About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Comment On Pelosi's Plane Antics

Posted by on Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:57:38 PM
 I am taking a moment out of the day to speak (or type) out on a subject that has been the focal point of a great deal of controversy. That would be the request for a plane for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Let me state from the get go that there is nothing partisan in regard to this post.

We live in a post-9/11 world, and since that attack on this nation it was mandated by the president that the order of succession be protected at all costs. As we know United 93 was likely heading to Washington, DC to either strike the Capitol building or the White House in a blatant attempt to decapitate the United States government. Because of that, the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House have to be protected.

The controversy has arisen over which plane she will get. As of right now, the Pentagon has told her that she can use the same plane that former Speaker, Dennis Hastert, used. The one that Mr. Hastert used was a Gulfstream IV, C-20G which has a maximum range of 4,872 miles; well within the range she needs. But she is asking for a much larger plane. In fact, she is asking for the Boeing C-32 which has the following features:


The forward area has a communications center, galley, lavatory and 10 business-class seats. The second section is a fully enclosed stateroom for the use of the primary passenger. It includes a changing area, private lavatory, separate entertainment system, two first-class swivel seats and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The third section contains the conference and staff facility with eight business-class seats. The rear section of the cabin contains general seating with 32 business-class seats, galley, two lavatories and closets.

It should be noted that this is the same plane that serves as "Air Force Two"--the Vice President's plane. Madam Pelosi may be in the order of succession, but she is not the Vice President, and we believe it to be quite asinine for her to make such a request. (There is also a controversy surrounding who actually made the request, whether it was Nancy Pelosi, or the Congressional Sergeant-at-Arms.) Regardless of who asked for what, it is foolish of her to think that the C-20 Speaker Hastert used will not suit her needs. It can fly from DC to San Francisco without refueling, and would better serve to protect her.

Others, on the Left have lied--point blank--that the plane would have to land to refuel. No it does not. They have also stated that the plane's security, overall, is inadequate. That is also untrue. The Speaker, when she travels, can and has requested a Secret Service detail. They inspect the plane in the same way they inspected Speaker Hastert's plane. And above all, we consider it an affront to charge the taxpayers of this nation over $300,000 a flight for the C-32 she wants.

We would prefer Speaker Pelosi simply accept the plane and say "thank you, America" instead of turning this into a partisan issue when it is not. The order of succession for the presidency must be protected at all costs. That is what the plane is for, and she would be wise to remember that. This is not about status. This is about security.

And for all those on the Left that are going to lambaste either of us, under the false assumption that we dislike Speaker Pelosi and we like Dennis Hastert, that is a fool's argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not we like her. This goes to how much she wants to cost the taxpayers of the nation, and why she is turning this into a partisan game. Before accusations or criticism are tossed in our direction, make sure your argument has merit to it.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mark Steyn Doesn't Buy The Ponzi Scheme (And Neither Do Logical People)

Posted by on Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:51:22 AM
 Uh-oh. Mark Steyn's ruffling liberal feathers again, but instead of telling the Left what it's all about (like he did in regard to the war) on global warming:

Our Thought For The Week comes from the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman: "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

That would be yours truly: the climate holocaust denier. I wrote last week about "global warming," or "cooling," or "climate change," or (the latest term) "climate disruption" -- for those parts of the world where the climate isn't really changing but you get an occasional blip: a warm day in winter or a flurry of snow in late April, or (for British readers) a summer's day where it rockets up to 58 and cloudy instead of being 54 and drizzling. As a result of my climate holocaust denial, I received a ton of letters along the lines of this one:

"Your piece gave most of my students, most of whom are conservative, a laugh. A journalist's word against six years of peer-reviewed research conducted by world authorities on the subject.
"But, as one my student's [sic] put it: 'Steyn's piece could prove valuable: We often run out of toilet paper here.'

"How is it that you can make a living writing what you do is a wonder. But then, the vulgar wish to be deceived, after all.

"Steve Pierson,

Professor of English."

Presumably Professor Pierson signs himself "Professor of English" to establish his credentials for opining on how I can make a living writing. To be honest, I'm flattered to know I'm being discussed at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, N.Y.: Did I displace Shakespeare? Or Maya Angelou? Or the class where you learn not to put an apostrophe in noun plurals? Has Professor Pierson's judgment of my writing also been peer-reviewed by world authorities?

Not all of us are quite so hung up on credentialization. But, if you are, you might want to read the December issue of the Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics in which Cornelis de Jager of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Finland test the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar energy -- the first being that variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance (total or spectral), the other that cosmic ray fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. The Finn and the Dutch guy from the A-list institutions with the fancypants monikers writing in the peer-reviewed journal conclude that the former is more likely -- that tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.

Are you thinking maybe it's time to turn over the page to the Anna Nicole Smith "A life in pictures" double spread? Well, that's my point. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof. As David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

Frankly speaking, folks, I don't buy global warming. I don't see proof of it. Al Gore can't provide it, and I'm not buying what the UN is shoveling. We'd be remiss if we forgot that according to Kofi Annan (upon his departure from the UN) global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism.

You can now pick yourselves up off of the floor, and wipe that smirk off your face. Now you know why we called him "Kooky Uncle Kofi."

When the global warming nutters start talking about the temperatures being greater now than what they were in the past, most of them get very irate when I ask them "when did Moses check the thermometer? Was it before or after he received God's Commandments?" When they talk about emissions from cars, they aren't too amused when I condemn Jesus for driving his SUV around Galilee.

These people either have no sense of humor, or can't handle simple logic. The temperatures MAY be rising a degree or two, but that's no reason to run off hysterically like some insane Chicken Little telling the world that Al Gore has a point. (We all know Gore has a point. It's on the top of his head under the tin-foil hat.) Global warming, in my humble opinion, is a ponzi scheme; a chance for scientists and "turd-world" nations to swipe more money from the US. And they're doing it by guilting us into it. "Shame on the US. You use too much gasoline. You pollute the air. You're causing the majority of this."

Yeah, and you guys need to go back to your shrink and get your meds. We do use a lot of gasoline, but if we don't, how is industry supposed to advance? It takes delivery trucks dropping produce at grocery stores, canned goods, eggs, meat, etc. You like your beer and wine? It doesn't magically appear on convenient store shelves. With produce and the like, you need machines to pick it and harvest it. And as for poulluting the air, our air quality is better here than it is abroad where the majority of nations can't even abide by the slimmest environmental protocols. We lead the world in cleaning up our mess (and other's too, it seems), so I don't want to hear the IPCC morons yapping about how this is all our fault. Everything nowadays seems to America's fault.

Point being that now, thanks to Ms. Goodman, the global warming nutters are comparing us to Holocaust deniers. (Except that we KNOW the Holocaust happened, and they still can't PROVE global warming exists.) So, chalk us up in the same column as Mark Steyn. Yes, we're going to deny it's happening until it is proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that global warming is occurring. Tell that to the people in New York and the Northeast still trying to dig themselves out of nine feet of snow today. (Personally, if that's what they call global warming, I'll take some of that. It's been over 20 years since I've seen snow like that! And it sure beats the Arizona-is-just-another-seven-letter-word-for-Hell summers here.) So, when the climate shifts enough to drop that in our front yard, and Chicago gets balmy winter days, and intense summer heat, then I'll start caring. Until then, we don't buy the scam.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WaPo Admits Their Mistake With Arkin

Posted by on Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:34:31 PM
 As if we needed the WaPo telling us this? And Allah's got a great exit question for everyone:

Did one online column irreparably damage Post national security journalism? No. But it does show that an online column rubs off on the newspaper. Opinions on Arkin vary among Post reporters who write about the military and national security. Some respect him; others think he harms The Post’s reputation…

Arkin apologized. He said he was “dead wrong” to use the word “mercenary,” that it “is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.”…

An editor read his column before it was posted but didn’t see the problem. Jim Brady, washingtonpost.com’s executive editor, said that had he seen it, he would have asked for changes. Arkin said he would have made them.

Allah's exit question?

How is it that most bloggers manage to avoid comparing U.S. troops to guns for hire with no editorial oversight whatsoever, yet WaPo.com needs at least two editors to hold their guys back?

That's a great question from Allah, and I wish I had an answer. Maybe it's the fact that we, as bloggers, have to hold ourselves to higher standards lest we be savaged by our critics; thereby losing credibility in our reader's eyes. I honestly don't know if that's true, but it is how Marcie, Sabrina, and I operate here. It's how we've always operated.

But to have the WaPo come out now and talk about how they would have put a stop to it, and asked for changes had they seen it sends the wrong message to readers altogether. The point is that to avoid the Hell William Arkin delivered to their doorstep, maybe they should pay closer attention to who writes for them, regardless of the medium. If they can't handle that, then maybe it's time for a new group of editors at the WaPo.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Good News Out Of Iraq

Posted by on Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:24:37 AM
 I woke up this morning to some more good news out of Iraq:

A telephone system might be unnecessary in the Iraqi tribal culture. Local news spreads faster when it runs word of mouth, from mother to daughter, uncle to nephew, or sheik to sheik. Because of this networking, when the Marines of 4th Platoon, Golf Company, 2/8 raided a house last night, they managed to hit a jackpot. They arrested someone who they had been looking for. More importantly, they also found someone who had been looking for them.

Under the command of Captain Mark Broekhuizen, Golf 2/8 had been making slow inroads in Saqliwiah (“sack-la-wee-ah”), a village on the northwestern outskirts of Fallujah. Finding Iraqi partners to step forward was tough, primarily because of an inability to locate and deal with the local Sheik. Lacking active cooperation from the Sheik and his people, it was difficult to gain the Intel necessary to drive both Islamic fundamentalist and Shia-oriented terror groups from the land.

“AQI is both feared and hated,” Capt Broekhuizen said, referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq. “They’ve been running a brutal terror campaign. No city leaders are left here who will take a leadership role.” Marines from Golf Company said they recently fished two bodies out of the local river: a man had been decapitated, and his 4-year old tied to his leg before both were thrown into the river and the little boy drowned. The killings were a product of Al Qaeda terror.

Marines say that they are making progress. Humanitarian missions, census operations, and security patrols have, according to the grunts, reduced the level of AQI violence by over 60% since they arrived in theater a few months ago. But absent local leadership, this progress cannot be sustained.

Last night, 4th Platoon won a small victory in the battle against AQI. Under the command of Lieutenant Anthony Friel, four Marine humvees on patrol spotted a white Toyota parked close to a house along the Euphrates River. Both the Toyota and the house looked suspicious. Quickly, the Marines surrounded the latter, and knocked on the door.

Inside the house were several young men (with dubious identification), women and children, as well as an older man. The squad leader, Corporal Jon Bates, and his Marines thoroughly searched the young Iraqis. After discovering one ID marked in English “Progressive Mosque Security,” a subsequent search of the young man's Toyota turned up sophisticated IED triggering devices, a pressure plate and an AK-47. Two were detained.

At the same time, another pair of locals were pushing a small skiff up the river, and seemed to be moving to land at the house. The Marines on the riverbank spotted an AK-47 in the boat’s bottom, and they fired a pyrotechnic flare. The locals turned the boat around and fled downriver. The Marines chose not to pursue.

As it turned out, the older gentleman was the real prize. He was Sheik “X”, the local Okhash tribal elder, and he was fully aware of how the Marines and Sheiks were cooperating in rebuilding Ramadi thirty miles west (ON Point reported from Ramadi last week). Having tribal connections in the Ramadi area, Sheik X said that he wanted to use it as a model for Marine assistance to drive AQI and the others from his city. He said that he had been “biding his time” before contacting them.

Calmly, the Sheik watched as the Marines detained the two young men in the house, volunteering that if they were “bad guys” he was happy to see them go. “You and I are going to find a way to work together to make this area better,” he told Lt Friel, “like Ramadi.” The Sheik added that it was “Iranians and foreigners” who were destabilizing his tribal area. “Iranians are forcing out the doctors and teachers. Soon this town will look like Afghanistan.”

He invited the Lieutenant and others to share his dinner, where the discussions and negotiations continued. Sheik X wants the “same deal” as the Marines and Sheiks cut in Ramadi. In that area, the Marines handle overall security, and permit the locals and tribal elders a degree of freedom to handle local security.

The Sheik repeatedly emphasized his interest in working with the Marines in order to protect his tribe against the Shia. Next to halting AQI’s brutal terror campaign against the Sunni tribes, the largest worry in Anbar Province is that Shia – a generic term ranging from Iranians to the Prime Minister Maliki’s government in Baghdad – will stamp out the Sunni in Anbar.

Ah, but according to the barking moonbats and the Left in congress, this war is over, and we have lost. Uh-huh. A daily reminder not to buy into the pessimism their side feeds off of. And speaking of pessimism, Allah has something that might make you rethink the idea of feeding those moonbats.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Friday Blog Rounds

Posted by on Friday, February 09, 2007 3:53:11 PM
Friday blog rounds again today as the media still continues to mourn the passing of Anna Nicole Smith. And for the life of me I know not why. Yes, she was a human being. Yes, she was a mother. But in my personal opinion, she was immoral, and barely worth the notice that the media gave her. Now, onto the rounds ....

... and we will start with two fine columnists from Town Hall. The first is the anchor of the blogs, a very funny woman, and one that has had her share of time on TV defending conservatism, Mary Katherine Ham is ripping on the Edwards campaign on their choice of hiring Amanda Marcotte, and then after she created havoc for him, he refused to fire her. He kept her on, and it was all based on keeping the fever-swamp Left in his camp.

Next up is Mona Charen who is discussing the conservatism of Rudy Giuliani. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Rudy Giuliani is a conservative. Social conservatives and single-issue voters will have a hard time voting for him. But next to Rudy there is only one other conservative that has a chance of winning, and everyone should know who we are talking about.

Michelle Malkin notes that Nartional Review has taken an interest in Rudy, and notes that they hope he is running like he is going to win. The goes double for us because we know a McCain nomination will hand the Democrats the White House in 2008. THAT, cannot be allowed to happen. Far too many Democrats are campaigning on a withdrawal from the war.

Over at the "emperor's" sitre, Hugh is discussing nuclear terrorism prevention, and weighing it againstthe global warming morons. The key 'graph:

If, for example, the likelihood of nuclear terrorism over the course of the next 50 years is rated higher than that of the worst consequences of global warming occurring, then there ought to be some correlation between the amount urged for expenditure on the former versus that urged for expenditure on the latter. Global warming alarmists may counter that their worst case scenarios involve costs far in excess of those associated with one or even a few nuclear incidents, and that argument may be valid.

Indeed. The global warming nuts will not even contemplate what sort of devastation nuclear terrorism could even bring to the environment. The idea that global warming is a greater risk than nuclear terrorism is laughable. We can point to the effects of a nuclear weapon being detonated on US soil, and it's immediate after effects, but the global warming kooks cannot provide the same sort of analysis, using present day information. We can, and no offense we need monitoring equipment that can track such things.

Captain Ed and a number of other bloggers (notably, John and Paul @ Power Line) that CBS News held a discussion with over the McCain outreach efforts to the blogs. Interesting read, and one I recommend to our readers.

And in conclusion of the rounds today, I offer up Paul's post on religious Democrats and their unhappiness with John Edwards retaining Amanda Marcotte. Paul notes that this move by Edwards could be extremely destructive to his campaign were he a front runner. But it is quite obvious that Edwards lacks the talent and charisma to be a front runner, let alone an also-ran.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Speculation on Iranian Tactics and Strategy

Posted by on Friday, February 09, 2007 2:51:56 PM
 I came online to check e-mail. (We're waiting to see what our editor says about our newest column.) Instead of simply getting offline at this point, I went wandering in traffic. Imagine my surprise in seeing this on Hot Air's site. (Not because I'm putting Allah and the guys down over there today. They covered the news. But had it not for a simple, random jump, Marcie wouldn't have even noticed Rusty's post today. What piqued my interest was where Allah took me next:

Meanwhile, the LA Times has the latest on the growing unhappiness with Ahmadinejad in Iran. Money grafs:

Analysts here say it is significant that Khamenei, who has been a strong supporter of the nuclear program, has not silenced Ahmadinejad’s critics.

Indeed, Jamhouri Eslami, a newspaper once owned by Khamenei that often reflects his views, has voiced its own criticism of the president.

“Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda slogan gives the impression that you, for the sake of covering up flaws in the government, are exaggerating its importance. This is harmful for you and your government,” the paper said in an editorial last month.

It remains unknown whether Khamenei will try to rein in public dissent.

Obviously Khamenei would want to distance himself if Ahmadinejad really is that unpopular. But how about this theory — that by allowing criticism of Ahmadinejad, Khamenei’s trying to make the regime look weak in order to discourage an attack on the country for the reasons I explained here? Too clever by half? Maybe, but not even western intel seems to know what’s going on in Iran. Why should I?

Why should he? Because it's very plausible. Knowing what they do know about this administration, Iran isn't willing to roll the dice. They saw how quickly we ripped through Saddam's forces--one of the largest in the region according to military experts prior to our invasion. They saw how we handled al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. They know we have the ability to remove them from the face of the planet.

for them, it would be best to project dissent and disatisfaction in Iran towards Ahmadinejad. I know it sounds like a long-shot. But if our leaders see something like that, there will be less desire to support the dissident movement in Iran. A false assumption on their part, believing that the dissidents are really causing problems. I know they're a nuisance to Ahmadinejad, but I don't think there is any serious threat to his life or reign as president. I dopn't buy it because it just smells fishy.

Call it a gut instinct, and rarely is it wrong.

There is pressure mounting on Iran from our allies in in the West. His rhetoric over the last couple of days has not exactly been rosy. But with this report coming out, it paints a picture that ahmadinejad speaks for himself, and those who chose him cannot control him. If our leaders misjudge this, then this could be costly. I still believe that you can't trust them. With this report, and the one from Hot Air out there, we can't Iran for granted, and ease up an iota on them. Additionally, it makes the mullahs and clerics look less like a threat.

Remember, our enemy is allowed to lie to us, and they don't see it as a sin against them. Especially when you could lull your enemy into a false sense of security.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NEWS FLASH From the New York Times: Mitt Romney's A Mormon! (GASP)

Posted by on Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:43:41 PM
 Can the New York Times get any more pathetic and biased? Captain Ed doesn't think so, but hey, there's always room for them to dig deeper. And that is proven today with the story that ran above their fold this morning:

As he begins campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is facing a threshold issue: Will his religion — he is a Mormon — be a big obstacle to winning the White House?

Polls show a substantial number of Americans will not vote for a Mormon for president. The religion is viewed with suspicion by Christian conservatives, a vital part of the Republicans’ primary base.

Mr. Romney’s advisers acknowledged that popular misconceptions about Mormonism — as well as questions about whether Mormons are beholden to their church’s leaders on public policy — could give his opponents ammunition in the wide-open fight among Republicans to become the consensus candidate of social conservatives.

Mr. Romney, in an extended interview on the subject as he drove through South Carolina last week, expressed confidence that he could quell concerns about his faith, pointing to his own experience winning in Massachusetts. He said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country.

This is supposed to be news? Is the times aware that America already knew, for the most part, that Romney was LDS? I don't see how this is even an issue. It's as much a non-issue as JFK's Catholicism. And just like his presidency wasn't run out of the Vatican, Romney's won't be run out of Salt Lake City. Captain Ed does add this, which is the most telling part about this story:

Yet not only does the Paper of Record give this the top-line treatment, they also include a separate reader comment thread on the front page of their website. In their effort to drum up a controversy where none exists, the Times forgets to mention that the Senate has at least two Mormons, one on each side of the aisle, and yet no one is asking whether the Republic can handle an LDS member as Senate Majority Leader. Their readers spend most of the comment thread yawning at this huge political story, with one of them asking, "Didn’t we work this all out with JFK?"

America worked it out with JFK, and if Romney wins the presidency, they'll work it out with him, too. But it's pretty obvious that the Times is content to hype such a completely non-issue like this. Mitt romney will be elected based on his conservatism, and his stance on national security. Sure, there are going to be idiots out there that hold his religion against him. There always are. And frankly, those are single-issue voters that are voting a bias, and not using their heads. (By all means, fire away with the comments about how I'm being mean to those people, but I call it like it is.)

Romney's religion means nothing to Marcie or I. We're Catholic, and we go to Church every Sunday. All we care about is that he is a moral man (which he is), that he's a solid conservative (again, he is), and that he cares enough about America to protect her (um, ditto that again). That's all that should matter regarding his candidacy. And if some can't get over that (I've heard some Christians on talk shows call in and say that because he is Mormon they won't vote for him, and when challenged by the host, they can't offer up anything else but his religion for why they won't vote for him) then I'd rather they stay home. We're a better nation than that. Those people ought to know better. Hell, the New York Times ought to know better, but it's pretty clear that they don't care about "news" anymore. They've got an agenda, and an axe to grind. It's pretty clear what they're going to use as the grinding wheel.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Edwards Campaign Deals Itself A Broadside

Posted by on Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:18:43 PM
 The Edwards campaign has been the focus of some pretty withering criticism over the last few days, and it's all due to Amanda Marcotte, his former (I think) chief blogmaster. I say I think because if you read this (highlighted by Dean Barnett and Michelle Malkin) you can't really tell if she and her cohort are out or not:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

So, which is it, John-boy? Are they out, or in? Allah weighs in at Hot Air:

Not since the Trump/Miss USA press conference have I felt so moved by redemption ...

... Either he’s a gullible moron or he takes us for gullible morons. Bad news either way.

Absolutely. According to Hot Air, both are staying put. And I have to agree with Allah when he states that it seems as though the only reason these two nutters are still there is to appeals to the anti-religion tin-foil hat, space-cases. He can't seem to appeal to them, and bringing these two on board is drawing them to his ranks. (Of course, if he didn't act like an ambulance-chasing, used car salesman, and he was a little older, the nutters might actually embrace him.)

Marcotte and McEwan are the pinnacle of anti-religion nuts. For example, Patterico dug this up from his research:

Amanda Marcotte has said,

"... you don’t pick on Twisty’s glorious coinage “godbag” without tangling with me."

And indeed, that glorious coinage shows up in quite a few of her posts.

But apparently the “godbags” have decided to tangle with her. The Washington Post (in an AP article) reports:

Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded that Edwards fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots,” Donohue wrote in a statement. “He has no choice but to fire them immediately.”

And the New York Times has more:

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Well, don’t leave us in suspense, New York Times! What did she say? The New York Times won’t tell you — but that’s what blogs are for, right? Here you go:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

No offense, and pardon my language, but this woman is an @$$ hat. We're Catholic, and we can laugh at religion, when it's funny. She's not funny. She's filled with anger and hate towards religion in general. Allah and Patterico are on the same side. It's a good thing that Edwards has decided to keep these two on board. It's like letting the captain of the Titanic run into the iceberg again. Add the flip-floppy, indecisive statement above, and you have the makings of a campaign sinking fast. No one is going to trust Edwards to handle the current situation of the world today with such Kerry-esque stance switching.

Oh, and what does Ms. Marcotte think of her jokes? Why, she believes she's a satirist:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

Isn't satire usually funny? I think Lileks would agree with that. Maybe he can send a few pointers to her about being less of a vitriolic gasbag.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Murtha Threaten Defense Department Over Pelosi Tantrum

Posted by on Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:52:21 PM
 K-Lo @ NRO's The Corner reports that John Murtha is getting too big for his britches:

After the Pentagon rejected pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrat leaders to provide her a military C-32 Jet, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) responded angrily after the media reported the story. So angrily, in fact, that the Defense Appropriations Chairman apparently believes that it is "in the interests of the United States" to threaten Department of Defense funding over the flap.

THE INITIAL THREAT
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort.... "I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do." Murtha said. (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)

APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN THREATENS TO CUT DEFENSE FUNDING AFTER AMERICA LEARNS OF PELOSI PLANE DEMAND

"Late Wednesday afternoon, one of Pelosi's closest allies in the House, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the key Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense, told CNN that the Pentagon was making 'a mistake' by leaking information unfavorable to the speaker 'since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense.'"(CNN, ABC News, 2/8/2007)(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)

Our nation is at war. It is irresponsible, inappropriate and reckless for a member of Congress to threaten the Pentagon and men and women of our armed forces.

I think that Someone had better grab ahold of John Murtha's leash, and yank it. Either that, or he should be reprimanded--even censured--for making such a threat over something like this. Ms. Pelosi will receive the same sort of aircraft that Speaker Hastert received. That much is necessary in a post-9/11 world. The order of presidential succession must be protected.

Ms. Pelosi is demanding a chaffeur service, and the military is telling her that is not their job. She is not getting a bloody jet to ferry her and her state delegation to and from California whenever the whims suit her. The plane is for official business, and the ensure that in the event of a national emergency, such as our enemy trying to decapitate the government (as they attempted to on 9/11), she is safe and protected.

If she wants a chaffeur service, I suggest she take some of her own money, and charter some private jets. She is not going to use the taxpayer dollars to take worthless little jaunts all over the nation. She may be the Speaker of the House, but she is not the president or vice president. She does not deserve such treatment.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Offensive Is Working: 48 Hours of Success

Posted by on Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:37:40 PM
 Dr. Rusty Shackleford @ My Pet Jawa reports that the offensive against al-Qaeda in Iraq is shaping up to be a resounding success. In the last forty-eight hours we have seen six major al-Qaeda leaders captured, dozens killed, and an IED network broken up via airstrikes.

A key aide to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the man who took over command of al-Qaeda forces after al-Zarqawi met an unfortunate end, was captured, and in his interrogations, he admitted to seeing al-Masri yesterday. AJ Strata @ The Strata-Sphere is on this story:

Iraqi security forces detained an aide to the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq in a raid early Thursday at a gas station south of Baghdad, state-run television and a security official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the aide to Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was one of two men arrested in the dawn raid.

The two suspects ran a gas station in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, on behalf of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the official said, adding the returns from selling gas and other oil products on the black market were being used to finance the operations of local al-Qaeda in Iraq cells.

The official, who was involved in the raid, did not identify the two men, but added that the al-Masri aide had confessed to meeting the terror network leader the previous day in the Mahmoudiya area, but that he could not tell investigators of his current whereabouts because he was constantly on the move.

Heh. It sucks to be al-Masri, especially now that we have one of his key aides. That person may not know where he is at, but we know he is in the area. It is only a matter of time before we catch him, and as AJ notes, this trail is very fresh.

Two more leaders were caught by Iraqi and United States forces, and these guys were running an IED operation:

Coalition Forces detained two suspected terrorists believed to have ties to an al-Qaida improvised explosive device cell during a raid Wednesday morning in West Taji.

Intelligence reports indicated one of the detainees has significant ties to a local IED cell and had connections to recent anti-Coalition Forces activities.

Ground forces entered the targeted building and detained the two suspected terrorists without incident. Upon searching the house, ground forces found evidence of explosives material hidden inside the building and buried around the exterior. They also found several weapons and materials commonly used to make IEDs.

In order to prevent the residence from being used for future sanctuary to terrorists, ground forces destroyed the building with strategically-placed charges. Before placing the charges, Ground forces escorted two women and nine children outside the house and to a neighbor’s home in order to ensure their safety.

That is going to put a serious dent in al-Qaeda's IED operations. So does this, which is reported by Dr. Shackleford:

Coalition Forces conducted an air strike Wednesday targeting an al-Qaida in Iraq-related vehicle-borne improvised explosives devices network near Arab Jabour. Intelligence reports indicated that this network is responsible for a large and devastating number of VBIED attacks in the Baghdad area. They are also responsible for IED and sniper attacks conducted against the Iraqi people and Iraqi and Coalition Forces. Building destroyed, everyone inside presumably dead.

Additionally, Dr. Shackleford includes these two juicy morsels:

A facilitator of foreign fighters was captured by the Iarqi Army on the Syrian border. And foreign fighters tend to mean al Qaeda.

Not to be outdone by the IA, the U.S. struck two houses where foreign fighters had gathered—-13 jihadis dead. An “individual” associated with foreign fighter facilitation was in the targeted area.

No ownder why the Democrats are whining in Congress. We are winning, and their strategy of withdrawal is not resonating within the administration, or with their constitutents. This offensive is making a lot of headway, and we are taking the fight back to al-Qaeda instead of sitting on our laurels trying to placate the Iraqi government, and their concerns. Yes, we will take steps to minimize civilian casualties, but we cannot fight a war if our hands are tied. Now they are not, and we are winning.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Wall Street Journal Explains The Hawk And Dove of Hillary

Posted by on Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:54:34 AM
 
The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on Hillary todat thatpulls no punches:

One pleasant surprise of Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as New York Senator has been her tough-minded approach on national security. She responded to 9/11 by supporting President Bush's strategy of taking on not just terrorists but the states that harbor them. She also voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to follow much of her party in alleging that Mr. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction.

But as Mrs. Clinton bids to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, she is taking a marked turn to the left. Pressured by other candidates and by her party's left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp. The polls show her to be the favorite to be the next Commander in Chief, so what she really believes, and how firmly she'll stick to it, deserves to be debated. Here's a summary of the arc of Mrs. Clinton's public thinking on Iraq:

October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." ...

December 15, 2003. It is clear by now that no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton tells the Council on Foreign Relations that "Yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. . . . We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice." ...

April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

Read the whole thing folks. This is the only way the truth is going to get out with this woman. She keeps screaching that she's not going to talk about issues, yet she wants to be the president. You can't just sit there and clam up, and expect to be elected. But she's going to try, and the media is going to do it's best to make sure this woman doesn't get asked any hard, serious questions.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arkin's Whining About His Critics: "I have ceased being a human"

Posted by on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:30:22 AM
 
Wouldn't you know it? William Arkin is at it again. No, he's not slandering the troops. He did that already. He's playing the victocrat card, according to Ed Driscoll. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)

In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I'm not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I'm merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.

What is this poor, poor pitiful me crappola? He's the one who slandered the troops. He's the one that, instead of apologizing right off the bat, came out swinging at his detractors. And all because he got a few nasty e-mails? Grow up, already. Marcie and I get nasty e-mails from readers daily. Now, 90% of them are nuts (so we take this as fan mail), but you don't hear us whining or complaining; proclaimed we have been dehumanized.

My Lord, the man's in the media business, and he's acting as though he lives in some impervious plastic bubble where no one can disagree with him, and if they do, he'll cry--literally--and run home to mommy. Puh-leeze. Grow a thicker skin, quit making an @$$ of yourself, or get out of the business. God hates a quitter, but He's sick of the whiners (which is likely WHY the Democrat's prayers haven't been answered lately).

Here's the kicker, folks. We were content to let dead dogs lie. He came out, got slapped around, was slapped even harder when he decided to push the envelope, and eventually produced the A-typical non-apology apology. Now, he's playing the crying game, and complaining how he was mistreated. This post from him just goes to show he doesn't seem to fathom even his business. Whether he thinks he's a journalist or not is irrelevant. He acts like one and works for the WaPo. If he's going to make nutter comments like the ones a week ago, then expect the verbal beatings when they come.

The WaPo obviously didn't learn it's lesson last week. Maybe they thought that the apology wold be enough, and people would get over him. For the most part, people did. But he just doesn't seem to comprehend the idea of keeping a low profile after a controversy. Maybe the WaPo should have heeded the advice of the consumer, and fired him last week. Lord knows the blogosphere would have been better off with him gone, and so would the WaPo.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Special Birthday ...

Posted by on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:14:49 PM
I'm pooped. I'm tired. It's been a long day with next-to-no sleep, but I couldn't toddle off for a nap without mentioning this because today is a special day.

Happy Birthday President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Had he lived to see today, the greatest president of the 20th Century would've celebrated his 96th birthday today. I for one have a lot to thank this man for because he formulated much of the conservative thought I have today. While yes, I was raised in a home where both parents were conservatives (moderate, for the most part), I took up the Reagan mantle, and carried it forward.

Marcie was "tutored" by her brother prior to his enlistment about Reagan, and like myself, she was deeply affected by the man who spawned the conservative revolution in 1980. We forget sometimes, but this man made United States history twice; both times achieving an electoral landlside that the nation hadn't seen before, and hasn't seen since. He spawned a new generation of conservative thinkers, and spurred those of his generation forward.

We sorely miss him nowadays, and we agree that right now--at this moment in time--this nation sure could use another Ronald Reagan.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Warner/Levin Fails To Reach Cloture: Democrats Whine; GOP Gains Ally From A Likely Source

Posted by on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:33:35 AM
 The blogosphere did it's job, and last night, Mitch McConnell did his as the Warner/Levin resolution failed to muster the necessary sixty votes for cloture. Majority Leader Reid, naturally, responded with a teensy tantrum:

A lengthy Senate floor debate on the Iraq war is inevitable, despite a Republican effort to block it, Democrats say, as negotiations on how to move forward were expected to continue Tuesday.

Following a procedural vote Monday that sidetracked a resolution on the war, Democrats said they would eventually find a way to put each senator on record. On the table is a nonbinding resolution backed by several Republicans and most Democrats that would state Senate opposition to President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

"The president must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place — alone," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The measure, if passed, would be a stinging critique of Bush's decision to deepen the U.S. military commitment in Iraq. Bush has said the extra troops are needed to calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and the western Anbar province.

Republicans denied assertions that they were trying to block a vote on the measure, saying that they were seeking fair rules and consideration of a GOP alternative measure.

"As far as stalling, we've got a week here where we can have a full debate. But we insist on it being a full debate and a fair one," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott R-Miss.

The two political parties were at odds Monday after Democrats refused to give equal consideration during the debate to a Republican proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., which would protect funding for troops in combat.

While Democrats are largely supportive of the Gregg measure, they want to limit debate to only two proposals: one by Sen. John Warner R-Va., that states opposition to the troop buildup, and another by Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., that would support the president's position.

Several leading Democrats have endorsed Warner's measure, including Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, but many Republicans were reluctant to say how they would vote. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania were each considered GOP wild cards in the vote.

Specter said he wanted to hear out other members before deciding what to do.

"It's a big issue," Specter said. "We need to debate it."

The filibuster has opened the door for that debate, and the GOP appears unwilling to back down on this issue. That would be the reason why I said the blogosphere did it's job. By forming the site around the NRSC Pledge, and taking the stand that it did, I believe it forced a few in the Senate to sit up and take notice. And, Captain Ed noticed a face amongst those Republicans that we knew would be there:

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Anyone care to wager a guess as to who said that? I will give you a hint: He was abandoned by his party in the primaries the same way the Democrats want to abandon this mission. And if you guessed Joe Lieberman, you were correct. Those words came from the last, lone hawk amongst Democrats in the Senate. With that statement yesterday, he hit the nail on the head. It was, quite literally, a home run because he told it like it was. You cannot have things both ways. either you will support the trops by GIVING THEM THE MEANS TO WIN, or you will vote for failure and retreat, and send that message to our enemies.

I am happy to see that one man, with the majority of the GOP, understands the concept of this war, and that failure is not an option. I wish more Democrats would get that through their skull.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy Is In!!: The Democrats Have Yet To Cry "Foul"

Posted by on Monday, February 05, 2007 3:18:34 PM
 Ladies and Gentlemen, Rudy Giuliani is in the race, officially. Allah and FOX News get the scoop:

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose popularity soared after his response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, moved closer to a full-fledged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday.

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase "testing the waters" from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani's campaign.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting any disclosure by Giuliani.

All right, who will be the first Democrat to take the dirty swipe? Who will be the first one to go after Rudy for his divorce? We know it is coming because that is all they can attack him on. His approach to New York City as mayor is above-board, and America still remembers him as the face behind the rescue/clean-up efforts from 9/11. In terms of leadership, Rudy has more than any other Dem contender. They can cite their senatorial records. The governors can talk about their leadership. But Rudy was a lowly mayor having to deal with the aftermath of the worst attack in United States history. This was a man that attended nearly every funeral that was held for the victims. Where was Hillary? Where was Edwards? Where was Biden?

And this announcement now sets up the possibility of the ticket that Thomas and I have been pushing--Rudy/Romney or Romney/Rudy. Either way you look at it it is a devastating duo. We know the McCain-ites will come out of the woodwork pushing the old man, but we are on the record right now: Barring a gaffe that could kill either candidate, McCain will not get the nomination. McCain's newest resolution for the troop surge was politically motivated. It was an attempt to repair the damage done by his benchmark idea, his torture rules, his immigration reform disaster, his attack on free speech via CRFR, and his Gang of 14 snafu. McCain knows that he has done damage to himself, and he saw an opportunity to repair some that last week. The problem is, we believe, that it is too little too late.

Rudy is leading in the straw polls that have been conducted. He leads McCain by five points. He leads Gingrich by twenty points. And he is trouncing Mitt Romney. A note on Romney, though, is that the media has been beating the snot out of him, and he has barely begun his camapign. And we should not forget that his religion is going to be questioned by the media. The fact he is Mormon is irrelevant. They will try to make the case that his religion will be predominant, but that is not going to happen. It did not happen in Massachusetts, and it will not happen if he reaches the White House.

Giuliani will have a tougher time if he does not get out in front of the low blows that will be coming from the press and his critics. He needs to run on his leadership qualities and his accomplishments as mayor--both prior to and in the aftermath of 9/11. He is tough on national security, and has a thorough background in that realm.

Thomas and I see the nation approaching a crossroads in this war, and those roads will meet in 2008. This war is far from over, and if the nation takes the road in 2008 that it did in 2006, we will be acting selfishly rather than selflessly. We cannot afford to have any Democrat make it into the White House because they are all camapigning on a complete withdrawal of troops from the battlefield. Sure, they want to focus on Afghanistan (or so they say, but with the initial boast of removing troops from Iraq, how long before they pull out of Afghanistan?), but in doing that, they are abandoning Iraq to become something similar to--if not worse than--Afghanistan was prior to our invasion. The stakes are simply too high in 2008 to be playing games with our national security.

Marcie

UPDATE: It is starting to generate some buzz in the blogosphere. J-Pod @ The Corner weighs in:

Rudy Giuliani has filed a "statement of candidacy" for president, which simply moves the ball a few more feet toward the race. After two years of basically being tied with John McCain as the frontrunner in a speculative 2008 race for the GOP nod, in the past month Rudy has made his intention to run ever more plain — with the result that in every poll he now has a lead over McCain somewhere between five and eleven points.

Yes, a year is a long time, and yes, he will face withering questioning on all matters, and yes, his golden sheen will tarnish. But at some point Rudy skeptics are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Republican primary voters seem to want to choose him. That is a new phenomenon for someone who has no record of siding with social conservatives on symbolic issues, and it suggests a changed dynamic in the GOP.

And Roger L. Simon also shares his thoughts:

Good. As most readers of this site know, I favor Rudy. At least for now. I say "for now" because anything can happen almost two years out from an election, but for me he is a strong favorite. He seems to be the only candidate in either party with the leadership experience and capabilities to handle the global crisis we are now in, a crisis which is highly unlikely to get much better in the immediate future.

This is setting up to be a nice little story for the day, and in the days to come. Get ready for the Democrats and their attack on Rudy. It is not going to be easy for him. He can handle his critics. The question is whether or not he can handle the media. I am sure he can as no one in the media with a brain cell is going to openly attack "America's Mayor." Though I would like to see Chris Matthews try it. It would be extremely pleasing to watch Rudy spank him.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1516Next »