Now they are asking Grasso to return some of the money they paid him. Idiots.


The ads are the funniest thing about this debate write-up in the WaPo, and I have taken a screenshot of and edited it so it will fit this space. The article discusses the deplorable debate behavior of all the candidates participating, and then just below the main text we see this:


Apparently Dr. Mac and Garrett Gruener want your vote for Governor too- and they are willing to pay for it.

Recall Mania

I am against the recall in California- but it is a legitimite constitutional exercise, and clearly the voters of California have some real grievances with the slimebag Davis. Having said that, it appears to me that the Blumenthal wing of the party of Clinton is now firmly in control, for if a republican wins, Democrats will immediately begin a new recall- out of retribution.

I wish I hadn’t predicted this, but you have to understand the way some of these Democrats think. Their guy was recalled for being a hideous Governor through a perfectly legal (although stupid) device. Clearly the solution is to recall the next Governor to get even.

FWIW- If I had a vote, I would vote no on the recall initiative, and yes for Bustamante- he was elected Lt. Governor for a reason and although I dislike his policies, he is not the criminal that Davis is and should deserve the right to govern. The people did, after all, choose him. After that, the only other serious politician and person I would want running my state is McClintock. To hell with the weightlifter, the debutante, and the Green party candidate.

Primetime Silliness

Flipping back and forth between the West Wing and the California debates, I caught something really funny in the debate. Tom McClintock listed about 18.5 billion in cuts off the top of his head, acknowledging that spending is up 38% while revenues had only increased 25% in recent years. Everyone, even Cruz, noted the deficit was not rocket science, and that they were simply spending more than they were taking in and it had to stop.

Everyone, that is, except for Camejo, the green party candidate, whose solution was to ‘raise taxes on the top 1% and spend more money on education.’

I almost choked to death on key lime pie I was laughing so hard. What alternate universe spawns the Green party?

New Blogs in the Blog Roll

I have added some new blogs to the blogroll, and they can be found to the right in the New Additions section:

Please welcome:

The Angry Left
Setting the World To Rights
Taco Flavored Kisses

*** Update ***

And how could I forget my most loyal lefty commenter.

Hillary Clinton, Hawk

You have to just love any article which will piss off both the “Bush lied” and the “Hitlery” crowds:

PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction–Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. “The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam’s expulsion of weapons inspectors and “the behavior” of his regime “pointed to a continuing effort” to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own “due diligence” by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. “To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence” that Saddam had WMD.

Clinton isn’t normally a defender of the Bush administration. And on other issues, especially Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq, she was highly critical. But she agreed, with qualifications, that preemptive military action may be necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq.

She also had this to say about rumors regarding the Clintons and Wes:

That is an absurd feat of imagination, I guess. We have been supportive to all of the candidates running in any way that they have requested information…from either Bill or me, advice that they would solicit. We are not supporting or endorsing any candidate…I think someone very formidable is going to come out of this process….”

I can’t find the whole transcript from the breakfast.

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Take your choice- Michael Moore or Wesley Clark.

(via the Instapundit)

Another One Bites the Dust

Another myth put to bed:

Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, no memorial service, cable-news talkfest or university seminar seemed to have been complete without someone emerging from the woodwork to wonder darkly why the CIA ever financed Usama bin Laden “in the first place.”

Everyone from Washington Post reporters to Michael Moore seems to buy some version of this.

It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It’s not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks down on ourselves. While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help, bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.

Why do some people continue to perpetuate this nonsense?

Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? Some find the myth persuasive because they do not know that America and Saudi Arabia funded two different sets of anti-Soviet fighters. Others on the anti-American left and right, in both Europe and America, find it oddly comforting. It gives solace to those who want to think the worst of us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. Whatever the cause, this myth weakens Americas case for the war on terror by setting up a moral equivalency between America and Al Qaeda. This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.

(via Misha)

Mind Numbing

If you ever wondered why people right of center hate the NY Times, read this idiotic editorial and you will understand. While agreeing that the French plan for Iraq made no sense, and that Bush was right to reject turning things over to the governing council immediately, the Times staff still insists on turning things over to the UN. Despite agreeing with Bush that turning things over to the governing council and letting the UN sort things out is a bad idea. But power should be turned over to the governing council, even though the Times says it is bad idea. You get the point, right? Bush will never please the NY Times or the French. Why even bother.

BTW- If I hear the ‘there is no plan’ mantra one more time I am going to explode. There clearly is a plan in place- the left just does not like it. Claiming that the ‘administration is finding almost nothing as easy as it had hoped’ passes for big thinking at the Times.

Also- I have looked high and low for the 87 billion supplemental spending bill and can not find the actual contents anywhere.

Context Regarding the Iraq Expense

Larry Lindsey’s op-ed in USA Today is a must read:

A year ago, while I was serving as President Bush’s White House economic adviser, I caused quite a controversy when I said that our objective in Iraq would be well worth spending 1% to 2% of America’s gross domestic product. At the time, the president had not made any decisions about war with Iraq, so putting any price tag on the mission particularly one so steep was considered premature.

It now seems that the cost of deposing Saddam Hussein and re-establishing civil government in Iraq will be in that range. Critics are using words like “massive” and “staggering” to describe the cost. But what we really should ask is: Compared with what? We cannot walk away. If we have no choice but to fight, it makes sense to spend what it takes to win. While any dollar amount in the billions is substantial, it’s important to put it into perspective. The Vietnam War cost 12% of GDP at the time and World War II cost 130% of GDP.

The cost to defeat Saddam was less than half a percent of America’s annual income (measured as gross domestic product). If spending continues at the current pace, our involvement could cost us 0.4% of our income for the rest of this year. If President Bush’s request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is approved, the cost of these two fronts will amount to about 0.8% of our income next year.

But what does that really mean? Each year American households spend about 1% of their income on alcoholic beverages and another 1% on tobacco products. We spend about 0.7% of our money on cosmetic products. In other words, our combined operations to combat terror in the Middle East cost a bit more than we spend on makeup and shampoo and a bit less than we spend on booze or tobacco.


This Won’t Be The Last

While Democrats are giddily fawning all over their very model of a modern Major General, Wesley Clark, they would be wise to listen to the remarks of other military men:

Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.

His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience’s rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners.

“What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate,” was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, “I noticed you took a drink on that one!”

“That question makes me wish it were vodka,” said Shelton. “I’ve known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I’m not going to say whether I’m a Republican or a Democrat. I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.”

Ouch. Character issues with a Clinton lackey- who would have thunk it? Guess it is time to start a smear campaign on Hugh Shelton- you know, he hasn’t been the same since he fell off that ladder. Be the first to spot the Democrat’s smear machine kick into high gear.

(via RealPolitik)

*** Update ***

Kevin Drum is the first out of the gate in what knew would be the lefty race to smear Shelton since he dared to say something negative about Clark:

If Shelton wants to say why he doesn’t like Clark, fine. Go ahead and say it. But to make a weasely accusation like this and then pretend to a faux nobility by not going into details is just plain cowardly, and Shelton should be ashamed of himself.

Gen. Shelton- weasel and a coward. Heh. From Shelton’s bio:

Honored with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award the United States Congress can bestow, Shelton has been internationally recognized for his public service and, in 2001, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

Among his many military awards, he has received four Defense Distinguished Service Medals, two Army Distinguished Service Medals, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor and the Purple Heart. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments. Highlights of his civilian awards include North Carolina’s highest Award for Public Service, the Eisenhower Award from the Business Executives for National Security, the American Academy of Achievement’s Golden Plate Award, Intrepid Freedom Award, and recognition as National Father of the Year, among others.

I hope enough people goad Gen. Shelton and others into dropping the bombs on Clark- the way the left has rushed to embrace Clark, sight unseen, it could leave them in the dark on security issues for another 50 years.

*** Update #2 ***

Apparently more than just Kevin think Shelton should back up his charges (I would like him to as well, if only to watch the fall-out). I still object to him being called a weasel and a coward.

Decisions, Decisions

Gee- tough decision tonight. Should I watch what will be a desultory performance by all the candidates in the California free-for-all debate, or should I watch the season premiere of the West Wing, something I have been waiting for since April/May?

Ok- it isn’t a tough choice at all. I HAVE to know what happened to Bartlett’s daughter.

Carter Analyzed

Dan at a Reason of Voice discusses Jimmy Carter’s latest op-ed in the WaPo. Someoe explain binary constructs to Carter.

Carnival of the Vanities

The 53rd Carnival of the Vanities is up, and there were several posts I found particularly worth reading. I love this post from the People’s Republic of Seabrook, and this discussion of Christian Amanpour was spectacular.

Syrup with That?

Dean supporters probably won’t like this website.

Also, via Drudge, we see that the “Issues” area of Clark’s website is empty. Hehe.