Monday, June 04, 2007

It's about time...Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe


Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Louisiana congressman William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) received more than $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more in nearly a dozen separate schemes to enrich himself by using his office to broker business deals in Africa, according to a federal indictment Monday.


The charges came almost two years after investigators raided Jefferson's home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.
The indictment lists 16 counts, including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. He faces a possible maximum sentence of 235 years.


He is the first U.S. official to face charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits corporate bribery overseas.
Jefferson, through his lawyer, claimed innocence. He will be arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.


The schemes were complicated and Jefferson set up front companies to hide the money and disperse it to family members, prosecutors said.


"But the essence of the charges are really very simple: Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office and on the Congress," said Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) is expected to push this week for Jefferson to be stripped of his seat on the Small Business Committee, according to a leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been announced.
"If these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress."
House Republican Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio said Jefferson should be expelled from Congress if he is found guilty and refuses to resign.


Jefferson, 60, whose congressional district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly. He was re-elected last year despite the investigation.
His lawyer, Robert Trout, on Monday called the indictment "lengthy and creative" and accused prosecutors of "trying to create an offense."


"Even after they turned over every rock, they did not allege in this indictment that (Jefferson) promised anybody any legislation. There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations. There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts," Trout said during a news conference in Los Angeles.


Trout also said Jefferson has no intention of seeking a plea bargain. "He's obviously not happy about being indicted, but he's confident that when the facts are known he will be vindicated," Trout said about his client. "He is committed, he is confident and he is ready to fight."
Two of Jefferson's associates have struck plea bargains with prosecutors and have been sentenced.


Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, admitted soliciting bribes on Jefferson's behalf and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Another Jefferson associate, Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, pleaded guilty to paying between $400,000 and $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations. Jackson was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.


Both Pfeffer and Jackson agreed to cooperate in the case against Jefferson.
The impact of the case has stretched across continents and even roiled presidential politics in Nigeria. According to court records, Jefferson told associates he needed cash to pay bribes to the country's vice president, Atiku Abubakar.


Abubakar denied the allegations, which figured prominently in that country's presidential elections in April. He ran for the presidency and finished third.
In Lagos, Nigeria, Abubakar spokesman Garba Shehu said the former vice president "has always denied wrongdoing in the matter."


"He has only had official interaction with the congressman, who the vice president felt deserved a hearing because he was a ranking member of the U.S. Congress," Shehu said. "The vice president was in no way cited in this thing, so we feel vindicated."
While Abubakar is not cited by name, the indictment refers to "Nigerian Official A," a high-ranking official in Nigeria's executive branch who had a spouse in Potomac, Md. One of Abubakar's wives, Jennifer Douglas, lived in that Washington suburb. A search warrant for the Potomac home, combined with the indictment, makes clear that Abubakar is the unnamed Nigerian official.


As co-chair of a congressional caucus dedicated to African investment and trade, Jefferson was ideally positioned to influence business contracts with African governments. The indictment said Jefferson would meet with African officials and write official letters on behalf of businesses that agreed to provide kickbacks.


Court records indicate Jefferson was videotaped taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an
FBI' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> FBI informant who felt the congressman and another businessman had bilked her out of millions. Most of that money later turned up in the freezer in Jefferson's home.
In May 2006, the FBI raided Jefferson's congressional office, the first such raid on a congressman's Capitol office. That move sparked a constitutional debate over whether the executive branch had stepped over a boundary.


The raid's legality is still being argued on appeal. House leaders objected to the search, saying it was an unconstitutional intrusion on the lawmaking process. The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson and his legal team had failed to respond to requests for documents.
Some but not all the documents seized in the raid have been turned over Justice Department prosecutors.


Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said the documents helped bring the case against Jefferson. "Some of those documents that we were able to obtain through the process have indeed supported the charges that are presented today," Fisher said.
___
Associated Press writers Michael Blood in Los Angeles, Laurie Kellman in Washington and Edward Harris in Lagos, Nigeria, contributed to this report.

McCain, Romney clash over immigration


McCain, Romney clash over immigration
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago
CORAL GABLES, Fla. - Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Mitt Romney clashed on Monday over the immigration bill, with McCain embracing the measure as a practical solution and Romney dismissing it as unworkable.
Speaking in politically crucial Florida, with its heavy concentration of Cuban and Haitian immigrants, McCain argued that while the bill is imperfect, it is an attempt to secure U.S. borders, help the economy and identify those who have entered the nation illegally.

The four-term Arizona senator chided rivals who are trying to score points on the issue. McCain never mentioned any names but his target was obvious — Romney.
"To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership," McCain told members of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce.
Romney answered back.

"The immigration approach proposed by Senators McCain and Kennedy falls short of a workable solution to an important problem," the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement. Romney said he respected McCain, but his opposition was based on a "principled disagreement about policies and priorities related to enforcement of our immigration laws."
The immigration measure would tighten security on the Mexican border while allowing some of the 12 million illegal immigrants a chance to stay in the United States and eventually become citizens.

President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush has spoken out in favor of the bipartisan bill. Romney did not mention the president, instead describing the immigration approach of McCain and liberal icon Kennedy.
McCain said Bush understands the political implications.

"The president knows. He spent eight years as governor of Texas," McCain told The Associated Press after his speech. "The Republican Party must address this issue, if, in my part of the country, we expect to attract Hispanic voters."

McCain stands alone among the major candidates in supporting the bill. He has criticized Romney for opposing the measure based on provisions that would provide a path to legalization.
"I will never conduct my campaign in such a way that it makes our country's most difficult challenges harder to solve. I hope you will hold all candidates to that same standard. Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty," McCain said to loud applause.

Another GOP rival, former New York city Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also opposes the bill, but has said he is willing to compromise on how to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States as long as he is satisfied all security issues are addressed.
Romney has not offered a detailed plan on how he would handle illegal immigrants, but he said recently a priority would be to deport criminals and remove illegal immigrants from government assistance programs.

Romney's response to the bill has varied with his audience. Most of his criticism has focused on the so-called Z-visa, a document proposed for registering the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country.

Last month in South Carolina, home to the type of social conservatives Romney is courting, he said, "I think we should not call it the 'Z' visa; we should call it the 'A' visa, because it's amnesty and that's what it stands for."
Yet a week later in Florida, he said, "There are some who get involved in whether it is technically amnesty or not and I'm not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers do that."

Despite his amnesty complaints, Romney said he would not favor rounding up the illegal immigrants already in the country. Rather, he supports them self-reporting to immigration authorities.

McCain chose a supportive crowd to deliver his 25-minute address Monday. Many of the Miami area's business leaders are immigrants or children of immigrants. He was given an extended ovation before beginning his speech and his remarks were interrupted several times by applause.

"Florida is a living testament to the benefits of immigration, a great and prosperous state built in large part by immigrants who came here to escape tyranny and despair," he said.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO DELIVER ADDRESS ON IMMIGRATION



SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO DELIVER ADDRESS ON IMMIGRATION

Contact: Press Office
Monday, June 4, 2007
703-650-5550


ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver remarks to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Below are Senator McCain's remarks, as prepared for delivery:
"Thank you for this opportunity to share with you a few thoughts about the issue that has occasioned much debate in our country: illegal immigration and the failure of the United States to secure our borders. It is a serious problem that poses many challenges, and how we address it will impact directly the destiny of the great nation we are blessed to call home. Those of us privileged to hold elective office have the responsibility to secure our borders and change the immigration policy that has allowed this intolerable situation to persist: a nation at war, confronting an enemy that means to do us great harm, has failed to control its borders, tolerated for years an immense wave of illegal immigration, and is presently unable to discern from the hundreds of thousands of people who cross our borders illegally each year, who came here to work; who came here for criminal purposes; and who came here to hurt us.


"This problem cannot be allowed to continue any longer. Finding an effective, just and practical solution is difficult, but it is our work to do, on our watch. The politics of Washington have encouraged us to leave solutions to the toughest problems for another unluckier generation of leaders. Problems are left unsolved year after year, because we fear the political consequences of seriously addressing them or value their utility as political attacks in our campaigns. Illegal immigration and our porous borders are problems that we have, to our shame, ignored for too long because it was too hard and politically risky to solve. But the problem has grown too acute and dangerous to ignore any longer. To do nothing now would be an unconscionable abrogation of our responsibilities to defend the security, prosperity and values of our country.


"A number of us, Republicans and Democrats, and the President, have tried to meet this responsibility. We have proposed a remedy that, while imperfect as all compromises are, is, nevertheless, a serious, comprehensive, and practical attempt to secure our borders, defend the rule of law, help our economy grow, and make it possible for the United States to know who has entered this country illegally, and who among them have done so for purposes more nefarious than making better lives for their families. As the legislation is debated in Congress, many changes will be proposed and some adopted. Many already have been. I welcome any attempt to meet our responsibility to fix our broken borders and immigration system. Our proposal has provoked criticism from some on both the left and right. Compromises usually do. People of good will, who take their responsibilities seriously, argue variously that our ideas are too tough or not tough enough. I do not question the sincerity of their convictions or their purpose in proposing other ways to address the problem. There is one premise most of us agree on: the status quo is unacceptable. Our borders are unsecured, our laws our being violated, and our current immigration laws do not meet the needs of a growing economy. And while we argue over the means to solve the problem, we should respect each other's intentions.


"Both proponents and opponents of the legislation agree on another point: the last attempt to address the problem, made over twenty years ago, was a failure. The immigration reform adopted in 1986 simply granted amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living in our country, and did virtually nothing to improve border security. It is important that we avoid repeating these mistakes. A country facing an enemy as malevolent as the enemy we face must have effective control of its borders. And we cannot prevent further waves of illegal immigration without drastically improving border security. Those improvements alone will not stop people from coming here illegally, but without them, we cannot stem the tide of illegal border crossings by those who are simply fleeing despair and injustice or those who mean us harm. So we began by authorizing tough and effective measures to secure our borders, which must be operational and visually certified before other provisions to reform our immigration laws take effect.
"We will increase the number of border patrol agents up to 20,000. We will complete 370 miles of border fencing, and 200 miles of vehicle barriers, which will not be, as some critics have suggested, all that will be constructed. We will continue until we have protected our border with fencing, vehicle barriers, ground sensors, unmanned aerial systems, cameras, advanced communications systems and the most up to date security technologies available to us. New detention facilities will be constructed to hold those who have crossed our border illegally. We will institute a tough new employment eligibility verification system, tamper proof biometric cards to prove to an employer that foreign workers are in this country legally, and impose substantial fines on employers who hire someone without proper status. We will not admit one temporary worker or grant one undocumented worker a visa until the Secretary of Homeland Security can certify that these tough, new measures are in place.


"As imperative as these measures are, they will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now. To address those problems, we must recognize that as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants, they will come here, legally or otherwise, for the same reasons immigrants have always come here: to escape poverty and injustice, and seize opportunities so abundant in our good and blessed country. Moreover, our economy needs them. Ask any orange grower, restaurant manager or hotel owner in Florida. We have proposed a temporary worker program that will discourage illegal immigration by allowing more workers a legal way to come here to fill jobs that are available to them and have not been taken by an American. It is genuinely temporary. It grants each worker a two year visa that can be renewed twice but only after th e worker has returned to his or her country for a year. They will be granted a visa only if they prove a job is waiting for them, and it didn't come at the expense of an American worker.


"The most difficult problem is what to do about the twelve million or more undocumented workers who live and work here now. No critic of our bill has offered a serious proposal to round up all these millions, many of whom have children born in this country, and ship them back to their countries of origin. There is simply no practical way to do that, and most Americans understand that. We have proposed a way to encourage them to come out from the underground economy, submit to a criminal background check, pay fines, back taxes and prove they are gainfully employed in exchange for a visa that would allow them to continue working here. Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it. DHS Secretary Chertoff, who helped negotiate this legislation, has warned that two million people in this country illegally have committed serious crimes. If some of them attempt to legalize their status, we will apprehend them. If they don't, we can concentrate our efforts on locating them and not rounding up lettuce pickers, hotel maids, and babysitters. Most importantly, we can devote all the resources necessary to finding terrorists who have broken our immigration laws, like three of the terrorists who intended to attack our soldiers at Ft. Dix.


"Those undocumented workers who declare themselves, pass criminal background checks, prove their employment, pay fines, taxes, learn English and study American civics may be offered eventually, and I stress eventually, a path to citizenship. Critics of the bill attack this as amnesty and a special path to citizenship that is denied to lawful immigrants. Both charges are false. Amnesty is what we gave in 1986, and it didn't work. It was unconditional forgiveness for breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants broke our laws and they should pay a penalty for doing so. We impose fines, fees and other requirements as punishment. And if the path to citizenship we offer them is 'special,' it is because it is harder, longer and more expensive than the path offered to those immigrants who come here legally. Those undocumented workers who attain legal status are not automatically provided a green card and citizenship. The process could take as long as thirteen years, and will cost them thousands of dollars, require them to learn English and understand our laws and culture, return to their country and get in the back of the line - not the front, not the middle, but the back of the line for a green card. That is a fair, practical and humane way of dealing with the problem of twelve million undocumented workers. And if someone objects to it, especially if they are a candidate for President, they should have the responsibility and courage to propose another way.


"The situation as it currently exists is de facto amnesty. These people are here in numbers too large, diffuse and concealed to round up and deport, which even critics concede is impractical. They will stay here. They will work. And we won't have any idea how many of them are simply here to earn a living and how many are here planning an attack. It is a hard problem, and I understand that. But the choice is between doing something, imperfect but effective and achievable, and doing nothing. I would hope that any candidate for President would not suggest doing nothing. And I would hope they wouldn't play politics for their own interests if the cost of their ambition was to make this problem even harder to solve. To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership. Americans are problem solvers, and they want their leaders to be problem solvers, and to show the same common sense, civic-mindedness, sense of justice and humanity that they do. We have a chance now to secure our borders and place effective controls on immigration that benefit all of us, and enhance our ability to apprehend terrorists before they strike us. It is a common sense, conservative approach to the problem. Is any office worth sacrificing the progress we can make now to solve this crisis? I want to be President to do the hard but necessary things: to protect our country and defeat its enemies; to solve our country's biggest problems on our watch and not leave them to a more responsible, braver, and wiser generation of leaders. I make one pledge to you that I will keep no matter what. I will never conduct my campaign in such a way that it makes our country's most difficult challenges harder to solve. I hope you will hold all candidates to that same standard. Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the pr oblem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty.
"I know that except for a very few people on the fringes of our society, we all value legal immigration. And though the waves of people who have come here over the centuries have posed some challenges to our society, immigration has always proved in the end to be a great and valued part of the American story. Irish, Italians, Poles, Cubans, Japanese, Mexicans and people from every country in every corner of the world have come here, assimilated, and given America renewed vigor and opportunities. Most arrived destitute, worked at any job that would put a little food on the table, and then they rose, or their children rose to succeed in every profession. And they made this country great. No other country in the world has so successfully absorbed immigrants and made them an asset and not a problem. Even in many developed democracies today, immigrants are left in a segregated, unassimilated underclass and pose serious and threatening challenges to the prosperity and stab ility of those countries. Here, people arrive from everywhere, and are given the opportunity to become citizens of the greatest nation on earth, a nation that is based not on tribal identity or ethnicity but on an idea, the boldest, bravest, truest political idea ever conceived by man: that all people are free, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. As long as you embrace and defend that ideal, you are an American.


"How proud that makes me of my country. How proud that must make you. Florida is a living testament to the benefits of immigration, a great and prosperous state built in large part by immigrants who came here to escape tyranny and despair, live the American Dream, contribute to our greatness and defend our ideals. I am honored today by the presence of Miami's police chief, John Timoney, who arrived in this country from Ireland at the age of thirteen, and whose contributions to our country have earned our respect and gratitude. Florida has been well led by its most recent governors, my friends, Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush, both of whom have fought for immigration reform that protects our security, laws, economy, and values. I want to particularly salute former Governor Bush, for the recent column he wrote with the former chairman of my party, Ken Melhman, which made an eloquent and persuasive case for our proposal.
"As a country deeply rooted in a tradition of religious faith, we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the trackless deserts of Arizona, people who broke our laws, not to harm us but to possess for themselves the ideals and opportunities cherished here, are dying, led into the wilderness by unscrupulous smugglers of human cargo, and left to perish in an agonizing death. Allow me to quote from a newspaper article that put faces on a few of these forgotten people who died in the desert of my state in one year.


"'Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She had thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.
"'Kelia Velazquez-Gonzales, 16, carried a Bible in her backpack. She was No. 109
"'John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his neck. His eyes were wide open.'
"We can't let immigrants break our laws with impunity. We can't leave our borders so undefended that people who come here to hurt us can enter it as easily as someone following a dream of living in a great country. But these people are also God's children, who wanted simply to be Americans, and we cannot forget the humanity God commands of us as we seek a remedy to this problem. Over 200 illegal immigrants died in Arizona last year. We have a chance this year to prevent such terrible tragedies from occurring in the numbers they have occurred in the past. Let's do it. For the sake of security, justice, prosperity and humanity, let us do it.
"The United States of America, the greatest experiment in human history - powerful, prosperous, industrious, inventive, striving, madly in love with liberty, hopeful, generous and good - has been the ideal of my life. I have always loved her, but it wasn't until I lost America for a time that I realized how much I love her.


"I loved what I missed most from my life at home: my family and friends; the sights and sounds of my country; sports; music, information; the endless variety of American life; our hustle and purposefulness: our fervid independence; our hopefulness; and our confidence that we could make of our industry and talents a better life than we had begun, a better country than we had inherited.


"I missed all of it, very much, but I still carried her ideals in the habits of my heart. And because they were all I possessed of my country, I cherished them all the more. I cherished the honor of being a citizen of a country that was the last, best hope of mankind, the great refuge of those who sought escape from despair and tyranny on crowded, miserable steamers into New York harbor, on small rafts across the Florida Straits, and on foot across the punishing deserts of the southwest. I know why people want to come here. I once thought I would rather die than be denied my country for one more day.


"I want us to seize this opportunity to secure our borders, and change our immigration laws to meet the demands of our security, economy and values. I don't want to use the issue to make it easier for me to be President. I'm not running to do the easy things. So, I defend with no reservation our proposal to offer the people who harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, care for our children and clean our homes a chance to be legal citizens of this country. They will have to earn it. They must come out from the shadows, pay their penalties, fees and taxes, stay employed, obey our laws, learn our language and history, and go to the back of the line and wait years for the privilege of being an American.


"Riayan Tejeda immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the United States Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights, New York by way of the Dominican Republic, the father of two young daughters, died in an ambush in Baghdad on April 11, 2003. He had never fulfilled his first dream to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved his country so much he gave his life to defend her. Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers who are not yet American citizens, or whose parents are not, but who have dreamed the dream, and have risked everything for it. They make me proud to share this country with them. They are my countrymen, and I am theirs.
"They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder of opportunity, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. We will be the better for it. Our America -blessed, bountiful, and beautiful - is the land of hope and opportunity, the land of the immigrant's dream. Long may she remain so."

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Yo Ho Yo Ho a Pirates Life For Me


It's time to clean house on Capital Hill.


Any Senator who has been in Washington for more than 18 years needs to retire, or replaced at the polls.


Any Congressman who has been in Washington more than 9 terms needs to retire, or replaced at the polls.


"It's Time to Send a Fiscally Conservative Grandmother to Washington, to clean up the House"


Captain Mark Towner

Saturday, June 02, 2007

This Weeks Headlines

Obama Feels the Love from New Hampshire's Famous Skeptics by David ShribmanHillary vs. The 'On Your Own' Society by Rich LowryHonor, Duty, Country? by William F. BuckleyAs Europe Self-Destructs by Caroline GlickThe Gay Lobby Takes on eHarmony by Ross KaminskyThe End of Reaganism by Richard ReevesTime to Split the Blanket by Patrick BuchananRudy's Jersey Coup by Robert NovakMichael Bloomberg vs. the 12th Amendment by Jay CostGet in Line, Einstein by Charles KrauthammerDebating In Parallel Universes by E. J. DionneFreedom's Forgotten Front by Oliver NorthRising to a New Generation of Global Challenges by Mitt RomneyRenewing American Leadership by Barack ObamaObama Enters National Health Care Bidding War by Rick MoranSpecial Report Roundtable - May 31 by FOX News Special Report With Brit HumeLaura Ingraham on Thompson, Democrats by Hannity & ColmesThe Global Immigration Problem by Victor Davis HansonWhy Fred Thompson? by Robert NovakThe Case for Conservatism by George WillBush Nears Debacle in Iraq, but Dems Can't Be Trusted Either by Mort KondrackeHillary Needs Classier Friends by Froma HarropHow About Amnesty for the Market? by Daniel HenningerCarter and Bush: Not So Different After All by Steve ChapmanIt Takes a Socialist Village by Cal ThomasBush Breaks Neocon Taboo With Iran by Joe ConasonFill 'Er Up by William F. BuckleyThe 'Law and Order' Candidate by Debra SaundersDemagoguery Beats Data on Gas Prices by Thomas SowellThe Justice Teaches Civics by Suzanne Fields'Hypocrisy' at the Top by Maggie GallagherPosada and Che Lived Parallel Lives by Carlos Alberto MontanerDusting Off Baker-Hamilton? by David IgnatiusWhat Do They Think of America? Don't Ask by Richard ReevesAbout Those "Skyrocketing" Gas Prices by Larry ElderSpecial Report Roundtable - May 30 by FOX News Special Report With Brit HumeFrank Luntz on Clinton's "Shared Prosperity" by Hannity & ColmesThe Hard Truth About Leaving Iraq by Ed KochWho Wants to Party with David Brooks? by Robert RobbThe Double 'Thank-You' Moment by John Stossel

Friday, June 01, 2007

Attention Utah GOP State Delegates


If you are a Utah GOP State Delegate and would like tickets to a private screening of Pirates 3 at Jordan Commons on June 8th, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is throwing a Pirates party starting at 3:30 with food, costume contest, prizes, and the movie will start exactly at 5:30.


If you need tickets, send an email to marktowner@comcast.net and let us know how many seats you need.


Mark Towner

Today's Campaign Headlines

Campaign: Edwards Misspoke on Reading Iraq NIE - New York Times
With Immigration, McCain Tries to Regain Maverick Aura - Bloomberg
Critics Press Romney for Immigration Specifics - Boston Globe
RNC Fires Solicitors as Donations Drop - Washington Times
Union Split on Immigration Could Doom Bill - Los Angeles Times
Giuliani Would Use Successful NYC CompStat as President - New York Sun
Within Giuliani's Slim Lead, Time Bombs May Be Ticking - The State
McCain Fires South Carolina Organizer - The State
Boehner Leads Effort to Polish GOP "Brand" - Washington Post
Congressional GOP Expands African-American Ranks - The Politico
Two More Democrats Decline Fox Presidential Debate - New York Times
Clinton Touts Measure to Help Silicon Valley - New York Sun
Edwards Wants to Probe High Gas Prices - Associated Press
Edwards Wants to Force Oil Companies to Install Ethanol Pumps - Reuters
Obama: Restore Environmental Regulations - Associated Press
Obama Planting Grassroots in Nevada - Las Vegas Sun
Obama Says He'll Compete in Rural Nevada - Reno Gazette-Journal
Richardson: New Hampshire Warming to Me - Seacoast Online
The Florida Democratic Endorsement Elite - Washington Post

Sunday, May 27, 2007

National Polls on 2008 Presidential Election


Latest National Polls consoidated with full tracking and charting.

Save this link:


You can run nearly any senerio and get results. This is a fantastic resource


Captain Mark Towner

Updated 9 Point Plan on How to Win Over Iraq and the War on Terror


Originally Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006

How to Win Over Iraq and the War on Terror

By Mark E. Towner, Salt Lake City UtahTo show the people of Iraq that the United States wants their country to be free from terrorists and allow them to pursue peace, happiness, and prosperity the United States should propose to the people of Iraq the following.
(1) The United States will agree to deploy US forces to Iraq totaling (500,000) from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2010.
(2) The President will then ask all healthy former servicemen and women up to age 65 including all former Vietnam veterans, reserve, and current military to re-up for a six month to a one year rotation in Iraq.
(3) The President would call upon young Americans to volunteer a 1-2 year service mission to assist the rebuilding of the infrastructure of Iraq.
(4) The United States Military will totally seal off the boarders of Iraq, not allowing any entry into Iraq. All supplies into Iraq will be brought in by US convoy.
(5) The reserve and older ex military personal would secure the Iraq boarders using the latest technology available and guard and protect the oil fields and pipelines. This experience will also help us to perfect how to secure our own boarders here in the United States.
(6) I would expect over 1 million signups of former military alone. I would expect 1-2 million US volunteer’s to assist in rebuilding Iraq if they can be assured of security in the nation.
(7) The active Military would completely seal Baghdad and other hot zones in Iraq. They would also surround small remote towns and order its evacuation, giving the residents 48 hours to leave. Then the military would do a clean sweep of any terrorists. Once the town was secure, the US volunteer’s would move into the town and rebuild the homes, infrastructure, electricity, phone service, internet etc. and just like on the TV show, these efforts would be documented and reported 24 hours a day worldwide.
(8) When completed, the residents would be allowed to return to their homes where they would have clean water, sewer, electricity, etc. After this procedure has been repeated over and over, the minds and hearts of the people will be changed. The people will turn against the terrorists and they themselves will police their own neighborhoods and once again take pride in their community and country.
(9) In December 2010, all the troops including all the Old Vietnam Veterans, the Volunteer’s, everyone can come home to the arms of a grateful nation, and the people of the world will again respect and thank America.
Mark E. Towner
The Political Spyglass
801.502.9134

Where is the Spine in Congress?


Originally Posted Friday, December 15, 2006

Those Who Do Not Learn From The Mistakes of History...?

The Left has been trying for some time now to morph the War on Terror into another Vietnam.
Vietnam, My Lai, pullout, deadline, cutoff -- all the old remembrances are returning, as the graying antiwar generation of the 1960s will not go quietly into the night.
Abu Ghraib and Haditha are the new Tiger Cages and napalm; George Bush is the Johnson or Nixon of our age; and 'no blood for oil' is similar to the old mythical conspiracies of why we were in Vietnam."And the report gives the Left just what it wants -- surrender; albeit with high-minded words and a pretty package.
And what will happen if we follow the report's recommendations and leave before the job is done... before the Iraqis are able to handle this situation themselves... before we have reasonable assurances that Americans will be safe from future terrorist attacks?Hanson has a few words on that as well:
Once we leave, the killing starts in earnest, not 20 or 30 per day, but wholesale slaughter of any Iraqis who taught school, or were clean shaven and wore Western dress, or fought to save Iraq. Millions of refugees flee to the West. Those who stay are killed or 'reeducated.' Islamism, like Communism, is empowered with the American defeat... Americans abroad will be ripe targets, since, like the Iranian hostage taking of 1979, there will be an unspoken assurance that the United States would not dare risk another Iraq/Vietnam.

Remember what happened when we let politicians run the war in Vietnam from thousands of miles away and pulled out before the South Vietnamese were ready to defend themselves?Mass murderer Ho Chi Minh executed and imprisoned numberless Vietnamese. Millions died. Hundreds of thousands fled the country, including the desperate boat people, many of whom drowned or died of exposure.

With American troops gone, the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot, a communist terrorist, took control of Cambodia; and during his reign of terror, 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, torture or execution -- approximately 30% of the Cambodian population.It can happen again! If we accept the recommendations of this report and cut and run, radical Islam will win and it WILL happen again!But it could be much worse this time!

Osama bin Laden, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's leader Bashar Assad, the suicide bombers who kill in the name of Allah -- will see our withdrawal as the final defeat of America ("the Great Satan").

America will be humiliated by a bunch of third-world thugs -- drunk on ideology -- who will win because they believed while Americans doubted.

And we will see brutality that will shock the world as America's enemies realize they can strike at us at home and abroad with impunity because our political leaders lack the will to do what must be done!

That's why patriotic Americans MUST take action NOW!

Senators Hatch and Bennett, PLEASE DO SOMETHING!


Originally Posted by on January 16, 2004

Again on Tuesday, January 31, 2006

A Foreign Legion to Protect Our Borders?
Identification — I have been pondering recently about the Immigration proposal presented by President Bush, and how this does little to protect our southern boarders. Additionally we need the creation of a National ID / Work Card / Drivers License for all non US citizens. This would eliminate the practice of illegal aliens getting Driver’s Licenses in Utah, then moving to another state and getting a drivers License there using the Utah License as ID. Any non US citizen when pulled over for a traffic citation would present their ID card and this would alert the police that this person is not a US citizen, and they should do a little more checking before just writing a citation and letting them go.

As for driving, when they can demonstrate in the state of their jurisdiction the ability to pass both a written and practical test, their ID cards would be embossed with driving privileges from that state. This must be accomplished in 90 days upon arrival to the US. This would allow tourists visiting the US to be able to rent cars while here in the US without this restriction. (Since my original post in 2004, some of these ideas have been implemented)

Border Security — I would propose the creation of a "USA Foreign Legion" run and administered by the US Marine Corps. This force would recruit foreign nationals to enlist for 4 years. After successfully completing the normal Marine Corps Training program (failure of this training program would return them to the country of origin) they would be trained for a new Horse Calvary unit that would be stationed all along the southern border.

Although fully armed for any situation, these forces would be specially trained to intercept, and control border incursions using high tech non lethal measures. Those illegal aliens intercepted would be photographed and fingerprinted, then after processing they would be immediately flown by Chinook helicopter back over the border to a deportation base in Mexico.

Utilizing the old US Army training manuals for the upkeep of the animals, feeding, grooming, etc will keep these troops fairly busy.

After successfully serving a 4 year stint in the legion, they would be given fast track status for US citizenship.

They could choose to re-enlist into the regular Army, or continue with this force.

This force also could be deployed anywhere in the world for peacekeeping proposes, reserving our shock fighting forces for quick deployment.

Coordinated ops with military helicopter units along the boarder directing the cavalry forces to the locations of incursion, these forces by utilizing infrared and other Military technology would finally secure our southern boarder.

The benefits to the US would be a bilingual force that is familiar with the region, creates an avenue to US citizenship, and they are trained soldiers who are proud to be part of the US military. Upon honorary discharge they could enter the US civilian status with the education and tools to be successful in life.

How to Secure Air Travel — To travel by air in the United States, you should have a passport.

The new generation passports should have RF ID chips and holographic pictures that can be read automatically when you go through security.

Arm the pilots, X-ray all cargo and baggage and create special transponder beacon codes that airline flights are assigned that they must squawk at a designated time during the trip.

Originally Posted by on January 16, 2004 03:37 AM

McCain-Kennedy bill comes up short

McCain-Kennedy bill comes up short
By Deroy MurdockScripps Howard News Service

NEW YORK — To judge how important assimilation is to Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., peruse their immigration bill, now before the Senate. "Assimilation" appears only once in this legislation, and not until the 343rd of 347 pages. "Americanization" never emerges.

Too bad the most sweeping immigration measure since 1986 shortchanges assimilation. Whether America ultimately absorbs 12,000 or all 12 million illegal aliens estimated to live here, it will be better for them and this nation if they speak, study and vote in English, understand America's Constitution and political culture, respect our history and civic traditions, and honor our flag and national heroes. Otherwise, bedlam awaits.

McCain-Kennedy does little to forestall such cultural disarray, and it probably exacerbates it. Unfortunately, as Hudson Institute senior fellow John Fonte told the House Immigration subcommittee May 16, "There are no serious assimilation components to the legislation." Dual citizenship, naturalized Americans voting here and overseas, non-English classrooms and multilingual ballots all thrive, despite McCain-Kennedy's "comprehensive" scope.

"Under this bill, every immigrant and every American citizen is his own little bubble of linguistic entitlement," says Jim Boulet Jr., executive director of English First. This is so, thanks to President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13166. As Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told the Senate Tuesday, this is "an entitlement for a translator in any language you want other than English ... if you are a recipient of federal funds."

Under EO 13166, for instance, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development on Jan. 22 mandated language outreach by subsidized-housing providers. HUD, for instance, recognized one housing sponsor for hiring "translators fluent in Hindi, Urdu, Dari, Vietnamese and Chinese to translate written materials and advertising for the local press in those languages."

HUD's regulations state: "No matter how few LEP (limited-English-proficient) persons the recipient is serving, oral interpretation services should be made available in some form." McCain-Kennedy would codify EO 13166, so only Congress could repeal it.

Until then, President Bush unilaterally could cancel Clinton's executive order. This, too, he has failed to do.

Illegals also could gain amnesty without English proficiency. Up to four years after receiving brand-new, permanently renewable Z (amnesty) visas, they merely must "demonstrate an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language." This is like saying that thinking about maybe asking someone out means you are dating. Z-visa holders can "demonstrate an attempt" through "placement on a waiting list for English classes." For McCain-Kennedy, waiting equals speaking.

Also under this legislation, the Homeland Security secretary would disseminate amnesty information to illegals "in no fewer than the top five principal languages ... spoken by aliens who would qualify for classification under this section, including to television, radio and print media. ..." McCain-Kennedy's English and assimilation shortcomings should aggravate cultural conservatives and annoy almost everyone else.

Fiscal conservatives should faint at Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector's estimate that this bill creates "a net cost to taxpayers of $2.3 trillion in retirement-related benefits" for amnestied illegal aliens. One fresh entitlement: Free immigration attorneys for illegal-alien farmworkers. Cops and counterterrorists should worry that McCain-Kennedy requires that eligible illegal aliens receive probationary Z visas by the "end of the next business day." Within that deadline, law-enforcement and national-security officials simply cannot isolate innocent aliens from those who aspire to rob, rape or plant bombs. Alas, there is no single, searchable, international-scoundrels database. "A one-business-day time limit is madness, particularly if 48,000 aliens applied in a single day," warns Kris Kobach, counsel under former Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Would 48,000 daily applications be unusual? Try dividing 12 million illegal aliens by 250 business days, if they all applied the first year."

Americans who want secure borders wonder why the 700-mile southern-frontier-fence Congress authorized last year stretches only 370 miles under McCain-Kennedy. And liberals fret that this bill's guest-worker program would depress the wages of low-skilled American citizens. This is a serious, albeit debatable, accusation.

By pushing this bill, McCain is alienating GOP primary voters. Come 2008, he may become one lonely maverick. Meanwhile, by embracing this legislation, Bush is smashing his loyal Republican base to smithereens. McCain-Kennedy is as wildly popular as algebra homework on prom night. Congress should dropkick it into the Rio Grande.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Va. E-mail him at deroy.murdock@gmail.com.

Mitt Romney's skeletons in the closet


Mitt Romney's skeletons in the closet
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist May 27, 2007
BLAME IT on his cheatin' heart. It's divorce: Mitt Romney v. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The former Massachusetts governor paints a picture of irreconcilable differences, but that's not the whole story.

Some guys break up via e-mail. Romney chose a television ad as the way to cut ties with the state he two-timed with a hotter date -- a White House run.

The ad's narrator darkly observes: "In the most liberal state in the country, one Republican stood up and cut spending, instead of raising taxes. He enforced immigration laws, stood up for traditional marriage and the sanctity of life." The candidate says: "This isn't the time for us to shrink from conservative principles."

No matter what the ad states, Romney has a problem. There was a time when he did shrink from conservative principles -- it was when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. Once he started two-timing Massachusetts and running for president, he talked the conservative talk. But, back home, he didn't always walk the conservative walk.

For example, he went from protector of Roe v. Wade as a gubernatorial candidate to abortion opponent on the presidential campaign trail .

And, instead of raising taxes, Romney raised $700 million by increasing fees and closing corporate loopholes -- a practice corporations consider a tax increase.

When it comes to another claim in the ad -- enforcing immigration laws -- the Globe last year reported that the Massachusetts State Police relied on a company to clean its barracks and headquarters that employed scores of undocumented immigrants. During the Romney years, additional state contracts were going out to other companies employing illegal immigrants. Besides, Romney never questioned the citizenship of landscapers who tended his own front lawn. Instead, he yelled out a friendly "buenos dias" to crews that included illegal immigrants.
In the campaign ad, Romney flashes photos of Senator John F. Kerry and former governor Michael S. Dukakis, superimposed over a headline that mentions "Ted Kennedy"-- all reminders of the liberals who conservatives love to hate. Yet a year ago, Romney posed with Kennedy and a panoply of Democratic politicians in historic Faneuil Hall to celebrate a new law that not only guarantees healthcare for the uninsured -- it mandates it; imposes penalties on individuals who refuse to comply; and requires the state and business to pay for a portion of the coverage. That's conservative?

The good news for Romney?
The test for his presidential quest isn't going to be whether he is conservative enough.

The bad news?
The test is whether he is trustworthy enough. How much trust can Republican primary voters reasonably invest in a politician who changed so many positions? How good is Romney's word today?

During the GOP primary season, liberals like Kennedy are naturally cast as demons. If Romney becomes his party's nominee, how long before that picture of Romney and Kennedy in Faneuil Hall becomes a centerpiece of his campaign? What if he goes back to being the fiscally conservative social moderate many Massachusetts voters believed they were electing?
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and Romney all face challenges when it comes to pleasing their party's conservative base. Some quality beyond sheer ideology is going to tip the balance in one candidate's favor.

Romney has money, organization, a strong resume, and presidential looks. But he also has Massachusetts. He can run against its liberal politics, but he can't run against its memory. Voters here remember what he said to win and what he did once elected.

The Romney team probably believes there is nothing to lose by running against the Bay State; the former governor can't win the state in a general election. If their conclusion is accurate, it isn't strictly because Romney is Republican. Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts when he ran for president. The threat Massachusetts poses to Romney is not the loss of its 12 electoral college votes on ideological grounds. It's the Bay State's ability to challenge Romney where it really hurts, on matters of truthfulness and character. To this day, it's hard to tell what he really believes on abortion or immigration or healthcare.

Massachusetts was Romney's springboard. It could also be his trip wire. Friendly divorces are rare indeed.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

McCain: Current Iraq Plan Is Best Option


McCain: Current Iraq Plan Is Best Option
By MIKE BAKER

The Associated PressSaturday, May 26, 2007; 8:30 PM
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain, comparing the U.S. effort in Iraq to military campaigns like the Normandy invasion, said Saturday the current plan is the only decent option.


The Arizona senator has criticized Democrats for failing to consider "Plan B" _ or the consequences of withdrawing troops.

McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press that he is only focused on figuring out how to make the current military plan work. A new course, he said, won't be considered until the end of the year.


"I believe that General (Dwight) Eisenhower didn't have a Plan B at Normandy, and I don't think that General (Ulysses S.) Grant had a plan B when he decided to take Richmond," said McCain, referring to turning-point battles in World War II and the Civil War. "I know of a number of other options _ the problem is, none of them are any good."

Headlines From Rick Koeber's Free Capitalist

Rick Koeber's Free Capitalist Headlines








Holiday Travelers Ignoring Fuel Costs
From USA Today
Soaring gas prices did not appear to be deterring Americans from hitting the road and airports this Memorial Day weekend for what many expect will be record holiday travel. One in eight Americans will travel more than 50 miles from home this weekend, the Travel Industry Association and AAA said. Principle 7

Slow Down and Absorb
From OpinionJournal
Open borders? Mass deportations? How about some common sense instead? Principle 4

Senate Pushes Utilities on 'Green' Sources
From Wall Street Journal
A bill about to be introduced in the Senate would push utilities to generate drastically more of their power -- 15%, compared with the current 2% -- from sources such as wind or the sun by 2020. While three similar measures have died after passing the Senate, this one has powerful bipartisan support. Principle 11

Abortion bill Becomes Law in Oklahoma
From Reuters
A bill prohibiting public funds from being used for most abortions has become law in Oklahoma after a deadline passed for the state's governor to veto the measure. Principle 5

EU Probes Google Grip on Data
From Financial Times
European data protection officials have raised concerns that Google could be contravening European privacy laws by keeping data on internet searches for too long. Principle 3

Congress Approves Minimum-Wage Increase
From ABC News
America's lowest-paid workers won a $2.10 raise Thursday, with Congress approving the first increase in the federal minimum wage in almost a decade. Principle 6

Clinton, Obama Vote 'No' on Iraq Bill
From Yahoo! News
Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal. Principle 3

Sane Mental Health Laws?
From The Weekly Standard
Don't hold your breath. Federal "advocates" are standing in the way of reform. Principle 4

E-mail Reply to All: ‘Leave Me Alone!’
From MSNBC
Last month, venture capitalist Fred Wilson drew a lot of attention on the Internet when he declared a 21st century kind of bankruptcy. In a posting on his blog about technology, Wilson announced he was giving up on responding to all the e-mail piled up in his inbox. Principle 4

U.S. Spends Average of $8,701 Per Pupil
From CNN
The United States spent an average of $8,701 per pupil to educate its children in 2005, the Census Bureau said Thursday, with some states paying more than twice as much per student as others. Principle 10

Friday, May 25, 2007

It’s A Bong! John McCain’s Man Helps Out Barack Obama


It’s A Bong! John McCain’s Man Helps Out Barack Obama

May 25th

THE US Presidential race is getting intesting.

Barack Obama says:

"This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not.

"And if there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago.

"Governor Romney and Senator McCain are still supporting a war that has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world, and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaeda. It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm."

Says war hero John McCain:

"While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security."

And:

"By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

Ooooo...Get her.

And now a McCain aide floats in:

"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

RPG? Rocket Propelled Grenade? Or a new kind of weed?

Mitt Romney Owns It by Chris Kelly



Mitt Romney Owns It by Chris Kelly

"Mitt made the final decision last Christmas after discussing it with Ann, their five sons, and their five wives." - Newsmax 5/23/07. Ronald Kessler says more about the Romney family than he probably should.

Mitt Romney is raising more money than all the other Republican candidates. He's also leading in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

When the dust settles, and the candidates with anger management issues and/or cancer fall away, Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and I think I know why: Because Mitt Romney is the first candidate to take pandering so far beyond cynicism that it's not even cynicism anymore. It's Romantic Irony.

Romantic irony -- the most wistful irony of all -- occurs when a character draws attention to the fact that he's just a character, or a narrator interrupts a story to remind the audience that it's just a story. And Mitt Romney -- alone among presidential hopefuls -- understands that he's a character in a work of art and that his character's job is to say anything, to anyone, at any time, to get elected.

There aren't any contradictions, because life is all made up anyway. He only appears to be a compulsive liar. Actually, he's capturing what Friedrich Schlegel called the "clear consciousness of eternal agility, of an infinitely teeming chaos."

Yes, he seems like the oily trimmer in the mind of God. (Romney, not Schlegel.) But that's the whole point. He knows the mind of God is the only place where we exist. (Or, as Paul McCartney would put it, though we feel as if we're in a play, we are anyway.) Mitt Romney understands that in fiction, there's no such thing as "true" and "false." A character's only truth is internal consistency.

If you think it's inconsistent for him to change sides all the time, you're missing the point. When he had to be pro-choice to get elected, he was pro-choice. When he had to be pro-life, he was pro-life. When he had to support civil rights for gays and lesbians, he did. Now that he doesn't, he doesn't. Guns? Campaign finance reform? Immigration? Tax cuts? Abortion? He's been as dependable as an atomic clock: He's changed his mind on everything.

Mitt Romney is totally consistent as a character. He's a perfect, tidal-in-its-relentlessness, rockin' round the clock, 24/7, nonstop sleaze.

When you employ romantic irony in television, it's called "owning it." This happens when a situation is so sit-commy, the characters themselves have to notice. This occurs mostly in your cool, post-modern-type sit coms. It's a way for the writers to make themselves feel better, and suck up to the audience while serving them the same old crap.

Here's a bad, tired sit-com, the kind Entertainment Weekly hates:

"Oh my God! Not only do I have jury duty the day of the big game, but the foreman is Urkel!"

Here's a great, deconstructed, meta-sitcom, the kind Entertainment Weekly loves:

"Oh my God! Not only do I have jury duty the day of the big game, but the foreman is Urkel! I feel like I'm in a sit-com!"

See how easy it is, once you know how?

Daytime dramas have been employing romantic irony for decades, but only in dialogue, in the form of incredulous sarcasm. The characters have achieved a certain level of self-awareness, but it hasn't made them happy. It just makes their predicaments all the more galling. Of course Windsor is having an affair with Wedge - that what makes it sting. Scenes are an escalating series rhetorical questions, built out of sarcastic clichés.

TIMBER
So, that's your "brilliant plan?" I'm supposed to "stand aside" while you and Wedge "waltz away" to your little "love nest" like some "match made in heaven?"

WINDSOR
"Grow up," Timber. Did you "honestly think" Wedge was your "knight in shining armor" when he "swept you away" and made you his "blushing bride?"

This rule, of course, does not apply to one true jewel of daytime, The Bold and the Beautiful. Which is perfect, except for Phoebe and Rick- why can't she see through him?

On primetime dramas - sophisticated primetime dramas -- the characters use romantic irony by saying "this is the part" to each other.

GARY
(A woman, by the way, all attractive women on sophisticated hours have men's names.)
Hey, Doyle, can I talk to you about this assignment?

DOYLE
(Her editor. Men on sophisticated hours go by their last names, even if they're in high school.)
I don't have time for this, Gary. This is the part where you say you don't want to work with McGillicuddy and this is the part where I say you have to. And this is the part where you say is that an order and this is the part where I say yes.

See how not sh__ty that is?

The quality of a television show is in direct inverse proportion to the number of times a character says: "This is the part..."

I want Mitt Romney to start answering questions: "This is the part where I tell you what you want to hear." It's a long time until next November. It could happen.

Giuliani, Obama win picnic poll


Giuliani, Obama win picnic poll

Associated Press - May 25, 2007 2:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - A new poll says Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama would be the most welcome among the presidential candidates at a Memorial Day picnic.

People were asked which candidate they'd most like to chat with at a picnic.

In the Quinnipiac poll, the former New York City mayor was picked by 37% of all those polled when pitted against three other Republicans.

Obama was chosen by 33% when grouped with three other Democrats.

John McCain was second among Republicans with 27%, while Hillary Rodham Clinton was second among Democrats at 24%.

Hillary camp embarrassed after 'ignore Iowa' memo is leaked


Hillary camp embarrassed after 'ignore Iowa' memo is leaked

Friday, May 25, 2007

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Hillary Clinton's super-organised, impeccably on-message campaign for the White House has suffered a first embarrassment with the leak of an internal memo that urges her to skip the key early caucuses in Iowa - on the ground she has better places to spend money than on a contest she may well lose.

Yesterday, Clinton aides were playing down the memo as the unsolicited musings of a minion, which had never been seen by the lady herself and her most senior advisers. They insisted she would make a major effort in Iowa, whose caucuses - set for 14 January next year - traditionally kick off the primary season.


"It's not the opinion of the campaign," Ms Clinton herself said in response to a question about the memo, and "It's not my opinion."


In fact, the document, entitled An Alternative Nomination Strategy, was written by her deputy campaign manager Mike Henry. At the very least, analysts say, it reflects divisions within the camp of the 2008 Democratic front-runner, as well as the new problems thrown up by the tightly bunched primary calendar.


Iowa's role in the nominating process has usually been pivotal - 13 out of the 14 most recent major party nominees won either there or in New Hampshire, the first primary state (the exception being Bill Clinton in 1992). But its traditionally liberal, anti-war Democratic electorate is not friendly territory for Ms Clinton, who still refuses to disown her 2002 vote authorising the Iraq invasion.


John Edwards, the 2004 vice-presidential nominee who has turned resolutely anti-war, leads in most Iowa polls. He is followed by Barack Obama, who opposed the war from before its outset.


But the question is, is Iowa, or for that matter New Hampshire, really that important any longer? "I think the old system [giving such importance to these two states] is about to collapse, and it will happen this year," Mr Henry wrote, pointing to the compression of the calendar and the emergence of what is in effect a "national primary" on 5 February.


On that date, California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois are among 20 states holding primaries. Florida, the fourth largest state in terms of delegates to the nominating convention in Denver, has gone further still, pushing its primary to 29 January. The bunching has forced every candidate to rethink their strategy. The development "forces us to reassess... where our time and money are best spent," the memo reads.


The front-loading means both party nominations could be, in effect, settled in February, leaving a six-month gap before the conventions.


Fiercely proud of their "first in the nation" status, Iowa and New Hampshire have said they will move their votes forward as far as necessary, to preserve their importance.

Tax cut for light bulbs? Great Idea!


Tax cut for light bulbs?

Two conservative Utah House members want to give every Utah family $30 in a tax cut to purchase long-lasting light bulbs.

Reps. Carl Wimmer, R-Heriman, and Greg Hughes, R-Draper, say the $21 million cost of their energy-saving program will cut more than $200 million in electrical costs, which in turn will mean more money for state tax coffers.

This is "an innovative way to cut taxes and energy usage and improve air quality," the pair said in a press release Friday.

They've nick-named their program "A Bright Idea for Utah." The pair will introduce the $30 tax cut in the 2008 Legislature, which convenes in January.

You couldn't spend the $30 on just anything. The $30 would be a voucher, and you could only use the voucher to buy energy-saving fluorescent gas bulbs, which use less electricity and last longer than the old light bulbs which burn a small fiber to make light.

The new bulbs, the men say, use 75 percent less energy and one of them can last the life of 10 old bulbs.

While the new program may seem costly to some — $21 million — the state is actually running tax surpluses of hundreds of millions of dollars this year. And lawmakers gave a $200 million tax cut in the 2007 Legislature.

In short, the state can afford this new, one-time energy-saving program, the two legislators said. The average family would save $285 a year — $255 in energy savings and $30 in the tax cut. The electrical savings equals 65 million gallons of gasoline, the pair claim, or getting 433,000 cars off of Utah roads for a year in reduced green-house gasses.

Other western states may join in this effort, they said. And if all 50 state legislatures did the same thing, it would save $40 billion in energy, equal to taking every car, bus and truck off of America's roads for 26 days, the legislators said.