Dems Did It

Daschle Endorses Obama

From the Wall Street Journal:

Five current or former Democratic senators are running for president, but former Senate leader Tom Daschle has endorsed the only one he never served with — Illinois freshman Barack Obama.

“There is something unique about Barack,” he said in an interview. “I’m still hoping that in my lifetime I’ll experience again the inspiration I got in the ’60s…from the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, when I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. And I think Barack may have that quality.”

Not sure how much weight Daschle carries in Democrat circles these days, but given he and Senator Clinton served together, it speaks volumes about the lack of respect Clinton garners from leaders in the party. And with little appeal to the grassroots, not to mention lack of fundraising, this could get interesting...

Aww snap! Al Gore's hypocrisy starts at home

Anyone see Al Gore win the Oscar? Anyone surprised? Of course not. Hollywood supported the Communists during the Cold War, why would they not support the terrorist during this war?

Anyway, that aside has nothing to do with Al Gore. But this article [link] does. An Inconvenient Truth indeed! Maybe this is why he lost Tennessee in 2000.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

Once again, Democrats on a moral crusade to save the environment while their own homes are burning 20 TIMES the average amount of energy as the average American. There's just a lot they don't understand about average Americans, I guess. For instance, read this ridiculous statement:

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Here's a quiz: how many false statements are bombasted in this one quote? Hint: no less than three. Just because the French think there's global warming is no reason to fall in line and sing along too. When was the last time the French were right about anything? When was the last time we even listened to the French anyway?

Eh... go Google that, Gore-addicts. And don't forget to turn off the lights when you're done.

al gore

Did we miss the memo?

The Democrats promised us they would work together in a bipartisan fashion. They promised us they would change the tone in Washington. They promised us they would focus on issues important to Americans.

Oh well...

Link: Democrats Signal a Wider Battle Lasting the Rest of President's Term.

So much for the high road

If you ever watch C-SPAN, you'll occassionally see the President Pro Tempore bang the gavel and ask that "Senators take their conversations off the floor."

Well, these two Senators (Democrat White House hopefuls Clinton & Obama) are brawling off the floor. Let the petty sniping begin!

ROUND 1:

After throwing Obama a big fundraiser Tuesday, [David Geffen, a producer of "Cats" and "Dreamgirls"] lashed out at Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, telling the Times, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease. It's troubling."

ROUND 2:

Geffen slammed the New York senator as uberambitious and polarizing, and he went after the former president's personal life, calling him "a reckless guy" and speculating that he hadn't changed much since the Monica Lewinsky days.

ROUND 3 - The Comeback!

The Clinton campaign struck back by slamming Obama, insinuating that he was being hypocritical for tolerating Geffen's comments while campaigning as a positive candidate who seeks to unite the nation.

ROUND 4:

"He decries the politics of 'slash and burn,' and yet his chief supporters in California are engaged in the politics of slash and burn," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's spokesman.

ROUND 5 - Oh no you didn't!!!

The Obama campaign pushed back, saying, "The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."

Are you dizzy yet? But who's surprised, really? These radical Democrats like Clinton and Obama snookered middle-America into giving them Congress last November using just this brand of personal destruction politics. Now that they're turning on each other, it can only get uglier.

Can the Senators take their conversations off our ballots too?

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Bush Regains His Footing

David Broder, of all people, had some very interesting and accurate thoughts about just how badly the Democrats have dug their own poop hole by attacking our soldiers on the front lines of the War on Terror. From the Washington Post:

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts.

More important, he is demonstrating political smarts that even his critics have to acknowledge.

Read on, my blogospheric friends...

Another Watchdog Site

Former Presidential Blogger Matt Margolis, along with Mark Noonan, have launched a blog/website to promote their new book (and good cause) Culture of Corruption. Since we're both looking at how the Democrats have manipulated mainstream Americans, I imagine you'll see more than one trackback to their site.

In addition to the Culture of Corruption book coming soon, they also maintain a more thorough watchdog website, No Agenda. Keep up with both for great news and insights.

Edwards Grandstands, Biden... Probably Right

John Edwards, it seems, has taken the shocking step (shocking, unless you consider he's running for President) of criticizing the President's initial authority to intervene in Iraq before Saddam Hussein could obtain a working nuclear or chemical weapon.

"We need to make clear, the Congress needs to make clear," said Edwards, "that President Bush has been conducting this war at this stage without authorization, because the 2002 authorization did not give George Bush authority to use U.S. combat troops to police a civil war, which is exactly what's happening right now."

Of course ABC News backs up this profound statement with expert testimony from a professor in Vermont (the same state that produced the profound "YEEEAAAHHHH!!!" statement from Howard Dean).

And we should believe Edwards, right? Of course, because he has all those powerful credentials on national security policy and such. (Just a second... What's that? He doesn't? He doesn't have ANY credentials on national security/ foreign relations policy? But he does have good hair right? Ok, thanks.)

Let's be honest, this is much more the real John Edwards...

On the other hand Senator Joe Biden (D-Del), a Democrat who actually did have some foreign relations credentials (before running for President) had some insights on Edwards' recent constitutional revelation:

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about.”

And for once, Mr. Chairman, I concur.

Dems Excited to "Slow-bleed" the Troops

According to a recently uncovered gameplan for how the Democrats will defeat Bush this time (insert cartoon evil laugh here), the idea is no laughing matter.

Led by Nancy Pelosi and policy switch-hitter John Murtha, the Democrats will seek to legislatively "slow-bleed" the troops in Iraq in order to "limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself."

No seriously, this is really their idea. Shall we go on?

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Next up: the exciting new TV series Democrat Idol. Text in your favorite reason to oppose the war and win a free trip to Hollywood! Wahoo!

Oh wait. They already thought of that...

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

It's sad but inevitable to see the Democrats acknowledge that their whole purpose for opposing this war is political. I suppose a few of us still hoped that their opposition was purely policy, or a heart-felt disagreement with the principle of military war in general.

Oh well. If it's the Democrats you want, it's politics you'll get.

Dems Debate... and debate... and debate...

zzzzzzzzz....

Huh? Oh, is the debate over? Boy, that was close. I almost thought the House Democratic caucus was about to join hands and sing "It's a Small World After All."

After days (DAYS!) of debating a non-binding (read: it does nothing) resolution to "tsk tsk" the President for wanting to win the War on Terror, the Democrats have made their point.

Which is: well ... we're still waiting.

But no matter what the point ends up being, they are mad. I tell you, really mad. Because they, on behalf of every last American who has ever stepped foot on God's green earth, don't like it.

Again, we're not sure exactly what they don't like. Their floor speeches were filled with tearful (and angry) stories of their constituents who have lost loved ones in harm's way, fighting "Bush's war." So they like the troops, they just don't like what they're doing.

"We must end the senseless deaths of service members like Marine Tarryl Hill," [Rep. John Conyers] said. "I do not want to see one more promising life like his extinguished on the altar of this administration's arrogance."

Are we out here in America, who spend our days not pontificating but working for a living, to take from this that the Democrats, led by Mr. Conyers, think our troops, while on the front lines defending freedom, have died in vain? Have they already admitted defeat?

Seriously folks? That's like wanting to go to a Baskin-Robbins and then not liking any of the 31 flavors. Our troops are SOLDIERS. They are WARRIORS. I'm sure very few of them are excited and happy to be in Iraq with bombs going off and people being killed. But that's what soldiers and warriors do. So the Democrats in Congress like the soldiers (they especially love grieving parents - what a great photo-op huh?) but they don't like it when soldiers do what they are trained to do.

And they don't like this war. Boy oh boy, they really don't like this war. Because fighting al Qaeda and other extremist terrorists in Iraq isn't really part of the War on Terror. Because deposing one of history's most vicious mass murderers (over 1 million executed) isn't really a service to humanity.

Let's be honest. The Democrats who supported the war when it started but oppose it now have shifted because public opinion has shifted. In their zeal for power, especially looking down the street at the White House, they will do anything, say anything, embrace any cause if it provides the means to their political ends, no matter what the cost in American or Iraqi lives.

Mayor Vetoes English, Fears 'Less Safe' City

The mayor of Nashville, Tenn. (aka Music City USA) is singing the ol' liberal tune today after he vetoed a bill that simply acknowledged English as the official language of the city. This demonstrates just how out of the mainstream even Southern Democrats such as Mayor Bill Purcell (D) have become. In this liberal's frenzy to attract Hispanic voters, he is ignoring the fact that mainstream Americans don't care to have bilingual ballots, drivers licenses, or parking meters.

So how does he justify this craven abuse of power? Someone call Comedy Central, b/c this is pretty funny:

"If this ordinance becomes law, Nashville will be a less safe, less friendly and less successful city," Purcell said.

What??? Care to justify that, Mr. Mayor? How exactly will Nashville be a "less safe" city for simply acknowledging English as the official language???

Hyperbole is always a ready tool of the liberals. "If we scare them enough, they'll do what we say" goes the donkey party handbook.

Dismissing the opponent's argument is another quick draw for the Democrats. See Purcell's further explanation of his veto:

Purcell said English is too well established to be brushed aside in favor of other languages. "It is the language we use to conduct the city's business," the mayor said. "In order to get ahead in Nashville a person needs to be able to speak English."

So... if English is "the language we use to conduct the city's business" then why veto an ordinance which simply acknowledges that fact? Oh... that's right, because English is "too well established." Sorry, excuse me. Should never have brought it up. My bad. I'll go home now and finish reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party like you told me, Mayor.

Oh, and lest we forget, our good ol' friend the mainstream media is here to help out too. The Nashville Tennessean starts out this article with a straightforward explanation of the facts:

The debate about making English the official language of Nashville has drawn attention from far and wide, making headlines from Wyoming to England.

Ok, fair enough. So of course this next sentence only makes sense:

Mayor Bill Purcell attempted to tamp down that potential blow to Nashville's image Monday by taking the rare step of using his veto pen...

Please join me in congratulating Nashville in not receiving that "potential blow" to its golden image.

I'm sure the French, as well, are relieved...