During floor time in the United States Senate this morning, after both parties' leaders spoke, Senator Edward M. Kennedy took to the floor, intending to talk about economics, but he just couldn't refuse venting in this little diatribe on Iraq.

 

You can almost throw out Kennedy's entire statement by looking at two passages.

But I will point out that one of the best votes that I’ve cast in the United States Senate was in opposition to the resolution put forward, supported by the Senator of Kentucky, that brought us into Iraq,

and

They’ve had their time.

He starts out by saying he never would have even helped the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam Hussein to begin with, and then says they've had long enough to get their political act together.  Keep in mind that it was U.S. foreign policy for decades that helped keep Saddam's dictatorial reign intact as long as it did.  It doesn't matter to Kennedy.  The Iraqis should have been able to overthrow Saddam themselves and instantly form a new government, all without any help from us.

Besides that, however, after listening to the "How long" rhetoric that continues to reverberate through the chamber, the hypocrisy of the Democrats' view of the Iraqi government is stunning.  While serving as red meat to the anti-war Democratic base, it is rather silly.  How long, oh Senator, how long must we stay in Japan, 60 plus years after the fighting stopped? How long, oh Senator, how long must we continue to defend South Korea?  How long must our troops spend cold winters in Germany?

General David Petraeus reported to the Congress in September that there was progress in the outlying provinces around Baghdad, but that Baghdad proper was still, for the most part, pretty rough.  We didn't start seeing any reportage about Baghdad stabilizing until October.  So that means that if you start the clock for the Iraqi politicians when security was returning in Baghdad, that means they've had somewhere on the order of 45 days or so to make a government.  But remember, as Kennedy stated, they've had enough time.  How efficiently has the Senate operated this year, with no violence in the streets of Washington?

Judge Leslie Southwick was nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 9th.  That's the day the Senate received the nomination.  He was confirmed October 24th, 297 days later.  Senator Kennedy, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, certainly could have seen this nomination processed a lot faster than 45 days, since you can easily build governments in that period of time. Maybe, using the Kennedy speak in the above clip, he was being held hostage.

Or how about Attorney General Michael Mukasey, whose nomination was sent to the Senate on September 21st of this year, with bipartisan support at that time, but was not confirmed until November 9th, 49 days later?  It's funny how a government is supposed to be completely formulated in less time than it takes to process a cabinet appointee here. 

There are twelve appropriations bills that have to get done every year, regardless of who is in the White House and who runs the Congress.  This year, the Democrats passed their own budget blueprint to process these bills on March 23rd.  Eleven of the twelve haven't been signed into law, some 225 days later.  Using Senator Kennedy's timetable, can you imagine what Iraq is supposed to look like in 225 days? 

I do have to say, however, that I find myself in agreement with a Congressional Democrat.  Rep. Norm Dicks just returned from his 5th trip to Iraq, and had this to say:

I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can’t do it back here.

I know, Congressman. I feel kinda embarrassed when I see people like Ted Kennedy make foolish remarks and engage in political sqabbles all the time, and then see him lecturing indirectly to the Iraqi politicians for exactly the same behavior. It seems incredulous that someone in the greatest deliberative body on Earth can honestly expect rookie politicians in a cooling down war zone to do more than we can do here, and faster. 

How long, Senator Kennedy? As long as it takes.

On July 26th of this year, Hugh warned against the wisdom of GOP candidates participate in a CNN/YouTube debate format.  One day later, I posted one of the early YouTube debate question entries, which reinforced Hugh's concerns. 

After a brief debate about whether or not Republican candidates should participate in this type of format, it was eventually agreed to and a date was set for Wednesday, November 28th. A day ahead of the debate, Hugh was joined on the radio show by Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube. 

It is an interview that has to be heard, not read.  Here it is.

11-27hugh-grove.mp3

As you listen, ask yourself if you trust CNN and YouTube to put together an honest, thoughtul and fair debate between the GOP presidential candidates.

Two days out from Thanksgiving, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman Jack Murtha, one of the main voices of the anti-war defeatists in the House of Representatives, held a joint press conference with David Obey to defend the House Democrats against charges that they're playing politics with war funding by putting conditions on money that would weaken George Bush's Commander-In-Chief authority. 

The Senate rightly killed the House language this week, and now the Democrats are trying to claim the strings they put in the $50 billion dollar bridge bill, which demanded an immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq by next Christmas, weren't really strings at all. 

But it was how Murtha started his remarks which will draw ire from conservatives heading into the holiday.  Here's the video.

This week, around our Thanksgiving tables, there will be two families: One who say they support the troops, and they do, but they have sacrificed very little. They haven't had their taxes raised, they haven't been drafted, and they don't really participate in the war. The other are military families who have husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in the war theater. It's them who shoulder the burden of the President's Iraq policy. America owes them our thanks in this Thanksgiving weekend.

Very nice, Congressman Murtha.  Two Americas this Thanksgiving, those who sacrifice and those who don't.  And if you don't serve in the military, you're not really part of the war effort unless you are either drafted or have your taxes raised.  So if you're a civilian working in hospitals or rebab clinics treating wounded warriors, no thanks to you. If you are a private contractor working on reconstruction in Iraq, you just haven't sacrificed enough for Jack Murtha.  If you give money or take part in a military charity as your way of supporting the troops, it's not good enough to win a seat at Jack Murtha's table.  You still don't pay enough in taxes, so you're stuck at the card table in the other room. 

There is a third "family" out there gathering around the table this Thanksgiving.  You might consider these people to be outwardly supportive of the troops in the field fighting, but who are working feverishly to strip away the gains being achieved by our troops in order to placate their anti-war political base.  63 times this year this "family" has tried to legislate withdrawal from Iraq, unsuccessful every time, but yet they keep endeavoring to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  

Meanwhile, over in the other branch of this "family" tree, Harry Reid made sure the tax dollars you do unsacrificially pay went to good use today, preventing George Bush from being able to free up any of the scores of judicial appointees being held in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee by way of recess appointment.  Here's Virginia Senator James Webb doing his impersonation of the Maytag repairman: 



Get used to these little Senate minutes over the next couple of weeks, because you're going to see a lot of them.  Chuck Schumer doesn't want President Bush to get any more judicial appointments if he can help it. So Webb's little pro forma session today was a little capsule of the do-nothing Congress this year.

What the Democrats can't get done on a normal day they can certainly also not get done in a minute. 

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, but know that if you support the surge and the results it is showing in Iraq, Jack Murtha and the Democrats aren't very thankful to have you.

Updated with new video link.

CNBC's Larry Kudlow joined Hugh Friday afternoon, demonstrating that timing is everything.  Hugh was able to speak with Mitt Romney Thursday afternoon, but about an hour before the push polling controversy broke on Jonathan Martin's Politico blog.  Kudlow was able to sit down with Governor Romney Friday morning, and discussed the controversial and poisonous phone call campaign in two of the three early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  You can see that Kudlow-Romney interview here.





Here is what Kudlow had to say about it on Hugh's show. 

HH: So how did the Governor react to the bigotry in play in New Hampshire? 

LK: Well, he was very, very unhappy, almost emotional, because I went right at it with him. And his basic message was it’s an un-American thing to do, number one, that we believe in the religious freedom in this country. And number two, it is particularly so in this period of Thanksgiving, which hearkens back to our founders and our ancestors. And you know, he argued very strenuously, almost emotionally at times, Hugh, that this was wrong, it was un-American, and it was bigoted. And he particularly blamed the Feingold-McCain bill, or whatever it’s called, McCain-Feingold. Now that’s an interesting take on this story, and I’ll tell you why. The Jonathan Martin in the Politico.com, which is where this all came from, mentions that the push poll, these negative polls, they’re not even polls, they’re just negative phone calls, had good things to say about Senator McCain, and then blasted Romney, and blasted Mormonism. So of course, I asked him if they could trace any of this back to Senator McCain’s people. And Governor Romney said no, he couldn’t be certain about that, and then he unloaded on McCain-Feingold as the ultimate cause of this, because it fostered these 527’s.  

HH: Right. 

LK: …which as you know, independent expenditures are not traceable. There’s no disclosure… 

HH: Right. 

LK: …as to the ultimate sources. And then we talked a little bit about that, and he really hammered it, and he really hammered McCain for supporting that. And then I came around again and I asked him, so therefore, is there any evidence whatsoever about McCain involvement, and he again said no, and then he again hammered McCain-Feingold. And I felt very clearly that he was directing his ire at McCain, even though he couldn’t prove it. He decided to use the vehicle of McCain-Feingold. And I want to say probably like you, I’ve interviewed Mitt Romney several times this year. He was as strong and clear and solid as I have ever seen him. And his statement was superb. And as I said it at some point, he seemed rather emotional about it, but he got his message out with enormous clarity. Now we talked a lot about other economic stuff, Hugh, but frankly, it is this push poll story that dwarfs everything else.  

And also this:

And I just want to say that just personally, I’ve given a lot of these interviews as you have, and so forth, I was very proud to be part of this interview, and I was very impressed with Romney’s stand-up nature, his forthright statement of opposition, and his tying it to the founding of this country on the great principle of religious freedom. I was proud to be part of this interview. I want to make that very clear to anybody who’s listening out there. I’m not picking sides. It’s not my position to pick sides. I interview all these people. I am not biased. I ask tough questions. I had Fred Thompson on last night, and I asked a lot of tough questions at Fred. But I was proud to be part of this interview, and to participate in the principle of religious freedom in the Thanksgiving period this year as part of our great heritage. And I was proud that Mitt Romney was tough and strong on this issue.  

Romney didn't accuse the McCain camp directly as the perpetrators of this push poll, but he certainly left the impression he's suspicious they're behind it. So did Larry Kudlow.  He refused to speculate publicly, but he immediately pointed to a questionable Chris Matthews interview of McCain and his 95 year old mother, who went anti-Mormon a week ago.

The truth of who is behind this will be revealed soon enough, as there are a whole lot of people investigating it now.  But if it is discovered that the McCain campaign was indeed behind this bigoted attack on Romney, that will be the final nail in the coffin of what history will view as the failed political career of a great American.

A listener sent this picture and e-mail a little bit ago.

This is John Gebhardt in Iraq.  His wife Mindy reports that this little girl's entire family was executed.  The insurgents intended on executing this little girl, too.  In fact, they tried by shooting her in the head. But miraculously, this little girl lived, but is obviously suffering while her body tries to heal.  She cries and moans incessantly, but John is able to calm her.  The nurses where she's being treated say John's the only one she clings to.  So John and this little Iraqi girl have slept for the last four nights in that chair so that she can continue to heal after her injury.

Not exactly Abu Ghraib-like, so it's doubtful you'll ever see this hit the nightly newscast. 

While stories like this circulate around Iraq, the brutality and sheer evil of the insurgents and al Qaeda,  the liberation and humanity offered by Coalition forces, and the rebirth of democratic Iraq taking place before our eyes, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is planning on trying once again this week to choke progress before it has a chance to thrive and prosper by passing legislation to give the military a quarter of the money needed to fund the effort in Iraq, and require that if the token dollar amount is appropriated, an orderly withdrawal begins immediately.

The House of Representatives, in classic mob rule style, passed the "cut the money and run away" bill late last night, sending it along to Reid and the Democrats this morning.  Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans ought to have a stronger hand to defeat this more than ever before because of the clear evidence of progress and success in Iraq.  There is no need to change the course in Iraq, to use the tired phrase of Harry Reid, when the course in Iraq is working demonstrably.  The Republicans should use the 60 vote rule to kill this legislation the moment it comes to the floor.  Republicans would do well to show they are more determined to win than the Democrats are determined to declare defeat. 

And once the bill is killed, it is imperative for George W. Bush to use the bully pulpit and call this stunt for what it is.  He should go to the American people and start showing the progress that is being made, the progress that isn't being shown in the mainstream media, and challenge the Congress directly to stop playing games with the American military while they are fighting, winning and making a real difference abroad, and pass a clean appropriations bill immediately.  And he should keep saying it. 

In the meantime, while the debate goes on in the Senate this week about the current appropriations bill, the one that is a travesty, I hope that one of the Republican Senators sees this picture, or the cross being raised on a new Baghdad Church picture that Michael Yon has posted, or any of the other encouraging signs out of Iraq, and take to the floor.  Show these pictures.  Ask the Democrats how they can be so committed to running away in defeat when we're winning.  Ask them how they can look at the members of the military that are their constituents, and cut their funding while they are winning this front of the war. 

Election '08 still could be decided by Iraq, but not in the way conventional wisdom over the past year intended.  If the trend holds in Iraq over the next year, Democrats will have nothing to offer the electorate but anti-war rhetoric that does not reflect the true events on the ground, and Republicans will have a successful outcome in Iraq that resulted after persevering in their foreign policy strategy.   

After returning from Vegas after a very successful Blog World Expo, I got caught up with my e-mails, and there were a few that asked for pictures.  I must confess, I was so busy lining up 40 interviews for the radio show over the two days, there was no time to be a shutterbug.  But you don't have to look far around the blogosphere to see pictures from bloggers who were there. 

But what you may only get here is a window into the world of the blogger party.  Pajamas Media sponsored the blogger party Thursday night at the Hard Rock Cafe.  The food was great, there was an open bar, and on the floor was a desert table set up where wild strawberries were being chocolateboarded in a fountain of cascading liquid cocoa.

Then came the entertainment.  From The Joint at the Hard Rock Hotel & Resort, I give you...these people.
 

After I switched off the camera, literally the next sight I saw was the back of Michael Medved headed for the exit with determination.  Nothing says blogger party like subdued hip hop.

For a first year trade show, this event was remarkable in a number of ways.  You'd think people like Glenn Reynolds and Captain Ed would have met face to face before this.  They did for the first time coming and going on Hugh's show Thursday.  E-mails and phone calls do a lot in today's world, but there still is something about human face to face interaction, and there was a lot of that going around.  There were all sorts of long distance acquaintances that turned into friendships here.  If you blog and weren't here this time, you missed out.  Don't do it again.  We will all reconvene September next, and with the overall success of this Blog World Expo, the bar is going to be set pretty high for next year. 

Michael Yon called the Hugh Hewitt Show today at 3:15 in the morning, Baghdad time.  Michael has always been cautious in his reportage of events in the Iraqi front of the war on terror, even referring to Iraq as being in a civil war months before the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media seized on the term, turning it into a rhetorical political weapon in the 2006 election, and promising to cut and run as soon as they ascended to power. 
 
But today we heard a different side of Michael Yon.  He was as upbeat and optimistic as we've ever heard him.  He's been all over Iraq during the last several months, and reported that even in Baghdad, hope, peace, reconstruction, support and even appreciation for what our military has done for the Iraqi populace is breaking out all over. 

You know it must be true, because Iraq disaster and failure news has fallen off the big three's nightly newscasts, and elected Democrats are changing the subject whenever Iraq is raised.  You can read the whole transcript here, but below are some of the highlights:

HH: Tell us what the Iraqis are telling you about this lull or peace or improvement. What do they think is going on here, and how long will it last? 

MY: I don’t believe this is a lull. I believe this is the real thing. I believe that we’ve seen lulls before, and I’ve always been very circumspect on taking a chance and saying hey, this is the real thing. But I’ve seen a change in the mood of the people, and it’s remarkable. And I believe if we can just continue to help them progress, and we’ve got a little bit more serious fighting to do up in Ninewa Province, and then in Kirkuk and Salahaddin Province, and also out in Diayala Province, those four provinces. Other than that, I think really, it’s a matter of pouring on the juice and helping them to get this country going again. I mean, they’re just finished with the war, as long as we can help get the monkey off their back in the form of al Qaeda, which is pretty much crushed at this point.  

And more:

HH: When you talk to American Army and Marine units, are they bored? Are they pumped up? Are they desperate to come home? Or do they think they’re winning, and they want to finish it off? 

MY: Bored. I mean, the Marines want to get out of here, because Marines like to fight. A lot of them do, and they want to go over to Afghanistan. The soldiers, these fifteen month tours are very long, and so they really, most of the soldiers really do want to get home very badly, because I was out with a captain two days ago. He’s on his fifth combat tour at this point. Unbelievable. You know, he’s in his 20’s, he’s on his fifth combat tour. So I mean, let’s face it, it’s a war, so that they those normal stresses that are going to come with it. But they also see the progress that they’re making, and so that’s giving them a boost, because it’s very clear. I mean, we were out today, or actually it was yesterday, now, it’s almost 3:30 in the morning. I didn’t hear a shot fired. I didn’t hear a shot fired the day before, or the day before. Usually, you can be in a firefight before breakfast, and another before lunch. It’s just nothing going on except nation building and reconstruction in a lot of the areas. 

And more:

HH: Michael Yon, I was privileged to have lunch today with the parents of Lt. Mark Daily, an Army lieutenant who was killed in Iraq this year, in January of this year, and who had written to his brother that one of his objectives in joining and going there was to make sure that the Iraqis, brother to brother, could have the same kind of relationship he had with his brother, that if he wanted to go for a cup of coffee with his brother, he hoped someday that the Iraqi brothers could just go out for a cup of tea, and that’s why he was fighting, to bring normalcy and a decent life to these Iraqis. Is that happening? 

MY: Yeah, it’s happening. In some areas, quicker than others. You know, we’re just on the front edge of it. But I can tell you, I can see it every day I’m out now, or week by week, month by month now, I really believe that, I’ll be the first to say it and take a chance, I really believe five years from now, I’m going to be back here with my camera and my longest lens shooting bird photos. I just feel that it’s coming. You can sense the change in the people. The Iraqi people actually really tend to like Americans. It’s the ones that don’t like us, you know, that can be a pretty severe difference. But in general, they really want to have a relationship with the United States, and it’s not, we’re not dealing with blood enemies here at all. 

And more:

HH: And what about Iran? What does the average Iraqi tell you about Iran? 

MY: Well, now that’s not only a good question, but an increasingly kind of semi-humorous question, because every day now, including yesterday again, a retired army colonel, an Iraqi army colonel, told me hey, we will support you in your war against Iran. And he keeps saying this in front of American…oh yeah. Every day I’m hearing that.  

And more:

Are the Iraqi people optimistic about the future, and are they increasingly happy? 

MY: Oh, yeah, oh yeah. They’re increasingly happy. The optimism you can see is increasing month by month. They don’t trust their press any more than we trust ours, by the way, and they point that out daily. And they don’t trust their government any more than we trust ours, apparently a lot less. But their optimism is very high, because they’re seeing changes, and they’re demonstrable changes.  

When do you suppose we're going to see the first report somewhere in the mainstream media about how they and the Democrats got it so wrong about Iraq destined to become a failure?  

When do you suppose Tim Russert is going to use current events in Iraq, and videos such as this, 



Or this,



to hold senior Democrats accountable to the outrageous statements and predictions they've made for the last couple of years that are proving to be false before our eyes?  You won't.  When it comes to declaring defeat and failure in Iraq, the Democrats and MSM have made their bed, and it's up to the Bush administration and new media over the next year to make them lie in it. 

As Iraq continues to show signs of promise and prosperity, the Bush administration should spend much more time showcasing what the American media won't.  It would be great to see the look on Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid's face during the State of the Union in January when George Bush introduces and praises local shopkeepers that are beginning to thrive in a resurgent Baghdad, or honors the priest of the St. John's Catholic Church that just reopened in Baghdad, showing that there is hope for peaceful coexistence between different religious groups in Iraq.  

Let's hope that as Iraq continues to stabilize in 2008, the Republicans regain their confidence and make the case to the American people just how truly unstable the Democratic foreign policy agenda is.  

You ask the star of the top sitcom of the 90's if his show was cancelled.  Here's Larry King stepping into it with Jerry Seinfeld from CNN Thursday night.



It might not compare to something as classic as the Johnny Carson-[Don] Rickles incident,



but it is still funny to watch.

46 days ago, George Bush nominated Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General of the United States.  The Democrats have dragged their feet in the process of confirming the well-qualified judge in order to thow spears at the Bush administration over the appropriateness of waterboarding as an interrogation technique in the war on terror. 

Today, however, a signal was sent by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and New York's Chuck Schumer that they will indeed vote to pass Mukasey out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joining presumably all of the other Republicans on the committee, on to a full confirmation vote on the Senate floor.  Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy said this afternoon that it is his intention to hold the vote Tuesday.

We'll see how serious the Democrats are, however, about the necessity of speedy confirmation of upper level Cabinet positions, becuase Senate rules do allow for any member of the committee to place a hold on the nominee, pushing back the vote a week.  Leahy has stated he would prefer that not happen, but we'll see if MoveOn.org and the left-wing blogosphere has more influence than Leahy. 

It is ridiculous that this nomination has been slow-walked this long, and if another stall stunt is pulled on Tuesday, it will only hurt the Democrats with the American people. 

Tuesday evening, virtually no one watched the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, because by and large, it was virtually unwatchable.  But there was one section that caught my eye, and if you are someone who cares about the continued existence of the state of Israel, regardless of which political party you belong to, it should have caught your eye as well.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well known for his apocalyptic speeches about how the Zion state cannot continue, how they must be wiped off the map, etc.  So when a Holocaust-denying, religious zealot is in a position of importance in a country who is trying to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities, when that same country is supplying or training many of the main terrorist organizations in the world today, when that country is interfering in the metamorphasis of Iraq by supplying weaponry that has killed our troops, you would naturally conclude that Iran is a growing threat, is not showing any signs of cowering to international sanctions, and could indeed grow into a threat that will require a military solution to stop an unthinkable genocide. 

Foreign policy experts from the center, right and left do see Iran as a threat that might ultimately require military action.  Most recently, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations appeared this past Friday on the Hugh Hewitt Show, saying, "Should we reach a point where we have to make a choice between a nuclear Iran or some kind of military action, then I think it’s pretty clear that a military action is where we’d have to go."

Tuesday night at Drexel University, Brian Williams asked the Democratic candidates about their position on Iran.  While they all postured their way into attacking frontrunner Hillary Clinton and/or George Bush, John Edwards took his critique into the land of the Jewish conspiracy. 



The Silky Pony got worked up because Hillary and the rest of the Democrats won't stand up to the president and say no, we're not going to let you do this.  He wasn't saying this about the Iranian president, mind you, the one who wants to go nuclear and make Israel glow in the dark.  He was saying this about our president.  Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to bother him as much as the twice-referred neocons (or as the left wing blogs call them, the Jooooos).  Edwards doesn't seem to get the concept that our military has in its custody members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, captured in Iraq trying to kill our troops by assisting insurgents.  I'm sure Israel supporters all over the world are not exactly looking forward to the Edwards presidency. 

After all the candidates thought they handled their obligatory Iran policy question, Tim Russert, to his credit, visually stunned them all by making them all answer a simple yes or no follow up question.  Russert asked all of them individually if they would take a pledge tonight to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while they are president. Here is how Hillary responded.  

 

Standard Clintonian double-speak.  She will only pledge to try.  But if they do become a nuclear power, well, Israel, it sucks to be you. 

Next up to take the pledge was John Edwards.




He must have been worn out looking for neocons around every corner. Short and sweet, but not taking the pledge.  He's a trial lawyer. You get no guarantees, Israel.

Barack Obama was next up in Russert's hot seat.

 


When the audience starts laughing uncontrollably at what you consider a serious answer, you've got a credibility problem on this issue, Senator Obama.  No pledge, then immediately deviate to Bush bashing, government by fear, Iraq never should have been fought, why aren't we talking about domestic issues like civil liberties.  Israel, President Obama is not going to let fear get in the way of Iran going nuclear.  You're on your own.
 
The spotlight turned next to Slow Joe Biden.




Biden won't offer a pledge.  Why should we worry about Iran when we need to worry about Pakistan falling apart?  In a Biden administration, he's going to have all he can handle, foreign policy-wise, by sitting around and wondering what to do if the Pakistani government collapses.  There's just not enough time left over to worry about Iran going nuclear.  Sorry, Israel, Joe can apparently handle only one potential crisis at a time.

What about Christopher Dodd?




Dodd won't even address the pledge. Four words in his response to Russert's question, he's worried about who on this stage is more experienced to address these types of problems, marshall resources, put together a team.  So if Iran approaches critical mass under President Dodd's watch, at least Israel can feel better knowing that at least Dodd will be working feverishly to make sure that everyone sitting in on the Cabinet meetings is part of the Dodd team of experience.  What will he do about Iran? He doesn't know, but at least he'll have a team, by God. 

The award for going the farthest astray on a yes or no question easily goes to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.




He would make the pledge, but only through diplomacy.  He will talk Ahmadinejad into submission.  Mahmoud will be so tired of talking that he'll just give up his nuclear ambition of annihilating Israel.  But then he goes prop and deviates away from Iran and points out a person he brought in the fourth row who he personally rescued from the prison in Abu Ghraib, and how his lifetime of being a diplomat will help him solve North Korea.  In other words, Iran may be about to go nuclear, but at least Richardson has a shiny yellow pencil and he has Give Peace A Chance on his I-Pod.  It's about as relevant.  But at least he made the pledge, Israel.  He will talk his way out of a madman acquiring nuclear weapons.

But the piece de resistance has to be Dennis Kucinich.




He won't take the pledge, and instead goes after Tim Russert for daring to ask that question in that kind of way.  Everyone knows if we just rid the world of all nuclear power, period, then in the spirit of love and harmony, the Iranians will follow suit and global utopia can finally be achieved. 

So there you have it. Not one Democrat views Iran as a serious enough threat to even think about preventing them, by using military force, if they're about to go nuclear.  Just to show that there really is a difference between the two parties, here's what the top two Republican candidates have said about the specter of Iran going nuclear under their watch.

Rudy Giuliani in a Reuters story from just this last Friday said, "America will not allow them to become a nuclear power," and "the military option is not off the table and the Iranians should understand that, that America will not allow them to become a nuclear power."  Notice the use of the phrase will not allow.  That's a pledge, something the Democrats just couldn't bring themselves to say.

Mitt Romney on his campaign website, quoting from a speech earlier this year:

The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions – this could be a tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes. . . It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths: One, Iran must be stopped. Two, Iran can be stopped. And three, Iran will be stopped.

 
Again, will be stopped.  No equivocation. 

I'm pretty sure I know which party Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would prefer to see in the White House in 2009.  The question is are you going to support that party as well by sitting out the next election if your candidate doesn't win the nomination?  

A 61 minute stem-winder was given on the Senate floor today by one of California's dimmest elected bulbs, Barbara Boxer.  Serving this term as the Albert A. Gore, Jr. czar of the Senate Global Warming Will Kill All Life On Earth If We Don't Regulate Everything Committee, Senator Boxer spewed enough CO2 single-handedly today during her speech to be classifed a gross polluter.

During her chart and quote-laden presentation, in which she holds that there is no credible dissent tolerated anymore about the catastrophe of global warming, no acceptable view that might hold that whatever warming that is occurring is cyclical and not deserving the hysteria it is being met with by liberals, the only interesting part was to see if she'd somehow weave the California fires being global warming's fault.  

She made it a good three-quarters through her rant without making the reference. But like a moth fluttering around the blue flourescent light hanging off the eave of the roof, she just couldn't resist flying into the zapper.  

    

Fires a consequence of climate change. Now listen, this is touching my heart, because my state has been burning. And all of you know this, and all of you have been most wonderful to us, to Senator Feinstein and to me, about offering help and assistance. Well in the long run, we need to do something about global warming or we're going to have that horrible combination of drought, low humidity, high temperatures, and terrible winds, weather extremes, Madame President, that you've experienced from time to time. This is what we're going to see. Greek Prime Minister, Costas Karamanlis, said that the weather phenomena this year favored as never before the outbreak of destructive fires. We are already living with the consequences of climate change. So this just gives you an idea. 

Yes, dear Senator Boxer, it does give us an idea, the idea that you are a complete and total moron.   You have been representing California, or at least the liberal parts of it, in the Senate for fifteen years, and you act like you've never heard of a Santa Ana wind before.  Drought, low humidity, high temperatures and terrible winds?  Senator Boxer, Los Angeles has a simple name for all of that...it's called autumn.  But this doesn't fit the Boxer global warming meme.

In Boxer speak, if we don't do something about global warming, this normal weather pattern is going to continue.  So if the Earth cools down a degree or two over the next century, is that going to prevent high pressure systems from parking over the four corner states in the Southwest like they've done since the beginning of recorded weather?  If the Earth cools, will the local mountains flatten out so that the air mass coming off these high pressure systems doesn't get funneled and accelerated into the Los Angeles basin?

The global mean temperature will obviously do nothing to change the elevation of different land masses in the interior of the United States, and anyone that knows anything about this part of the country knows that.  You'd think Ms. Boxer would know, but she may not be that bright. 

In citing the Greek prime minister, the one she sounded like she'd never heard of before trying to pronounce his last name, butchering it in the process, she, and Prime Minister Karamanlis for that matter, are ignoring one teensy-weensy detail that both the Greek fires from earlier this year and the California wildfires do have in common, and that is they were both started by multiple arsonists.  There were public statements by Greek officials that openly wondered if the series of fires there were the work of al Qaeda, because of the number of the fires at the same time, and that they were arson-caused. While the cause of all the California fires haven't been determined yet, several of them are suspected of being started intentionally.  You can say what you want about global warming, but you can't say if we reverse it, arsonists will be out of business. 

I know there have been people on both sides of the aisle that have made dumb comments in regards to the fires in California.  But it takes a special level of stupidity to say something it while using props to do it.

The weekend can't come soon enough for Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the feckless Democratic majority leader.  He got caught politicizing the California wildfires as being global warming related, and then when questioned by a reporter a short time later about his comments, he denied he said it. 

Today, Reid and the Democrats got thumped twice before lunch.  First, a Democratically-led filibuster of one of President Bush's Appellate Court judges, Leslie Southwick, failed as 62 Senators voted to invoke cloture and move on to a final vote, where they confirmed Judge Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court. 

Next up on the docket was Illinois Senator Dick Durbin's latest amnesty incarnation, nicknamed The Dream Act.  This also needed to get sixty votes to invoke cloture and work towards a final vote of passage.  Here's how badly the Democrats have managed the Senate.  Durbin, who is assistant majority leader and serves as the Whip, thought they easily had the sixty votes to invoke cloture.  In fact, he and Reid were so sure of their head count that Reid already had blocked the rest of the afternoon and tomorrow in the Senate for debate on the Dream Act, leading up to a final passage vote.  But a funny thing happened.  Reid, Durbin and the rest of Democratic leadership miscounted their votes by a smidge. Instead of getting 60 or better, they only fell short by eight votes.  Only 52 Senators voted for this turkey. Reid was stunned.  Not only did he get two shots to the chops before the morning was over, he now had no idea what to do with the rest of the day on the floor.  He had reserved a day and a half worth of time for a bill that can't possibly get past cloture.  

For your enjoyment, here is the video of what a Senator looks like when he has no idea what he's doing, has no plan, no agenda, and basically just wants his mommy.

 

Since Reid is now consulting with Mitch McConnell to see what to do next, might I offer a suggestion?  How about telling Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to get off his rear end and move the nomination along of Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General?  After a long delay, the Judiciary Committee finally held hearings last week.  But they haven't held a vote to move his nomination to the floor.  They haven't even put the nomination on the docket for future consideration in the Judiciary Committee.  Wouldn't you think that the Senate Democrats, the same ones who couldn't wait for Alberto Gonzales to leave, would want someone in there that even ultra-lefty Chuck Schumer esteems? 

Which Senator do you think has the most to gain by stalling on the nomination of Mukasey?  Which Senator benefits from having a Justice Department in a continued state of transition for the rest of the Bush administration?  I'll give you a hint.  She's running for president. 

The Los Angeles Times has done a nice series of stories looking into the very bizarre fundraising of the Clinton campaign, not only from the donor bundling of Norman Hsu, but into questionable fundraising by minimum wage-earning dishwashers in L.A.'s Chinatown district.  If there are any illegalities in the Clinton campaign fundraising, it's going to be up to the next Attorney General to decide whether or not to investigate, prosecute, or hire an outside counsel to look into it.  The longer the Bush Justice Department is in disarray, the more the Clinton machine can try and run out the clock. 

In the meantime, we'll continue to monitor the Senate to see if Harry Reid has any bright ideas on what to try next.  It may be a very slow afternoon.

After a closed door policy meeting with other Senate Democrats, Majority Leader and utter buffoon Hary Reid of Nevada took to the microphones just outside the floor of the United States Senate, and fielded questions. 

In response to a question on the energy bill, Reid said the following:

As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.

Six questions later, a reporter followed up on Reid's amazing statement.

Question: Senator, on the California fires, you said that the reason the fires are burning in California is global warming?

Reid: No. Here's what I - I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming...

First, Reid is an idiot because tried to use global warming as a prop in a current news story in order to advance his energy bill agenda.  When called on it, he denied he said it.  It's on tape.  You can listen to it here.

Second, he has no idea what he's talking about.  Southern California is a desert.  The Santa Ana winds are as normal this time of year as any other local weather phenomenon.  In fact, some of the weathermen in the area had speculated on television newscasts in recent weeks that we usually get Santa Anas before now.  And in the scope of the severity of the winds, this batch isn't even as bad as we've had.  This is a very average wind pattern for us. 

Reid may have wanted to blame the fires on global warming before he got called on it and ran away, but I'd be hard pressed to be persuaded that global warming caused arsonists to start several of these fires, or that global warming knocked down a power line in Malibu starting that fire, or that global warming caused a couple of construction workers to work with an arc welder in high winds, showering the local brush with sparks.  

So now that Reid has publicly raised the global warming specter...that is, before he lowered it again in classic John Kerry fashion, it makes you wonder what's worse for Harry Reid's environment? Letting the fires burn, or polluting the ozone with all the hydrocarbons that come out of the exhaust of the DC-10's and helicopters that are frantically dropping water and fire retardant on the hot spots? Should Reid be calling for the removal of the firefighting from the air in order to minimize the footprint the fires are already putting in the air and remain consistent with his radical environmentalism?

Reid is a witless opportunist.  Half a million people are evacuated, at least 1,200 homes have been lost so far, federal, state, county and local resources are performing acts of heroism all over California to save lives and property, and Harry Reid wants to blame it on global warming to score political points for his energy bill?  What a creep.

Go Rocks.  You are a team of destiny. Do not let that big, ugly green wall bother you.  Sorry, Tribe.  The bandwagon started losing the air out of the tires in game 5.   

If you go back to Wednesday on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Howard Kurtz, author of the new book, Reality Show, which looks in depth at the current world of the news divisions at the ABC, CBS and NBC, joined Hugh for two hours.  They had this following exchange about the ideology of the network newspeople, and why red state America just doesn't trust them:

HH: Here’s my proposition, Howard, and you’ve been studying them now for three years. The reason they’ve lost so much audience is that they have bad news judgment, and we don’t trust them. And we being the half of America that’s red, the red state Americans. And sure, they might be trusted by blue state Americans, but I just don’t trust these people to understand the news or to report it accurately, especially when it runs contrary to the interests of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Your reaction? 

HK: Well, I can’t dispute that the perception clearly is as you say as far as conservatives. In fact, there was a Gallup poll that I cite in the book showing that 65% of Democrats thought that Katie Couric is doing a good job as CBS anchor, 36% of Republicans. There was a similar but smaller gap for the other two anchors. So that is a problem for network news. I mean, it’s got a lot of problems, as we’ve been discussing. That is a problem.

Yes, it is.  Yesterday, I joined Ed Morrissey on his Blog Talk Radio program about the news of the day and week.  During the course of the hour, we talked about two stories that we both thought were the stories of the day, certainly, and ought to make the networks' nightly newscasts. But we both predicted that the MSM, nightly news division, would miss it.  

Story number one was the resolution of a multi-week story about Harry Reid and the Democrats deflecting away from Senate Republican resolution denouncing the MoveOn.org General Petraeus/betray us ad.  They picked fellow broadcaster Rush Limbaugh as a target weeks ago, using Media Matters erroneous talking points, and accused Rush of slandering the American military in a formal letter to Clear Channel executive Mark Mays, calling for his removal from the airwaves.  Rush demonstrated with ease that he was merely calling a fraud a fraud, pinpointing one man who embellished his service record into claims that were proven to be false.  Rush then obtained the original letter from Mays and to make a point, auctioned the letter on E-Bay for a Marine Corps charity as a shining example of where the United States Congress is actively targeting a U.S. citizen for political purposes. 

The bidding closed Friday, and $2.1 million dollars went to the charity, along with a matching donation from Rush himself.  Harry Reid's attempt to deflect on MoveOn.org's behalf backfired in a glorious manner. So what did Harry Reid do?  He spoke out on the Senate floor Friday and actually attempted to take credit for the raising of money for the charity, as though he had been in on the planning of the auction all along.  See for yourself here.

I can't remember the last time the majority leader of the United States Senate got beat that bad by PR stunt boomeranging back on him, and being shameless enough to actually try to take credit for his opponents' victory in the process. You'd think he would be laughed off the floor for a speech like this.  But Harry Reid knows better.  He still has allies in the mainstream media. 

Story number two of the day had to do with another uncharacteristically good investigative piece in the Los Angeles Times diving further into the Clinton fundraising machine, showing that the Democratic presidential front-runner has lost nothing from her husband's run in the 90's.  Their fundraising was crooked then, and it's just as crooked now, if anyone will just take a look.  According to the Times report, apparently every minimum wage earning dishwasher in Chinatown is donating $2,000 to Hillary Clinton.  Following up from the Norman Hsu bundling charges, the Times seems to be the only mainstream media outlet in America who sees Clinton-Hsu Investments for North America, or CHINA for short, as somewhat of a problem.  But again, to 25 million people who only get their news from Katie, Charlie or Brian at the networks, this simply doesn't exist. 

What exactly did those 25 million learn yesterday?  If they watched Katie Couric on the Tiffany network, they saw two minutes on the stock market crash, something that wouldn't have warranted two minutes at the lead if the market had made huge gains.  That was followed by two minutes of bad weather in the country (global warming undertone), 30 seconds on kids cold medicine warnings, 2 minutes of follow up to the attempted assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, one minute of the pedophile being caught, two minutes of a promo to watch 60 Minutes and see Valerie Plame dump on George Bush and Karl Rove, 3 minutes of Hemingway's cats, really, then two minutes of politics, on the trail with Hillary Clinton, not about her phony fundraising, but about how she's trying to shore up her women's voting bloc after new polling came out.  Finally, after 30 seconds of the Sands hotel being razed, the featured 3 minute feel good story about a lost bank bag returned to an elderly woman containing memorabilia from a lost Vietnam soldier.  Nothing about Reid, certainly nothing about the fundraising scandal. 

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams didn't fare much better.  3 minutes on the cold medicine warning, 2 minutes on the stock market, 2 minutes on the weather, 2 minutes on Ron Paul, of all people, 1 minute of break-in coverage of a small plane crash into a building in Canada, 2 minutes of cities turning lights off for an hour at night to save energy, 2 minutes of drought in the South, and 2 minutes of feel good on building libraries in China.  Again, nothing about the news that red state America would consider news.

Charlie Gibson's World News Tonight is not available to watch on a podcast.  They have an edited version, but all their posted news stories and video were on a par with the other two.

While the blogs and talk radio and cable news have made huge inroads into why the viewership of the network news nightly broadcasts are declining, their numbers are still dwarfed by the 25 million that literally have no idea what they're missing.  So if you're a part of the new media, the next time you feel like resting on your laurels, realize there's still a lot of work to do.