appellate Court judge ruled that foreign communications that passed through an American telecommunications switch needed a warrant because it was deemed a domestic communication. In this judge's mind, it didn't matter that the sender and recipient weren't Americans. It didn't even matter that neither the sender or recipient weren't even in the United States. All that mattered was that the communication passed through an American switch.

DNI Chairman Mike McConnell testified to this in Congress. He repeated that information to FNS's Chris Wallace:

  Continue reading "As Intellectually Dishonest As It Gets"

by Gary Gross at 12:44 AM

Embattled Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has experienced one of the most awful weeks in American political history. As I said here, you know it's bad when revealing extensive ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko isn't the big news of the week. Clearly, the Pastor J-Wright scandal has temporarily sucked the oxygen out of the presidential campaigns. As bas as that seems, this article in WND adds another chapter to the Pastor J-Wright scandal. This headline says it all:

Obama Church Published Hamas Terror Manifesto

It gets worse from there:

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

Here's more of the details of what got printed in Pastor J-Wright's page:

In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism. Here's that image:

Here's a portion of Mousa Abu Marzook's LA Times op-ed:

  Continue reading "Obama's Awful Week Gets Worse"

by Gary Gross at 08:07 PM

Conservatives have frequently complained about the media's anti-conservative bias. That's why it's worth commending ABCNews for this article about the contradictions highlighted in Obama's J-Wright speech. Here's the opening of their article:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of "thousands of donors."

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

This msut be one of the worst weeks anyone's ever suffered in the history of American politics. The biggest problem currently facing Obama is the Pastor J-Wright problem. Sen. Obama initially told FNC's Major Garrett that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory speeches. Yesterday, he admitted that he'd heard them but did nothing about them.

The question I have is this: Why didn't Sen. Obama chastize Pastor J-Wright for his incendiary commentary? That's the minimum he should've done. Sen. Obama would've been perfectly justified in leaving TUCC. I suspect that that would've been the politically smart move, too.

That's awful enough but that isn't all. Last Friday, Sen. Obama also admitted that Mr. Rezko was more than "just one of 'thousands of donors.'" I told a friend last Saturday that "You know it's a bad week for Sen. Obama when his admitting to having close ties to Tony Rezko isn't the worst news of the week for him.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

That giant sucking sound you're hearing is Sen. Obama's credibility disappearing down the drain. While he might not get hurt by his contradictions in the Democratic nomination process, I'll bet the proverbial ranch that they'll destroy him in the general election.

In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.

It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.

The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."

Sen. Obama can't afford any more hits to his credibility. He created an image of transcending race and political affiliation. Now it's verifiable fact that he's attended a racist church pastored by an America-hating pastor. If it gets any worse, he can forever kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye.

The bad news is that I'll be posting something later tonight that'll add to Sen. Obama's troubles. Sen. Obama's ugly week is about to get uglier.

by Gary Gross at 10:14 AM

We all remember the stink that erupted when Hillary essentially said that, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches mattered but it took an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Part of the reason why we remember it so well is because Sen. Obama replied by saying this:

"Don't tell me that words don't matter."

NHale Media just put together a devastating YouTube video based on that theme. Here's that video:

Barack Obama would be wise to learn the lesson that actions matter, too. Frankly it would've been nice to see Sen. Obama stand up to Pastor J-Wright for the saying the inflammatory, hate-filled words he said.

It's difficult to respect someone who won't stand up to that type of hatefulness until it's politically necessary to do so. That isn't a portrait in courage. That's a portrait in political damage control. You'll forgive me if I don't feel particularly inspired by that.

by Gary Gross at 11:25 PM

This afternoon, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on the questions that the strict constructionist jurists asked, it appears likely that DC's gun ban law won't be sustained. Here's what Stephen Breyer asked:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.'"

Here's how Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Breyer's question:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

Here's the Washington Post's reporting that makes me believe that DC's ban will be overturned:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms" that is separate.

Liberals thought that Justice Kennedy would vote like Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on his votes since Justice O'Connor retired, it's clear that they thought wrong. While Justice Kennedy isn't another Scalia or Roberts, it's clear that he isn't another Justice O'Connor either.

Here's another part of the Post's reporting that sounds reasonable:

But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms."

Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.

I wouldn't be surprised if my Second Amendment friends took exception to my comments. That said, we regulate things because they conflict with public safety. The lone exception should be the First Amendment.

When the ruling is issued, likely in late June, the Roberts Court will likely restore sanity to the Second Amendment. That's the difference between an activist court and a strict constructionist court.

That's why it's vitally important to elect John McCain to succeed President Bush. If we can get another reliable strict constructionist confirmed, then we will have established sanity on the Supreme Court for another generation.

by Gary Gross at 10:41 AM

Rep. Michele Bachmann has an op-ed in Saturday's Strib in which she chastizes the House Democratic Leadership for letting the Protect America Act lapse. Here's how she states her case:

One of the critical tools that has allowed us to keep the homeland safe after 9/11 has been the Protect America Act. It updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with new, deadly challenges in this age of terror -- enabling intelligence services to immediately listen to phone calls made between foreign terrorists.

But on Feb. 16, the Protect America Act expired -- even though the Senate voted to reauthorize it with a strong, bipartisan vote, and even though the same bipartisan support exists in the House as well.

Why, then, has it expired?

Because the House Democratic leadership has simply refused to allow a vote, knowing it will pass. In fact, 21 House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging her to bring the bill to the floor.

While this inaction may score cheap political points with the fringe elements of the Democratic caucus, American families are needlessly imperiled. This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. This is fact, confirmed by our intelligence community and agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The House Democratic leadership won't pay attention to their own representatives because they're interested in having their trial lawyer friends sue the government. The reason why they want that is for the documents they hope to unearth during discovery. They're hoping they'll discover some damning document during discovery.

Meanwhile, our intelligence-gathering agencies can't operate at peak efficiency:

We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here’s why:

• Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They’re already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
• It has already happened, briefly. “[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

DNI Director stated forcefully during congressional testimony that his hands were tied because of the FISA Appeals Court judge's ruling. The Protect America Act rectified that problem. Now that it's lapsed, we've returned to operating with one eye shut.

It's important to ask if there are other reasons why Ms. Pelosi wouldn't let the Senate bill come to a vote. The answer is a resounding yes. To have this bill pass over her objections would make her look weak, unable to control her own caucus. She can't offord to look weak or ineffective heading into the white-hot spotlight of the election season.

If Ms. Pelosi can't control her minions on this vote, they might well rebel on other votes, too. At some point, she'll have to give in. The telecommunications companies won't cooperate without immunity. When the first commercials get shot of Mike McConnell testifying that his hands are tied because the Protect America Act lapsed, when that commercial shows the Senate passing the PAA renewal with immunity by a 68-29 vote, the average voter won't side with Ms. Pelosi. They'll side with Mike McConnell in a heartbeat.

Rep. Bachmann is right on the money in pointing out how the Democratic leadership has failed in its primary responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves.

by Gary Gross at 07:14 AM

The American Prospect's Terence Samuel has an interesting perspective on the Democratic Party. Granted, it's something that Republicans have long known. Here's specifically what I'm talking about:

As much as Democrats love their two candidates, the really animating issue is getting rid of Bush, and they are completely open on how, and evenly divided on with whom. Without Bush-loathing as the organizing principle of their unity, Democrats could find themselves on shaky ground: the party's old personality disorders may begin to resurface. The old identity crises have already begun to show themselves.

Republicans have known for almost 7 years that Democrats' election motivation is based primarily on BDS. When Howard Dean said that "This is a battle between good and evil and we're the good", that statement was directed at President Bush.

Democrats face other daunting problems. righht now, independents don't like President Bush these days. The thing is that that problem disappears the minute John McCain accepts the GOP nomination. Another thing that's bound to factor into this is that Democratic activists are driven by their BDS much like they were driven by their hatred of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. How do these activists stay motivated when Bush isn't there to motivate them?

The biggest dilemma facing them, as Samuel points out, is that the Left's BDS affliction has masked a number of divisions within the party. Here's how Samuel frames it:

The fight over NAFTA is one such schism. Is this the progressive party that embraces the reality of globalization, or the neo-protectionist party that seeks to shelter American workers from the ravages of the global economy? The Prospect's Robert Kuttner and former Clinton administration adviser Robert Rubin disagree for a reason.

This really is the fight for control between the Deaniac wing of the party and the DLC wing. It's essentially a fight between the protectionists and the globalists.

Once President Bush moves into the rearview mirror, the self-examination within the Democratic Party will take on a life of its own. When their nominee makes a mistake, will the activists start questioning their candidate? If they do, how will that affect turnout drives?

With the race getting nastier and the elbows getting sharper, there's plenty of reason to believe that this will hurt party unity in September moving forward. If the fight happens in the fall, it'll just make the Democrats' chances of winning the White House that much more difficult.

by Jon Roth at 06:00 PM

I had hoped that Condoleeza Rice would have brought fresh realism to the State Department, but have been disappointed. Instead, she has either become a status quo diplomat, trying the same failed policies in the middle east that have failed for decades, or allowed herself to become controlled by the bureaucracy that wants to maintain that status quo. Either way, by refusing to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in all Israel-Palestinian "peace processes," which is to view process as a goal in and of itself and to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinians do not desire peace (credit Hillary Clinton for noticing), Dr. Rice ensures a failure of American foreign policy. After all, a policy based on fiction - that Fatah is peaceful or that Mahmoud Abbas is either interested in or capable of a durable peace accord - is doomed to fail. Caroline Glick has more:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left many Israelis and supporters of Israel scratching their heads in disbelief this week...

On Monday, a well organized group of hundreds of Arab thugs threw rocks at Jewish motorists in Jerusalem...

Outside Hebron, an Israeli was attacked by yet another mob and escaped alive only by opening fire at his assailants.

In another incident, Fatah forces murdered a Palestinian and seriously wounded an Israeli outside of Hebron. The US-financed group claimed its operatives lured the Israeli to the scene.

In Ramallah and Hebron, thousands of Fatah members rallied in support of Hamas and its missile offensive against the western Negev...

In Judea and Samaria, Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas referred to the IDF's operations in Gaza as an attempted "holocaust." He praised terrorists, suspended negotiations with Israel and reiterated his refusal to recognize Israel. His deputies and associates echoed his incendiary remarks and also spoke in support of armed attacks against US forces in Iraq.

Then there is Egypt. Last Monday, two days before Hamas escalated its missile offensive against southern Israel, Egypt released 21 Hamas terrorists from custody in el-Arish. Twelve of the men had reportedly been detained while carrying weapons and attempting to cross into Israel to carry out terrorist attacks. On Monday, they were escorted to Gaza by scores of Egyptian security officials and handed over to Hamas...

But none of these developments had any impact on Rice, or for that matter on her boss President George W. Bush. Ignoring Fatah's obvious involvement in terror and increasingly overt support for Hamas's missile war against Israeli civilians, Bush overrode a congressional ban on the transfer of $150 million to Fatah. Similarly, in her visit to Egypt this week, Rice announced that the administration was overriding a congressional decision to block the transfer of $120m. to Egypt due to its refusal to prevent Hamas weapons smuggling operations from Egypt.

Watching President Bush fall down the same sinkhole everyone else in the middle east has because of a false faith in Palestinian intentions is difficult. It would have been nice to see him stiffen his spine and remain opposed to terrorism rather than ignoring it just because he adheres to a myth that Abbas or Fatah are interested in peace. Bush and Rice will see zero progress this year because their policies are based on this fallacy.

by Jon Roth at 12:57 PM

It was big news when the Pentagon awarded a fiercely contested tanker deal to a team comprised of Northrop Grumman (U.S.) and EADS (Europe) over Boeing (U.S.). The Pentagon typically holds competitive bidding processes to ensure best use of taxpayer dollars and the result was that the Pentagon believes the Boeing entry was an inferior product for the U.S. Air Force. Boeing originally won the contract, but John McCain highlighted the corruption of the process and forced the competitive bidding process (more than one person went to federal prison for crimes committed in the prior Boeing handout).

Naturally, finding the best product for the best price is not of interest to politicians in whose districts Boeing has facilities. They don't think the Pentagon ought to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money, but rather view the procurement budget as a source of local pork. So when the contract went to the Northrop Grumman-EADS team, the protectionists and demagogues howled.

John McCain is standing firm and he should be applauded, and defended and supported, for saving the taxpayers billions of dollars and stopping an illegal backroom deal with Boeing from fleecing the government. Let the Democrats, and some nativist Republicans, defend the status quo of military planning based on what local pols want instead of what best serves the needs of our armed forces.

by Gary Gross at 03:47 AM

According to this Thomas More Law Center action alert, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani is being thrown under the bus because the military caved to John Murtha's political agenda. Here's what Richard Thompson said on behalf of his client:

“Military Judge Colonel Stephen Folsom’s, USMC, ruling yesterday refusing our request to take the deposition of Congressman John Murtha, D-PA, is the latest indication that it will be impossible for Marine Lt. Colonel Chessani to get a fair trial regarding November 19, 2005, Haditha incident,” said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, the Ann Arbor, Michigan based public interest law firm defending Lt. Col. Chessani.

“This entire prosecution is politically motivated and stinks to high heaven. Denying us the right to take Murtha’s deposition so that we could show undue command influence, as well as denial of our request for production of documents in the possession of Lt. Col. Chessani’s superiors makes it impossible for us to render this loyal Marine officer the effective assistance of counsel he deserves — they are attempting to throw him under the bus. In many ways this is a trial like the one in Alice in Wonderland—the verdict first and then the trial.”

Continued Thompson, “In the next couple of weeks we will reveal startling facts tracing the impetus for this prosecution to the highest levels of military and civilian command.”

John Murtha's despicable behavior should turn every American's stomach. He started this in motion because he wanted to be the House Majority, not because he'd found out that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" but because he's a despicable human being without a hint of integrity.

If Murtha were to repeat under oath the things that he's said on TV, he'd be convicted of perjury in the shortest trial in history. This timeline reveals all the discrepancies in Murtha's evolving story. Here's Rep. Murtha's initial account:

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.

“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

First of all, there was a day-long firefight. We know this because it was captured on film by a UAV monitoring the events of that day. Second of all, of the 24 people killed that day, eight were known insurgents.

When first asked by reporters how he got his information, here's Rep. Murtha's explanation:

  Continue reading "Murtha Gets His Way On Haditha"

by Gary Gross at 04:13 AM

Yesterday, I wrote that Pelosi's Democrats were about to cave again. This evening, Eric Cantor posted this message on his blog:

Unfortunately, as of late Tuesday night, the word is that House Democrats still are not ready to come forward with a fix to the mess they’ve created regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The safety and security of the United States or taking care of the trial lawyers - which will it be??? Americans await the Democrats’ decision, as their self-imposed deadline nears.

The longer this drags out, the more campaign contributions the Democrats will get from the trial attorney lobby but it's also true that the longer this goes on, the more people will notice that Democrats are perfectly willing to play politics with keeping America safe from terrorists. I don't think that that's the message they want to send.

It's time for cooler heads in the House Democratic Caucus, if any still remain, to tell Ms. Pelosi and minions that they'd better get this right because America's safety is too important to play games with.

At this point, I don't see that happening, though I've heard that some Blue Dog Democrats have tried stepping forward on this. This should also tell people across America that the House Democratic Party is run by fringers like John Conyers, Maxine Waters and the Out of Iraq Caucus. Letting that bunch stay in power should scare the daylights out of thinking people of all political stripes.

by Gary Gross at 03:40 PM

Campaigning yesterday, Barack Obama made a huge tactical mistake. He announced that chuck Hagel would be a possibility as his Secretary of Defense:

The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

While I regard Chuck Hagel to be an honest man, I also consider him to be a buffoon. He's been stridently anti-war, which won't play with the surge proving effective.

This tells me that Obama is misreading the mood of the American public. It's an indicator that he thinks voters booted Republicans from the majority because they're anti-war. That isn't the reason whatsoever. The people were anti-war only to the extent that they thought the war wasn't being prosecuted properly. Now that they're seeing John McCain being vindicated, they're willing to give him a second chance. That doesn't mean that they like the thought of war but they'll tolerate it as long as we're winning.

  Continue reading "Picking An Anti-War SecDef???"

by Gary Gross at 02:18 AM

David Ignatius has written something that asks the question most likely to trip Barack Obama up. Here's how he frames it:

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "where's the beef?" question about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. And this is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Thus far, Obama has talked the talk but proof that he's walked the walk is thin to nonexistent. As Mr. Ignatius states, John McCain certainly has a heftier track record of working across the aisle than Obama.

Thus far, Obama has gone unscathed but that white glove treatment is about to end. The RNC and the McCain campaign will frequently be challenging Sen. Obama on things like this. Their goal is to prove that Sen. Obama is all talk. Obama didn't have to worry about that type of attack from Hillary because she's such a divisive figure. That dynamic just changed because McCain isn't a divisive figure.

The other thing that's about to change is the experience issue. Hillary's tried to play that card but it's been an exercise in futility because she doesn't have the gravitas that McCain has. McCain can contrast his leading the charge for the successful Surge strategy. As Mara Liasson astutely pointed out, all that Obama's had to do thus far is say that he's been consistently opposed to this war. Since everyone was fighting to out-peacenik each other, there wasn't a need to actually defend their anti-war policies. That's just changed in a big way with McCain pushing his pro-victory agenda.

This should be a most interesting general election. If McCain can unite Republicans, this could be a strong GOP election.

by Jon Roth at 06:53 PM

We have not learned the lesson of 2006 and the GOP's stupidity is alarming.

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) has been selected to fill the appropriations panel seat vacated by ex-Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), several GOP sources said Thursday.

GOP leaders faced a pool of seven House lawmakers, including the chairman of the House campaign committee who ran against two politically vulnerable members, and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was backed by the anti-earmark community and conservative blogs.

John Boehner's refusal to put Jeff Flake on Appropriations shows a lack of seriousness on earmarks and spending in general, as it would have been the strongest sign of a return to limited government principles. Why does the Republican party believe it can win back the majority without reforming itself?

by Jon Roth at 08:09 AM

It is now over a week that America has not renewed the FISA law that enables us to conduct intelligence against terrorists, solely because the Democrats are doing the bidding of their trial lawyer moneymen. The trial lawyers have dozens of lawsuits pending against telecom companies for cooperating with the federal government after September 11 by, under a Justice Department legal opinion, helping to intercept terrorist communications. For Democrats, they would rather endanger our country and put lives at risk than upset their most important financial backers. If this is not treason, it is as close as you can get without committing it. It's ironic that the left has libeled Gen. David Petraeus as a traitor, when it is the Democrats who are literally committing treason.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell wrote a letter to House intelligence committee chairman Silvestre Reyes noting how absurdly ignorant he was when he stated that the Democrats' refusal to act did not imperil our nation. But, did you expect anything more from the supremely unqualified and breathtakingly uninformed Reyes, whom Nancy Pelosi made chairman instead of the much more knowledgable and senior Jane Harman. That Reyes could be so utterly wrong about basic intelligence as chairman of the committee is frightening, and is the price America is paying for putting Democrats in charge.

Democrats, of course, claim to want to negotiate a "bi-partisan" agreement. I suppose the Democrat holdouts would be negotiating on behalf of al Qaeda, then, because the bill that the President would sign and that enough House Democrats would support for it to pass was passed by the Senate 68-29, including with the support of Chairman Jay Rockefeller. Enough Democrats will vote "yes" for it to pass easily in the House, as it passed in the Senate, if only Pelosi would allow a vote. But she refused and left for a wedding instead.

And I hope the McCain campaign takes note of the fact that Obama and Clinton both took money from lawyers who are suing the telecom companies that heeded their nation's call for help after September 11 (Obama voted against FISA and Clinton didn't vote at all). Their greed is putting all of our lives in danger and, G-d forbid there is another attack, these same traitors will lambaste President Bush for intelligence failures that they themselves are creating. The Republican party should be pounding the Democrats on this all day every day until they put the interests of the nation ahead of those of their top financial contributors.

by Gary Gross at 01:56 AM

Ever since catching the national spotlight, I've thought that Karl Rove was a political genius. After reading his latest WSJ column, I'm more convinced that he's a genius. Here's Mr. Rove's take on Obama's performance last night:

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

  Continue reading "The Page is Turned"