• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

October 18, 2010

Sean Bielat

Sean Bielat is running against Barney Franks in Massachusetts.

We're preaching to the choir, and a small one at this time. But please consider what Barney Franks has done to the U.S. - he's had a very destructive impact and is not worthy to hold this position of responsibility.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 15, 2010

Primary Snark

Random thoughts about the primaries and the candidates this fall.

I'm glad to hear about O'Donnell's win in the Delaware primary and not surprised by the reaction of the Republican establishment.

Look, as far as we're concerned the "establishment" needs to be kicked to the curb and hard. So far the official message we've been getting from the RNC is "we're the only other game in town, vote for us."

They don't want real change, they want a spot back at the trough. And please, don't disturb while we eating.

example: Karl Rove's reaction.

If the establishment can't get the message, then they are fired . None of us in the public sector have job security, why should you?

John Dennis out in San Francisco and the flying monkees. This is the kind of guerilla theatre he needs and he does appear to have a solid grasp on the issues.

As far as Pelosi, if I was a taxpayer, I would be asking some serious questions about this woman's "castle of doom" and her misuse of public funds for her own aggrandizement. All those flights back and forth for example.

Meanwhile back home in Connecticut, Chris Murphy's tv ad was interesting. He refused to mention he was a Democrat and that he was willing to work with Republicans. In fact, the volume on the dialogue was muted until the word "Republican" was spoken - that was twice as loud. Mr. Murphy seems a bit confused as to his party affiliation.

On a completely subjective and snarky note, Richard Blumenthal's tv pitch where he stands by Long Island Sound with one of the most forced grins ever and promises to raise our energy bills - did he get a skin graft from Chris Dodd?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 20, 2010


Being partisan and celebrating Scott Brown's victory yesterday in Massachusetts is fun.

However, the Republican party should not learn the wrong lessons from this win or from the celebratory punditry.

The electorate in Massachusetts is still 3-1 in favor of the Democratic party. There were enough Independents and disaffected Democrats who chose to vote for Brown this time around because they are dissatisfied with the current direction of the Obama regime. (I can say regime, can't I?)

The Republican party did not suddenly benefit from a massive influx of newly registered Republicans. A lot of the narratives behind the discussions on the internet are also of no benefit to understand what really happened.

The focus group run by Frank Luntz strips away the ideology of both left and right and expresses the concerns of the center. Watch and learn.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 22, 2008

Grassroots Palin Smear: The Work of Professionals?

Answer: From The Jawa Report:

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

-Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

-The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

-Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

-Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

-The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

-This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

-David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

-The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe. Our findings follow.

Read the whole thing. No smoking gun, but odd coincidences that deserve further investigation. However, as the MSM is in the tank for Obama, don't expect this to go much further than the blogosphere.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 18, 2008

Hitch on Identity Politics

I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens on everything, but when he's right, he's right...and even when I disagree, I always appreciate his wit and style.

Today I agree. The article is entitled The Perils of Identity Politics. Here's a snippet:

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Stupid things indeed. Be sure to read the entire article.

Would a black or female (or both!) Republican candidate for president get nearly as much adulation from the MSM and various special interest groups? Can you see, for example, Al Sharpton getting behind a Michael Steele candidacy...or Gloria Steinem in ecstasy over Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (a Republican) running for the Oval Office?

Methinks not.

As I mention in my FamilySecurityMatters.org piece today (see the post below this one), it's important to look at policies, records, positions, and yes, character, first and foremost. The other stuff is fluff.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed it was the "content of our character" that counted most. But somehow, his message seems to have gotten lost. How very sad.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:49 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 28, 2007

Judicial Watch: Ten Most Corrupt Politicians

The list is out from this non-profit, bipartisan organization. A few highlights:

*6 out of the 10 are Democrats.
*4 are presidential candidates.
*2 are prominent leaders of their party.
*1 is a presidential candidate AND a prominent party member.

Click here for the details.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 12, 2007

Question of the Day

A loving couple, or a couple of conspirators?


This photo accompanies an article about Bill's concern over Hillary's derailing campaign, and the different ideas he's considering in order to revitalize it.

Alarmed by his wife's slide in the polls and disarray within her backbiting campaign, a beside-himself Bill Clinton has leaped atop the barricades and is furiously plotting a cure - or coup.

Obama has Oprah. Who does Hillary have besides Bill, someone who perhaps more than his "long-suffering" spouse wants desperately to get back behind the wheel.

Maybe the ladies of "The View" would oblige?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:36 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 09, 2007

Pelosi OK With Waterboarding in 2002

Just a few short years ago, Nancy Pelosi (among others) was briefed by the CIA on waterboarding, then a new technique designed to wrangle information out of terror suspects in custody.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

As Glenn Reynolds says,

Lots of people who were talking tough back then subsequently changed their tunes -- out of either a sudden flowering of scruples or an unprincipled desire to go after the Bush Administration with any weapon that came to hand. But, you know, if you're going to say "it was different back then," it really has to be more than just an all-purpose excuse for politicians.

What a difference a majority (and a presidential election) makes...

Via Instapundit on a tip from husband-dude

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 07, 2007

Run, Al, Run...Er, Never Mind

I laughed OUT LOUD when I read the following:

Iowans who support former Vice President Al Gore have been forced to cancel a concert in his honor.

The $20 per ticket "Run, Al, Run" event, which I wrote about last month and was scheduled for Sunday in Des Moines, was called off because organizers feared they wouldn't sell enough tickets.

Peter Ryder of Cedar Rapids told me there are two reasons the rally and concert won't go on as planned, despite folk singer Paul Kaplan writing an original song in Gore's honor.

The idea was to "send a message to Al Gore there is a tremendous surge of feeling about you running, but after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he really got that message pretty loud and clear," Ryder said.

Given the importance of Iowa for the declared Democratic candidates, "we felt it would be difficult to sell the number of tickets to make the whole thing financially viable," Ryder added.

The rest of the Washington Times piece is here.

They didn't think they'd sell enough tickets, even though they only cost $20 each? That's not exactly breaking the bank. And a special song written for the occasion by folk singer Paul Kaplan...well, what crunchy granola type could resist such an opportunity?

You know, there's a reason why folk music isn't a big moneymaker. It looks like Paul can't even afford a haircut or moustache trim. And now his big shot at stardom won't even happen. Sigh...it's a cruel world.

Here's the song in question, if you can stomach it. You might want to have a trashcan or paper bag handy for the retching that might result. Don't say I didn't warn you! (The graphics of George W. Bush followed by the Twin Towers before 9/11 were especially effective...that is, if you like false innuendo and scaremongering.)

As for the Nobel Peace Prize being a "loud and clear" message for Gore to run, I'd like to remind this Peter Ryder (who couldn't manage to sell enough $20 tickets for this non-event) that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is a bunch of Norweigians in Norway. Despite the fervent wishes of many lefties, the rest of the world is not allowed to have a say in American elections.

Maybe if we get those illegal aliens their licenses, that dream can finally come true...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 05, 2007

Bill Clinton: Pick Me, Pick Me!

He's already picking out the curtains and the china pattern, so to speak. Bill Clinton envisions himself in some kind of diplomatic role if wifey gets elected president next year.

When asked what sort of job he would prefer, Clinton said: "I think that probably I would be of most use to her doing something to try to help restore America's standing in the world, and build more allies and get us to work together again."

Yes, let's go back to that cozy 9/10 feeling, shall we? When America was loved by everyone, thanks to the Clinton presidency. Of course, Osama bin Laden was making his plans during the Clinton administration, but Bill must mean "everyone but" bin Laden.


And it's a win-win for the missus. She gains the power she craves AND can send Bill packing without the mess of an actual divorce!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:55 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 20, 2007

Jack Murtha: Cornered by Jason Mattera

Wow, this is an absolute must-see video of Jason Mattera from Young America's Foundation corner Congressman Jack Murtha and ask him the one question "media professionals" can't be bothered to. No, it's not about his apparent eagerness to take a bribe, althought that question deserves to be asked as well.

The vid is on the main page of YAF's site. Click and enjoy.

BTW, Jack, using the old "did you serve?" card doesn't cut the mustard here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

August 02, 2007

Hillary's Thesis Now Available Online

Hillary Clinton's senior thesis, written at Wellesley Collge while she was still Hillary Rodham in 1969, has been kept under wraps since her early days as First Lady back in the 1990s. There have been lots of rumors about it, seeing as she wrote about "successful" radical organizer Saul Alinsky (and received an A).

Well, forget those rumors. You can read the whole thing online at GoPublius.com. Here's a link to the document (copy and past into your browser): http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.html
(hat tip: my husband). Looks authentic to me, right down to the uneven text and hand-inserted punctuation and slashes to provide missed spacing between words...obviously produced on a typewriter of the era. (NOTE: It has yet to be officially authenticated.)

You might say, "Who cares? This is a college thesis written nearly 40 years ago when she was just 22 years old!" Well, had Mrs. Clinton not made a big stink about wanting it kept in the dark, then likely no one would care much at all. I mean, I don't see anyone scrambling after my boring senior thesis on media bias. But who am I in the scheme of things? I'm not running for president.

And there you have it. Mrs. Clinton wants to be president. So it behooves us, the voters, to know more about her and how she views the world. Seeing as she wrote about Saul Alinsky, the man who redefined radical protest, this will prove to be most illuminating.

I'm reading it now, and would like to pass on a few of Mrs. Clinton's own words to whet your appetite:

One of the strongest strains in modern radicalism is the eighteenth century Enlightenment's faith in human reason and the possible perfectibility of man. This faith in the continuing improvement of man was and is dominated by values derived from the French and American Revolutions and profoundly influenced by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution shifted the emphasis of radicalism to an urban orientation. Alinsky holds to the basic radical tenets of equality and to the urban orientation, but he does not advocate immediage change. He is too much in the world-right-now to allow himelf the luxury of symbolic suicide. He realizes that radical goals have to be achieved by non-radical, even "anti-radical" means. For Alinsky, the non-radical means involve the traditional quest for power to change existing situations. To further understand Alinsky's radicalism one must examine his attitude toward the use of power.

Frankly, I don't think she's changed much, especially when it comes to harnessing power for radical ends. Read it, and see if you don't agree with me.

On a more humorous note, hubby notes in the e-mail in which he sent the thesis link:

Some irony, since Alinsky was so fond of theatrical agitation - such as loading up opera patrons with beans so they could gas out the wealthy during the performace - it should be noted that Hillary got publicly breasted by Code Pink activists in California. What comes around goes around.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

June 22, 2007

Hillary "Smoking Gun" Video Released

Peter Franklin Paul, who has launched a civil fraud suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton, released a tape to World Net Daily. On the tape, we hear Hillary's unmistakable nasal tones on speaker phone thanking Paul, Stan Lee, and others for their work on her behalf for a Hollywood gala that was intended to raise money for Clinton's first Senate run.

Refresher on the suit:

Paul's complaint charges President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for the Hollywood event.

For the past six years, Hillary has been denying any involvement in the planning, because any such involvement would mean Paul's donations were a direct contribution to her Senate campaign, a violation of federal statutes regarding "hard money" contributions.

Click here to see the WND story and the video.

I'm looking forward to the spin the Clinton camp puts on this latest development.

Hillary and Peter Paul in better days

h/t: Aaron

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

June 12, 2007

Congressional Approval Very Low

"There's a new Congress in town." Yes, Nancy. But this new Congress doesn't seem to be doing much better than the last one. In fact this Congress, which is controlled by the Democrats, is at its lowest approval rating in a decade.

A new LA Times/Bloomberg poll indicates that congressional approval ratings have gone from 36% in January to 27% today. 63% go so far as to say the way this Congress operates is "business as usual."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not faring well in comparison with one of her predecessors, Newt Gingrich. 46% of respondents in this poll said they approved of Gingrich when he headed the Republican majority in 1994, as opposed to only 36% approving of Pelosi now. As Gingrich prepares for a possible run for president, this kind of news is not likely welcome in certain circles. Get ready for a flurry of old Gingrich scandals to be rehashed in the weeks to come.

Could pork barrel spending, wasting time on non-binding resolutions and no-confidence votes, announcing premature defeat in Iraq, pushing an illegal immigrant amnesty bill, and a recent House indictment on bribery have anything to do with it?


Keep bailing Nancy...that swamp ain't drained yet!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

June 07, 2007

Nagin Seeking Higher Office?

I shudder to think that this man might inflict his particular brand of leadership -- or is that non-leadership? -- on the rest of the country. Rep. Ray Nagin? And to what purpose? Getting off the sinking ship that is New Orleans in order to save his own sorry tookus? Read the article and see what you think.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

June 05, 2007

Pelosi's Son Employed by InfoUSA

The company that has paid Bill Clinton over $2 million in consulting fees (with more on the way) since leaving the White House, and has ferried Mrs. Bill Clinton around on its corporate jet to the tune of nearly $1 million, is now employing Nancy Pelosi's son Paul.

Paul Pelosi Jr. was hired as a senior vice president at InfoUSA about a month after his mother became speaker. He also holds another full-time job as a home loan officer. Neither company seems to mind that he works for the other.

The only thing I can think of is that CEO Vinod Gupta likes having connections to powerful people. You never know when you might need them...especially now that InfoUSA's practice of renting or selling mailing lists to people who defraud old people has become known. Also, Gupta is being sued by shareholders for squandering the company's money on what they say is personal use and political projects.

According to the NewsMax article:

A person familiar with the arrangement says Gupta treats Pelosi as a "trophy" and has the Speaker's son accompany him at high profile meetings around the country.

Pelosi denied the suggestion he is being used because of his family ties.

"I don't think that's really what happens," he said.

Nor does he "think" his hiring was related to his mother becoming speaker, he said. But he acknowledged the timing raises a "good question."

Of course he denied it. Would you like to even think that you might have been hired because one of your parents is a powerful politician and not because you're such a great catch? Of course, he may well be a great addition to the company. But I wouldn't want to think that a company approached me just because they thought my connection to people in high places might come in handy.

Just sayin'...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

June 04, 2007

William Jefferson To Be Indicted

It's been a long time in coming, but Rep. William J. "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA) is set to be charged in an ongoing corruption case later today, with the dossier of evidence said to be over an inch thick. If convicted, an anonymous source says he could spend up to 200 years in prison.

Background: Nearly two years ago, approximately $90,000 in cash was found stashed in Jefferson's freezer. A former aide, Brett Pfeffer, admitted to soliciting bribes on Jefferson's behalf. Vernon Jackson, a telecommunications executive, 'fessed up to paying up to $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for help in overseas business deals. Both men agreed to cooperate with officials in exchange for plea bargains. (They were sentenced to eight and seven years in prison, respectively.) Jefferson is also said to have been videotaped taking a $100,000 bribe, the bulk of which was found in his freezer.

In an unrelated incident, Jefferson used National Guardsmen to check on his property and retrieve personal items in the aftermath of Katrina. There's nothing like putting your power to good use...

In spite of the cloud hanging around Jefferson's head, he was re-elected last year. Perhaps the sludgy water of the hurricane's wake had something to do with the state of mind of the voters. Or maybe they like having someone with the taint of corruption as their representative in Congress.

At the time of the raid, House leaders on both sides complained that the feds overstepped their bounds when they raided Jefferson's home, saying it was unconstitutional. That debate continues...and Congress wonders why it has such a low approval rating.

Well, Nancy? Is it time to drain the swamp yet? And will the press give this as much coverage as they did to Randy "Duke" Cunningham?

h/t: Jeanette

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:03 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Al Gore's Skill Set Not Appreciated by Average Americans

Following up on the smartest guy in the room meme, Al Gore is now inferring that he's above all the chicanery that is part and parcel of politics:

"It may be easier to fix it from the outside," he said. "Again, I haven't ruled out for all time thinking about politics again. It's just that the way it works now, I don't think that the skills I have are the ones that are most likely to be rewarded within this system. It's like a washing machine that is permanently set on the spin cycle. It doesn't stop spinning. That creates real problems for a politics based on reason."

Friends have urged him to run for president again, but he wants to see a "transformation of this conversation of democracy" that de-emphasizes imagery and spin-doctoring.

"I expect it will take a lot more time," Gore said. "I'm grateful for those who have a good opinion of me, to the point where they think I ought to run again, but I am not convinced myself that's the best way for me to serve."

"I don't think the skills I have are the ones that are most likely to be rewarded in this system." Translation: I wasn't good enough for you then, so I'm going to pout for a while more before deciding if I should grace you with my presence this time around. Those sour grapes from the 2000 election have left a lingering bitter aftertaste. Perhaps some Listerine would help?

And what skills would those be anyway? Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Believing yourself to be above everyone else? Preaching one philosophy while practicing another? Being the one who decides what's best for everyone else? Sounds like he'd be a perfect fit for the Democrat Party of today.

Keep on spinning, Al, because no matter how much you deny it, you are the master of the spin cycle. "Transformation of this conversation of democracy" indeed.

h/t: Ann Althouse

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:07 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

May 30, 2007

Dana Milbank: Gore "Too Smart" For His Own Good

According to the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, the biggest roadblock to Al Gore winning the 2008 election (should he deign to throw his hat in) would be his superior brainpower. You see, Gore is fantastically brilliant, and that's a turnoff to the majority of Americans because we're, well, dumb.

A capacity crowd of 1,500 people jammed into Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University last night for Al Gore's speech and book-signing. But the numbers don't matter: Even if Gore were speaking before a sellout crowd at Verizon Center, he would still be the smartest guy in the room.

He reminded his listeners of this repeatedly last night.

Milbank goes on to regale us with Gore's references to classic history tomes and the fact that many of our Founding Fathers (is it still okay to say that?) read both Latin and classic Greek. Considering those languages were considered part and parcel of higher education in those days, it's little wonder that our Founders, most of whom (if not all) came from wealthy backgrounds, were so well-read. Does Gore read Latin and Greek too? I suppose it's of no matter. As long as Gore can talk about it, it's enough to prove he's the smartest guy in the room. According to Milbank, "Gore practically oozes gray matter." And Milbank practically oozes brown matter...but I wouldn't brag about that.

But could the hoi polloi handle having such a genius as Gore at our country's helm? Milbank thinks not.

Imagine the Iowa hog farmer cracking open "Assault on Reason," and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan -- all before finishing the introduction.

Imagine that? Those Iowa hog farmers. What a stupid lot. Throw them in with the average Americans whom, according to Gore, watch between four and five hours of television per day, and you get a bunch of nincompoops who would quail at the prospect of having such a learned man in the White House. Of course, he must be smarter than George W. Bush (aka Chimpy McBushitler). I mean, who isn't?

Could it be that the Democrats were wrong and Bush didn't steal the election in 2000? Could it be that the real reason Gore didn't win was because lesser-educated Americans felt they needed to be more mentally acute than their leader? It then follows that John Kerry lost to Bush in 2004 because again, the average American blob in red state flyover country couldn't stand having a brilliant man in the Oval Office. (Turns out, of course, that Kerry wasn't quite as smart as advertised...but it made a good story at the time.)

Frankly, I'm not convinced that Gore is the intellectual he wants us to think he is. But let's assume for the sake of argument that he is.

What Milbank and so many others fail to understand is that it takes more than just booksmarts to be a good leader. Strength of character, the ability to delegate responsibility and appointing the right people to delegate that responsibility to, the willingness to admit to a mistake, consistency, and the willingness to listen to other ideas -- these are some of the characteristics of an effective leader. Yes it's important to have an IQ higher than that of a gnat. But one doesn't have to be a member of Mensa either.

Gore's problem (and Kerry's after him) is not his intellectual acumen, but his pretentiousness. For example, as he looks down his nose at the unwashed masses whom he strives to educate about the perils of global warming, he himself does not take the precautions he lectures the rest of us about, with his numerous private jet rides and his large, energy-consuming homes. And as for his giant intellect, think back to your own schooldays...did you like hanging out with the kid who always made sure everyone knew he had the highest grades in the class?

In addition, Gore is stiff, priggish and standoffish. You can't imagine him having any kind of sympathy for you or your everyday problems. His former "boss," Bill Clinton, had that ability to connect with ordinary people. So does President Bush.

In a nutshell, Gore thinks he's better than the rest of us. And that's a major turnoff. We would expect someone like Dana Milbank to appreciate him, though. Milbank thinks he's better than the rest of us too.

UPDATE: Here's a slightly different take on this over at Moonbattery.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:38 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

May 15, 2007

Congressional Approval Down, Bush Holds Steady

A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.

Goodness, I thought that with the "new Congress in town," the Dems were certain to do a better job than the president in the eyes of the public! Where's that "change" that America voted for back in November? Could it be that this is not the change voters were looking for at all? All the dithering in Congress about funding the war as long as there's a definite defeat...er, redeployment date doesn't seem to be working out quite as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid planned. I can't wait to see what Plan B is.

Mike at Flopping Aces figures,

So, using the standards that were previously applied to President Bush by the left we may now demand that Congress, led by Democrats must abandon their policy of retreat in Iraq as well as the other planks in their socialist "ruin America" agenda.


Others blogging: Outside the Beltway, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jules Crittenden

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:12 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 26, 2007

Hey Harry...Take A Gander at These Numbers!

The other day, Harry Reid said he didn't want to get into a "name calling" match with Dick Cheney, whom he claimed had only a 9% approval rating.

Well, I'm not sure where Reid is getting his numbers from, but according to the latest Harris poll, Cheney's approval rating is 25%, while Reid's is only 22%. Heh.

Some of the other ratings are headscratchers...for example, how in the world does Nancy Pelosi rate a 30% approval? And while Congress overall received only 27% approval, the Democrats are at 35%. What the...? Perhaps after today's vote to cede Iraq to the terrorists, Democrats will get their comeuppance. But who knows? Considering how ill-informed many of the general public are, I'm not too optimistic.

Coming out on top of everyone is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who garnered 45% approval. While that's down from her performance earlier this year, it just goes to show she is still a class act. (I like how she told the Democrats she wouldn't testify in person on prewar claims about WMDs.)

h/t: My mom

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 25, 2007

Cheney vs. Reid: Smackdown!

George W. Bush really is "too nice" for politics, which is why it's a good thing he has Dick Cheney to back him up. Cheney gave Harry Reid what-for yesterday in response to Reid's proclamation that the war is "lost."

What is most troubling about Mr. Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost, and the timetable legislation he is pursuing would guarantee defeat.

Reid said he refused to get into a "name-calling match," but promptly contradicted himself by calling Cheney Bush's "attack dog." I'm surprised he didn't follow up the "nine percent approval rating" comment with a "so there!"

Just like his crony Nancy Pelosi, Reid can't handle direct criticism from someone who has as much, if not more, power than him, and acts like a spoiled child on the playground who has had his pail and shovel taken away from him when confronted about what he says publicly.

When will Reid declare that his patriotism is being questioned? If he needs a boost, here it is: I question Reid's patriotism.

And if Reid is going to make such statements about Iraq, perhaps he might want to consult with General Petraeus a little more often before doing so.

The winnah!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:32 AM | Comments (53) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 24, 2007

Buying Political Power

Bill O'Reilly is on the case of radical left-wing billionaire George Soros, who funds leftwing groups who end up funding political candidates if they toe the line drawn in the sand by Soros. Hot Air has the video.

Included in the Soros umbrella are the Tides Foundation (connected to Ter-ayza Heinz Kerry), MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress and others.

Pat comments on this over at Brainster.

O'Reilly's money quote:

The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This off the chart dangerous, but completely legal, under the McCain-Feingold Act.

Exactly. This is how agenda-driven individuals and groups get around one of the most ridiculous laws ever written.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 06, 2007

On Sam Fox, Recess Appointments, and Democrat Whining

John Kerry must be fuming. Angry that Sam Fox, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to Belgium donated $50,000 to the group that helped orchestrate his defeat in the 2004 election (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), Kerry did his level best to scuttle the nomination in committee. Bush ended up withdrawing the nomination, only to install Fox in a recess appointment.

Now the Dems cry foul, saying Bush's appointment was made illegally because he withdrew the nomination. This might help clarify that charge:

The President is not required to nominate the recess appointee to the appointed position. The President will sometimes use a recess appointment to fill a position while a different nominee to the same position is going through the confirmation process in the Senate. Under certain conditions, however, a provision of law may prevent a recess appointee from being paid from the Treasury if he or she has not been nominated to the position.

Fox is taking the appointment on an unpaid basis.

A bit of history on recess appointments: Up until the 1930s, Congress did not meet during the hot Washington DC summers. Recess appointments were a way to keep the cogs of government running smoothly, so that positions were not left empty while Congress was not in session. However, presidents have used the recess appointment authority to get their choices in when it looked like they might not get approved. One recent, high-profile example was GWB's appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador at the end of 2005. He served only one year, as the Senate refused to confirm him when the recess appointment expired.

As for Bush wanting a pal in an ambassadorial position, well, that's what happens in politics. It's common practice for the president to give these cushy positions to friends and supporters, and Bush is by no means the first. And, he's certainly not the first president to give an ambassadorship to someone who is disliked by political oponents.

Here's a relatively recent example: In 1999, Bill Clinton used his recess appointment power to install Jim Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel was a big supporter of Clinton in 1992, and gave a total of $125,000 to Clinton's re-election campaign and the Democrats in general in 1996. Clinton wanted to reward him. But objections by some Senate Republicans about Hormel's homosexuality and activist agenda meant that the nomination might not go smoothly, so Clinton slipped him in during a Congressional recess.

I'm sure there are countless other examples throughout our history.

John Kerry wanted to punish Fox for supporting SBVT. Now he's been thwarted, and he and his compatriots are crying over spilled milk. But aren't there bigger fish to fry these days? These energies might be better extended over the issues surrounding troop funding, not an ambassadorial appointment to a country about the size of Maryland.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

March 28, 2007

The ERA Back From the Dead?

"They're heeere..." (cue Poltergeist music)

Pat from Brainster has details about the return of the ERA, now known as the WEA. As he says,

[O]ne of the problems liberals have is that they refuse to learn from the lessons of the past, and hence they seem to be steaming full speed ahead into the same shoals that wrecked them 35 years ago.

Ship ahoy! Get out the salvage vessels...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:23 PM | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

March 22, 2007

Wishing Elizabeth Edwards Well

As much as I cannot abide John Edwards the presidential candidate, I do wish his wife Elizabeth (and him, as her husband) only the best as she battles the recurrence of a cancer she thought had been eradicated. It's tempting to criticize Edwards for continuing his campaign, but I would assume that his wife supports his decision to do so, and therefore it's not my place to say anything but "play ball!"

BTW, none of the conservative blogs I've read regarding Elizabeth Edwards' cancer have had anything but kind words for the couple as they deal with this medical crisis. Compare that to those on the left who are always so quick to wish for the death of any conservative who faces serious health problems. Just something to think about...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

February 23, 2007

Cheney Not Backing Down

This little catfight that Nancy Pelosi is trying to start with Dick Cheney is beginning to get tiresome.

Pelosi, like a spoiled child, threatened to complain directly to President Bush. She said Cheney's remarks that the Democrat plan to place restrictions on the troop surge will ultimately make al Quada and its supporters the winners in Iraq "question" her patriotism and "mischaracterize" her position on national security. Well, how long did she think she could keep trying to fool us?

Question: Why is it that every time they are criticized, the Democrats whine that their patriotism is being impugned? Answer: Because it deflects the argument away from that actual issue that they don't wish to discuss in the full light of day.

Cheney, to his credit, won't roll over and play dead.

During Friday's interview in Sydney, Cheney said, "I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment."

He also said, "I'm not backing down." Which is, of course, why I love the guy. He says what he means.

Come on, Nancy, grow up and get some spine. If you whine and cry every time someone says something unflattering about your policies, what the heck are you doing in politics? For someone who no one "messes with," you sure can't seem to handle a bit of heat from the other side of the aisle.

I suggest this sign be hung up
in every room in the House.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 27, 2007

Feminism and Politics

My article about this topic is up at American Thinker.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:11 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 05, 2007

PR Stunts: Good for Dems, Bad for Repubs

Anyone who either watched the swearing-in ceremonies of Congress yesterday, or read about them later, saw Nancy Pelosi surrounded by her grandchildren and even holding the infant one as she directed the goings-on from her lofty perch of newly-minted House Speaker.

This publicity stunt, showing Pelosi as a caring mother and grandmother as she steps up to one of the most powerful positions in our government, is as (to borrow a phrase from Michelle Malkin) as snort-worthy as it gets. And the press, of course, absolutely ate it up.

But who remembers when President Bush donned a flight suit and landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May of 2003? Crimsonfisted, a commenter on Newsbusters.org, does:

Why am I reminded of Green Helmet Guy? She is BEYOND the pale. I am willing to stand to be corrected, but what conservative has this kind of chutzpah? George Bush in a flight suit, big deal. He was once a pilot, a VERY good pilot as I recall reading and the press was all over him for that.

It's interesting how the MSM was quick to question the flight suit photo op, yet gushed over a similar stunt by Pelosi.

*Bush was a trained, highly-skilled pilot during his years with the Texas Air National Guard, despite his not having seen action in Vietnam. It's an undeniable part of his past.

*Pelosi was once a stay-at-home mom who brought up five children. It's an undeniable part of her past.

Being a war veteran is not a requirement for running for the office of president. Yet Bush was criticized for "only" being in the Reserves during Vietnam.

Being a stay-at-home mom while one's children are young is not a requirement for becoming Speaker of the House; nor is being a grandmother. Yet Pelosi is fawned and fted for her service to her family...indeed, Charles Gibson of ABC News announced that Pelosi is "taking care of the children and the country." (She'll definitely be taking care of the Democrats for the next two years, that much is certain.)

If the MSM would only admit it's liberal bias, I wouldn't complain as much. It's the "unbiased" label that is consistently disproved that really gets my goat.

Similar publicity stunts; dissimilar reactions by the press

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 03, 2007

Apples and Oranges: Ford and Carter

Richard Baehr, writing for The American Thinker, has an excellent piece on the differences of the ex-presidencies of Gerald Ford and his successor, Jimmy Carter. This line sums it up:

The contrast between Ford and Carter is between modesty and vanity, service and ambition.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Nancy Pelosi, Standard-Bearer of Women

That's what this article is supposed to make us think:

It shouldn't be surprising that it took more than 200 years for Congress to select a female speaker of the House. The United States isn't exactly at the forefront when it comes to women in politics.

Women make up a larger share of the national legislature in 79 other countries, including China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an association of national legislatures. The U.S. even trails a couple of fledgling democracies: Afghanistan and Iraq.

"When my colleagues elect me as speaker on Jan. 4, we will not just break through a glass ceiling, we will break through a marble ceiling," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is set to lead the House when the Democrats take over. "In more than 200 years of history, there was an established pecking order - and I cut in line."

Lord, I wish she hadn't. More:

"The biggest obstacle women candidates face is not about gender, it's about the lack of opportunity," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, which helps Democratic women who favor abortion rights get elected to public office. "Ninety-eight percent of incumbents who run for re-election are re-elected in most years. ... The bottom line is there are very few opportunities."

Once women decide to run for office, they are just as successful as men, according to experts who study the issue. However, women are much less likely to run.

One big reason is child care. Women are much more likely than men to be responsible for child care, and that doesn't always fit into the usually chaotic schedule of a member of Congress.

"All these women, even if they are extremely qualified, they are still so much involved in their family life they couldn't even consider running for office," said Richard Fox, professor of political science at Union College in New York.

So? If a woman chooses to be involved with her family rather than with politics, is that necessarily a bad thing? Pelosi herself didn't run for office until her youngest was out of high school.

Here's something else to chew on: if a woman can't afford to have round-the-clock childcare, is it feasible for her to enter politics? Most successful politicians in this day and age have money backing them, whether they be Republican or Democrat. (Pelosi certainly isn't among the poor, downtrodden masses; she and her husband are worth at least $25 million and possibly as much as $100 million.) It can be said that men without lots of dough can't think of entering politics either. Do we cry and moan about that?

Question: could the reason simply be that fewer women than men are even interested in a career in politics? Like it or not, men and women have different makeups and outlooks, which most likely affect their career choices.

Not only are there worries about the number of women involved directly in politics, but those who are commenting on politics from the sidelines. In 2005, for example, Kevin Drum wondered why there were fewer women bloggers and opinion writers than men. Some think it's not for a lack of women trying, but for a lack of men paying attention. And Chris Nolan believes it's largely because the blogging phenomenon was started by techies, who tend to be men.

Whatever the reason, I get really tired of people complaining about the lack of opportunity for women in this country. Those who go into politics or any other high-powered position (doctors, lawyers, etc.) have to decide what's important to them: family or career. It's a tough balance, and many women opt for a career path that will allow them the flexibility to work and still be around for school concerts and Scout meetings. Women remain the main caregivers, I believe, for a reason: they're better suited for it. (When you go to a daycare facility, how many men do you see working there? I'll bet discrimination against them doesn't come into play.) And if feminists reading this don't like what I've said, fine. In my opinion, the feminist movement served to give women equal opportunities, not to have women dominate.

What women do with those gained opportunities is their business. Nancy Pelosi, with all her money, chose to wait until her kids were older before entering politics. Why do you think that is?

We should worry more about her qualifications
than the fact that she's a woman

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 05, 2006

Will Women Vote for Hillary?

I've written an article that The American Thinker has graciously chosen to run. Follow the bouncing link. Let me know in the comments section what you think!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:16 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 15, 2006

Dem Prevails in Connecticut's District 2 Recount

Democratic challenger Joe Courtney won the recount in Connecticut's District 2 House race, although his lead narrowed from 167 to 91 votes.

That means the only Republican Connecticut has in Congress is Christopher Shays.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:24 AM | Comments (77) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 08, 2006

Well, It's Over...

and time to break out the aspirin to take care of one heck of an election night hangover.

The Dems took the house. The Senate is still up for grabs. George Bush may still be president, but his ability to continue with his agenda is greatly diminished, which is what the Dems were hoping for. And although new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says "no impeachments," don't hold your breath.

With Charlie Rangel in charge of the House Ways and Means committee, don't expect funding for Iraq to continue, which will turn it into the quagmire the Dems have wanted it to be from day one.

We can pretty much expect nothing to be done in the next two years. And those of you who either decided to vote Dem or stay home yesterday in order to "teach the Republican leadership a lesson," you know what they say: be careful what you wish for...

Ed Morrissey says:

However, in terms of policy at least, the American people have spoken. The majority endorsed these views, and now we have to see them play out. We can certainly criticize it -- and we will -- but we have to respect the voice of the American electorate. They wanted a different direction, and now they have to experience its consequences.

Of course, what that direction is, the Democrats have never actually "said." So hold on to your boots.

On the bright side, perhaps America will regain some of the popularity we've lost over in Europe. And the terrorists sure will be happy!

Still, some are saying that this loss has a silver lining: after two years of Democrats lording it over us in Congress, the people will be ready for the Republicans once again in 2008. Hugh Hewitt says, "If the GOP adopts and refines the tactics the Democrats have used for the past four years all will be well two years hence, and perhaps even better than well." I hope that's true. And I hope the Republicans will spend the next two years licking their wounds and figuring out how to get their base back.

But unlike the Dems, we won't be threatening to move to Canada or some other country because we didn't get our way. We won't say things like "this isn't MY Congress" but rather "How can we make this better?"

Here are some thoughts from Michelle Malkin..

So we have our work cut out for us, fellow conservatives. Are we ready for it?

UPDATE (9:56 a.m.): My friend Aaron over at Lifelike Pundits has the ten basics we need to agree on to move forward.

UPDATE II (10:16 a.m.): John Hawkins separates the wheat from the chaff.

This is not the end...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:10 AM | Comments (42) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 07, 2006

I Voted...Will You?

I voted on my way in to work this morning. My polling place was busy, but there was no line; as soon as my identity was verfied (yes, Connecticut requires a photo ID to vote...the horror!), I went right to a booth and cast my vote.

For those of you in Connecticut, you'll have heard that the old machines are history in some towns. I wasn't sure what to expect when I went in (I didn't read the article about the new method in my local paper), but voting couldn't have been easier. You're given a paper ballot that resembles the multiple choice "bubble" tests from your school days. Simply fill in the bubble next to the candidate of your choice with a black felt tip pen (provided), and slip your ballot face down into the electronic machine on your way out the door.

If you can go before work or during the day, that's the best time. After work will be the busiest, when everyone else who didn't want to get up early will be there with you.

Now get on out and do your civic duty!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Today's the Day...


Those who can't be bothered to vote shouldn't be bothered to complain about the outcome.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:36 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 06, 2006

Wow, I'm Convinced!

I have had an epiphany. I used to think Ned Lamont was a millionaire leftist stooge with only one item on his agenda: to pull the troops out of Iraq faster than he could raise your cable bill.

But on the way to work this morning I heard Paul Newman on the radio, telling me that Ned Lamont was a great guy and that I should vote for him. The clincher was that he cited the New York Times' endorsement of Lamont as proof as to why I should vote for him.

I mean, if an actor endorses a candidate, that should be good enough for the rest of us.

Oh, and Ned Lamont himself approved the message.

When Paul says vote for Ned, you do it!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:22 AM | Comments (366) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 03, 2006

Who Do The Terrorists Want to Win?

This is a must-read over at The Right Place. Go there, now!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics



is better than none. Don't worry that the Republicans didn't do everything you wanted them to...worry how much damage the Democrats can and will do if they take control of Congress.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 02, 2006

Kerry Apologizes for "Dumb" Troops Remark...

but still insists that his words were "misinterpreted."

The only misinterpretation here was by Kerry, who still thinks that his elitist manner is impressive to us little people, and that he actually has a shot in 2008.

Now if he had said, "I'm sorry for believing that people who join the military are lacking in intelligence," then he'd be on the right track. But don't look for that comment any time soon.

Michelle Malkin has a great wrapup.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 31, 2006

Kerry Unrepentant

Once again, Lurch has stuck his foot in his mouth.

The matter at hand is his comment yesterday while on the stump in California:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.

Now, with the resulting denounciations from President Bush, Sen. John McCain and other pols, as well as various talk show hosts and bloggers, John Kerry won't back down:

And at a hastily arranged news conference in Seattle, Kerry said: "I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy."

Kerry said the comment in question was "a botched joke about the president and the president's people, not about the troops ... and they know that's what I was talking about."

He should have stopped there, but didn't:

The Massachusetts Democrat called the White House attack "a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic" that reveals Republicans'"willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes," he said. "It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did."

Ah yes, harkening back to those golden days in Vietnam that he was so proud of at the time, he proudly wore his medals and denounced traitrous war protesters like Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Oops, sorry, I was in a parallel universe.

Don't look for Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid to say anything about it. They'll just keep quiet and wait for the winds to die down. Heaven forefend they should actually criticize one of their own.

Speaking of Harry Reid, that land deal scandal sure died down quickly. It must be nice to have the MSM in your pocket.

Yet another fumble by war hero John Kerry

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

A Scary Day for Democrats...

...and it's not just the little kids wearing costumes. From the Washington Times:

Former Prince George's County Executive Wayne K. Curry and five fellow black Democrats on the county council excoriated their party yesterday and endorsed Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican, for U.S. Senate.

"The [Democratic] Party acts as though when they want our opinion, they'll give it to us. It's not going to be like that anymore," said Mr. Curry, who in 1994 became the county's first black executive and remains influential in the mostly black and heavily Democratic county.

Mr. Curry and the lawmakers said Democratic leaders repeatedly have snubbed the black community and their county, noting the lack of party support for the Senate campaign of former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chief Kweisi Mfume, who lost the Democratic primary to Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin.

Well, I can't say I'm sorry Kweisi Mfume didn't win the primary, but I understand where Curry is coming from. The Democrats expect black voters to feel honored by their patronage without bothering to find out what they really want.

Stronger words come from Samuel H. Dean:

"We were in the Democratic Party while they were lynching black folks. We were in the Democratic Party while they were segregating folks," Mr. Dean said. "We have been loyal Democrats, [but] when the party has an opportunity to do something to show that their base is recognized, appreciated and acknowledged, they don't."

Steny Hoyer and others declined comment. Not surprising. What can they say?

The race between Democrat Ben Cardin and Steele is already neck and neck. Look for Steele to surge ahead in this last week before the election.

SPEAKING OF the election, please read this piece by Gaius over at Blue Crab Boulevard if you've even been thinking about sitting out this election cycle.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 30, 2006

Today's Must-Read Commentary...

...is by Harry R. Jackson on Town Hall. A preview:

If the Democrats do not gain significant traction in this mid-term election, they will be deemed so nationally impotent that no form of political Viagra will help them in 2008.

After all, they do not have a unifying doctrine or theme except for being against the war. Unfortunately for them, their anti-war statements are not backed up with clear plans. Beyond the important issue of how and when we bring our boys home, they dont have much to say. Democratic solutions to the immigration crisis, the health care gap, the energy crisis, and Americas long term global competition problem seem to be muddled, ill formed, and without a clear internal party consensus.

So how is it that the Democrats seem to be leading in so many recent polls? They have recruited a new partner to help them fight for power--- the liberal media. The bias of the media sounds like such a trite excuse for conservative lack of campaign trail performance. Yet this time, I believe there is much truth to the concept that conservatives are fighting both the media and the Democrats.

Read the rest here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 24, 2006

Rating Congress

If you do nothing else today, head over to The Right Place. Mr. Right has done a fantastic job of rating our Congressmen and Senators with what he calls the RPI (Right Place Index), which indicates how liberal, moderate, and conservative these folks are. He's done his homework and lists his sources. He also makes a disclaimer that it's not a completely bipartisan effort:

Before we go any further, let me state for the record that this is not a completely non-partisan evaluation of the sitting members of the House and Senate! No comments this time around about how I shouldn't have injected politics into this, please, that's what it is all about!

Mr. Right also makes this note:

A moderate Republican is far, far better for the country than any liberal Democrat who might replace them if we on the right deign to punish them by sitting out an election to "teach them a lesson." Besides, in certain areas of the country, hardline conservatives couldn't get elected, or would likely be booted out of office in short order if they voted that way. To discard individuals who may be of a more moderate nature than we may prefer is to discard any chance to be in the majority and advance the conservative agenda. It would only serve to relegate ourselves to irrelevance as we watch the liberals advance theirs!

None of the results should surprise you. But do go and read them. We need to mobilize the base! If we can do this, we'll hold on to the majority. If you don't vote, don't you dare complain if the Democrats win and any chance of our furthering a conservative agenda is thrown to the wind.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 18, 2006

Karl Rove Entertains High Hopes for November

Unlike many Republican sad sacks, Karl Rove is confident of maintaining a Republican majority in both the House and Senate:

"I'm confident we're going to keep the Senate; I'm confident we're going to keep the House. The Foley matter has impact in some limited districts, but the research we have shows that people are differentiating between a vote for their congressman and a member from Florida."


"It is useful to remind people what [Democrats] said and what they do. I think they have given us here, especially in the last couple of weeks, a potent set of votes to talk about. You had 90 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-surveillance program, nearly three-quarters of Senate Democrats and 80 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-interrogation act. Something is fundamentally flawed."

As Rush Limbaugh constantly reminds us, the Democrats would never admit defeat before the election. Why should we? Keep positive thoughts, and make sure you go to the polls November 7.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:56 PM | Comments (345) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 06, 2006

Survival of the Slickest

The difference between Republican and Democrat scandal outcomes over at Mein Blogovault.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 05, 2006

Why Conservatives Need to Vote in November

There seems to be talk by conservatives about staying home on election day this year because they're angry with Republican leadership, and feel that certain Republicans don't deserve to be re-elected.

Some of the Republican base feel that this administration and Republicans in general have let them down on border security, spending, abortion and other key issues. Perhaps they are justified in feeling that way.

But those who think they will be punishing the Republicans by staying home on election day will also be punishing themselves. We simply cannot afford to cede leadership of the House and Senate over to the Democrats. The Republicans may have been disappointing of late, but if you want real disappointment, look no further than the Democrats.

Here are a few reasons why conservatives need to go to the polls:

*If Democrats take control of the House, Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker. This not only gives the woman (who voted against the Patriot Act, military tribunals for terrorist suspects, and does not consider us to be at war) incredible power, it also puts her third in line for the presidency should the unthinkable occur and we lose our President and Vice President.
"[Campaigns] shouldn't be about national security."

*If Nancy Pelosi is promoted to House Speaker, guess who wants to become House Majority Leader? John Murtha. Murtha, as you well remember, doesn't want to pull out of Iraq so much as he wants to "redeploy" our troops to a convenient location...Okinawa. Murtha also accused our Marines of killing civilians in cold blood in Haditha, before any military inquiry had taken place. (As it is, there has been no official conclusion yet to that event). Murtha, like John Kerry, feels that his prior military service precludes him from being criticized on the foolhardy policies he promotes now.
"Our troops...killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

*John Conyers would become head of the House Judiciary committee. Conyers has been agitating for the impeachment of George W. Bush since 2003, and is a supporter of reparations for slavery by big businesses.
Should this man be in charge of the House Judiciary committee?

*Chairmanship of important Senate committees would go from Republicans to Democrats. Just imagine having Democrats in charge of the committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the committee on Foreign Relations, the committee on the Judiciary, and the committees on the Armed Services and Appropriations.
Can you imagine Leahy and Byrd in charge of the Judiciary and Appropriations committees?

Not to mention the power that Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and other mega-liberals would gain.

Big Lizards also reminds us of some very good reasons for conservatives to go to the polls. Check them out. (On a tip from Right Wing Nation.)

Not voting to "punish" Republicans is one of the worst things conservatives can do. Be sure to go to the polls on November 7.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:29 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 04, 2006

Who Was Mark Foley IMing?

Click here for details on how Wild Bill at Passionate America found out.

And I thought only "real" journalists were capable of such investigative work.

On a tip from Kitty.

Reverse_vampyr weighs in on the Foley controversy.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 02, 2006

Mark Foley: All In the Timing

Brainster points us to this piece on the American Thinker by Clarice Feldman, which suggests that the publishing of the Foley e-mails and IM messages is more of a hit job on Republican leadership than concern that an older man might be hitting on teenage boys working as pages for Congress.

Is it at all believable that overnight after ABC broadcast and published the innocuous email correspondence it was suddenly sent years-old, salacious Instant Messages purportedly between Foley and men (ages and identities not disclosed)? Why were these IM messages ready to be sent off and published at a moment’s notice?

But then, except for political junkies, how many voters pay attention to such minor details? The headlines and soundbites are often enough to make up their minds...which is what the leakers have in mind. Don't forget, there's an election in five weeks.

Feldman also compares the current leaking of information to the whole Valerie Plame game. Be sure to check out the entire article.

More from Mark Levin on NRO:

The timing of this revelation has more to do about helping Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats than protecting teenagers with whom Foley was communicating. What else explains the delay? I remain extremely curious about who had the instant messages, when they received them, from whom they received them, and how they became public only now. As in the Valerie Plame matter, where several news outlets helped the likes of Charles Schumer to perpetuate lies about the White House and encouraged his demand for a special counsel, some reporters (probably including Brian Ross of ABC News) know who and what are behind the timing of the Foley revelation and are protecting that aspect of the story to prevent the complete facts from becoming public until after the election – that is, after the political damage has been done.

Believe me, if Foley is involved in illegal hanky panky with Congressional pages, I'm all for setting the record straight and meting out appropriate punishment. But I find it interesting that the people who say that the Bush administration uses victories as the capture of Saddam Hussein and the killing of al Qaeda mastermind al-Zarqawi as conveniently timed publicity stunts would expect those in the know to take the current situation without the proverbial grain of salt.

(The news is out about Foley checking into rehab. When a Democrat enters rehab, it's a sign of strength that he is working on his problems. When a Republican enters rehab, it's a sign that he's a hopeless degenerate. Just you wait for the spin.)

UPDATE 12:29 pm: HNAV reminds us of Gerry Studds. Also, what about the timing of Jim McGreevey's "coming out" a couple of years ago? That was obviously orchestrated in order to cover up the real reason he quit as New Jersey's governor...his corrupt administration. Savvy politicians like McGreevey know it's difficult to criticize a "gay American" with corruption in today's political climate.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:15 AM | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 25, 2006

You Know You've Hit Gold When...

...your interviewee gets angry at you rather than answer the question.

Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton on FOX yesterday, and Slick Willie became absolutely livid when Wallace asked him about his administration's record on fighting terror.

You can watch the meltdown here.

During his rant, Clinton accused Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and of having a "smirk" on his face. I love how when journalists ask tough questions of Democrats, they are accused of being part of that vast right-wing conspiracy.

Afterward, Wallace said it wasn't a smirk, but "sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."

Michelle Malkin says of Clinton, "Always, always blaming someone else for his failures."

He may have the majority of the press eating out of his hand now. But when history gets a hold of him, it will be another story entirely. Lots of luck then!

Clinton: Trying to kill the messenger

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:36 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 13, 2006

Murtha Introduces Resolution Asking for Rumsfeld's Resignation

Good grief:

Today I introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for the immediate resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The President must show the American people and the world that there is accountability for the mistakes that have made in the war in Iraq. We must restore our credibility with our allies and the world in order to effectively fight the global threat of terrorism.

Secretary Rumsfeld has failed in managing the military response to this threat and should be replaced with someone who is capable of not only recognizing the mistakes that have been made but addressing them head on for the good of our military and our great nation.

If one should be called upon by Congress to resign for mistakes made, all of our government -- including our Congress -- would be a giant echo chamber.

I can't wait to see how far this resolution goes and who will hitch their wagon to this illustrious star.

(Like the announcement on HuffPo?)

Heard about this on Rush Limbaugh's show today

Murtha: You're fired! Rummy: In your dreams, bozo!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 12, 2006

Bush Can Never Win

Senator Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy blasted President Bush for his speech last night, aired during ABC's showing of The Path to 9/11:

"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time.

9/11 is not only a day of mourning, but a day in which the future of our society changed in just one hour.

The war in Iraq is an integral part of the war against Islamic fascism, whether or not Saddam Hussein funded al-Qaeda. Hussein was thought to be a threat all on his own not only by President Bush but by President Clinton, members of Congress, and plenty of other world leaders before him, who, as usual, were content to sit and do nothing. If we are able to establish Iraq as a working democracy and a friend to America, we will be in a better position to do something about the continuing terrorist threat in the Middle East (including Syria and Iran). It's called a tactical move (something Kennedy should know something about, since he employed plenty during the Chappaquiddick affair).

Ted Kennedy and his cronies accuse President Bush of politicizing 9/11 and the war in Iraq. What of it? And aren't they doing the same thing? It's a political issue whether you like it or not. Nothing will come of ignoring it. (The 9/11 miniseries showed us that.) By taking the opportunity yesterday to discuss it, Bush was doing what he should have: reminding us of the grave dangers that continue to face us as a nation. Taking the 20 or so minutes to placate us and our emotions might have been something Bill Clinton would have done, and that would have been a mistake.

Someone please shut him up!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:02 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 09, 2006

Bill Clinton's Legacy

Bill Clinton and his minions are still griping. ABC, so far, is not cancelling its 9/11 miniseries. But a lot can happen in the next 48 hours.

No matter what happens in this saga (the kind the media eats right up), one thing is certain: Bill Clinton will be remembered by history as an inept, vainglorious womanizer who rode on the coattails of the Reagan/Bush economy, and whose main accomplishment (welfare reform) happened only because a Republican-controlled congress strongarmed him into signing it into law.

Slave to his own image

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:58 AM | Comments (44) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

September 04, 2006

It's A Great Day for a Parade and Campaigning

Ah, Labor Day...a day devoted to retail sales, picnics, and parades. Here in Connecticut, the town of Newtown has its annual Labor Day parade and this being an election year, all of the candidates were out in full force. As usual I was caught without a camera (had to rush out the door this morning), but managed to borrow one from a friend for a couple of important photo ops. (You can enlarge each photo below by clicking on them.)

Here, you see Democratic candidate for Senate Ned Lamont gladhanding with the crowd. (Sorry, my finger got in the way of the lens on the second photo.)



See that? He had a large number of volunteers marching with him, chanting something like "Go Lamont!" (I can't remember the actual chant).

And here, you see former Democrat now-running-as-an-Independent Senator Joe Lieberman shaking hands with parade-goers.



Lieberman didn't have near the amount of people marching with him. But let me tell you something he did have: more popular support. Where I was sitting, when Lieberman came around the bend, he received a tremendous cheer from the crowd. Lamont didn't receive nearly as much cheering when he showed up. Most of the noise being made for him was from campaign volunteers.

Oh, and Lieberman's popularity is quite satisfying when you realize that, according to the local weekly paper, he was contacted by Newtown's First Selectman Herb Rosenthal (a Democrat), asking him not to march with the Newtown Democrats. (First Selectman is Newtown's version of mayor.)

Quite telling, no?

(Others marching (who I didn't get photos of): Senate candidate Alan Schesinger (R), who I'll bet no one but political junkies like me have heard of; Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R) (another big cheer getter) and her opponent Chris Murphy (D); and our popular Governor Jodi Rell (R), who received many more cheers than her rival Joe DeStefano (D).)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:11 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

August 31, 2006

Truth in Advertising vs. MTV

Remember MTV's Rock the Vote campaign for the 2004 presidential election? A non-partisan effort to get young slackers out from in front of their televisions and into the voting booths?

Rock the Vote should have been named Block the Vote. Here's a video from Truth Caucus that reveals what some MTV employees really thought about the Bush/Kerry standoff...and weren't afraid to tell while still wearing their employee badges.

Via Michelle Malkin.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

August 09, 2006

The Morning After

Two races were in the spotlight during yesterday's Democratic primary: Rep. Cynthia McKinnon vs. Hank Johnson in Georgia, and Sen. Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Both incumbents lost.

In an AP story, McKinnon is called "fiery" and "controversial." How about bitchy and kooky? After all, this is a woman who claimed publicly that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and who hit a Capitol police officer earlier this year after he dared to ask her to stop and show ID when entering the Capitol building. The House will be a better place without her in it, even if fellow Democrat Johnson wins the seat in November. Good riddance.

Connecticut millionaire Ned Lamont managed to upset Joe Lieberman for the party nod in November, but Lieberman says he will run as an "independent Democrat." The big issue, of course, is that unlike John Kerry and others, Lieberman refuses to apologize for his support of the Iraq war. He says he disagrees with how the war has progressed in some ways, but still believes we did the right thing by going in. And now, this social liberal has been discarded like yesterday's rancid cold cuts by Connecticut Democrats.

The only thing Lamont has to recommend him to supporters is his stance on Iraq. Everything else is a big question mark. Of course, the fact that he's a self-made millionaire should send true Democrats running -- especially since he poured millions of his own dollars into his campaign. (RINO Mike Bloomberg was roundly criticized for doing the same during his run for mayor of New York.) But I've noticed that while Democrats feel a Republican with money is a bad thing, a Democrat with money is just another politician. Why else would we have so many Democrat moneybags in office? (Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry come immediately to mind.) It must be that rich Democrats are not a part of the problem, they are a part of the solution because they "care." Republicans, as a rule, do not.

So what happens now? Lieberman runs as an independent. I heard on the radio that voter turnout in Connecticut yesterday was about 43%. How will the other 57% vote in November? How many votes will Lieberman siphon off from Lamont? (Quite a few, I imagine.) Will Republican Alan Schlesinger (unimpressive website here) be able to make inroads into the electorate? Maybe, if he gets off his duff. Then again, maybe not...

Kos and his pals may be celebrating Lamont's win now (their first!), but the champagne flute is only half full. He still has to win the actual election in November. And that is far from decided.

UPDATE: An article on Time's website discusses why Republicans are enjoying Lamont's victory and Lieberman's loss. A snippet:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a ‘blame America first’ attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

More: Ex-Donkey here and here; Connecticut Commentary, Brainster, and Right Wing News.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

August 08, 2006

Connecticut Democratic Primary Today

Lamont.jpgFor those of you who live in my home state, and who are registered Democrats, it's time to do your civic duty and vote. (No, I'm not a registered Democrat, thank you very much.)

The big question today, of course, is who will win the nod for the Senate race in November: incumbent Joe Lieberman or newcomer Joe Lamont, who has gotten a big push from the blogosphere. Lamont's headline-making lead from last week has shrunk to a few points (I figured it would), and today's race will be tight. I confess I have no idea as to who might come away the winner.Lieberman.jpg

Don't forget that Democrats are also looking to pick their nominee to run against Governor Jodi Rell: Joe DeStefano and Dan Malloy. Both seem to favor big government social programs, so I honestly don't think it matters which one of them wins.

Well Democrats, it's your time in the sun. Enjoy it while you can!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

July 19, 2006

McKinnon Faces Possible Runoff

This is certainly welcome news:

Democratic firebrand Rep. Cynthia McKinney was in high spirits Tuesday night, dancing and playing a tambourine as election results showed her with a tight lead over a former DeKalb County Commissioner with roots in the heart of her core constitency.

With 80 percent of the precincts reporting, McKinney was leading with 47 percent of the vote to lawyer Hank Johnson's 45 percent. One of the candidates will need to get more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff Aug. 8.

Tuesday's primary was the first time that McKinney faced voters since her scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer in March.

I'd love to see her sweat it out. I'd like it even more if she ultimately loses either the primary or the actual election!

One less moonbat in the House? We can only hope!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:39 AM | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 27, 2006

Oil and Hypocrisy on the Hill

Important stories such as the influx of illegal aliens and what's going on in Iraq have taken a back seat to the price of gas, which is around $3 a gallon at the pump (a little more, a little less, depending on where you live).

Okay, I'll bite.

What really gets me in the finger pointing that is Congress' favorite game to play, is that they ignore some of the larger issues behind the price of gas: the fact that we aren't allowing oil companies to drill closer to home, the fact that increases in demand in China and India contribute to the higher demand (therefore higher cost) of oil...and the fact that many of us like to drive big cars.

Case in point: the legislators themselves. In this piece over at WaPo, we get an idea as to why those oil prices are so important:

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.

Republicans don't get off easily either:

At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).


Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).

Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."

So our Congressional blowhards moan and groan about high oil prices, but continue to tool about our nation's capitol in gas guzzlers. Shouldn't these folks be setting an example to the American people? Aren't they supposed to be leaders?

Then again, we shouldn't be surprised, considering the perks our elected lawmakers are used to. Why should they have to conserve? Such a thing is obviously beneath them, the self-anointed patricians of American society.

Until they begin looking at the real causes behind rising oil prices, and until they decide to set a positive example for the people who look to them for answers, I have no interest in their blustering and lecturing.

This is the sort of nonsense that contributes to the poor approval rating of our Congress these days.



As they say, great minds...Here's Brainster's take on it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 06, 2006

Black Voters Leaving the Plantation?

That's what I thought when I read this (via Drudge):

An internal document prepared by a top Democratic strategist warns that a majority of African American voters in Maryland are open to supporting Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele and advises the party not to wait to "knock Steele down."

The 37-page report says a sizable segment of likely black voters -- as much as 44 percent -- would readily abandon their historic Democratic allegiances "after hearing Steele's messaging."

"Governor Ehrlich and [Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele have a clear ability to break through the Democratic stronghold among African American voters in Maryland," says the March 27 report by Cornell Belcher, polling consultant for the Democratic National Committee, which bases its findings on a survey of 489 black voters in Maryland conducted last month.

What's next? A revelation that not all black people enjoy eating fried chicken and watermelon?

It's this kind of attitude toward black voters that is causing them to leave the DemoPratic party in droves: taking their loyalty for granted and offering them no real reasons to stick with the "Party of the People."

Maryland Democratic Party Executive Director Derek B. Walker said the study verified what, internally, party strategists had already concluded: that African American voters who have served as a reliable base for generations cannot be taken for granted.

"It confirms that in this day and age, everyone expects us to do more than just rest on history," Walker said. "We knew we were going to have to engage. But we also know it will be easier for us to forge that relationship because we're right on the issues."

As usual, the DemoPrats feel that it's not the message that's the problem, but how that message is communicated. Big mistake, especially since the poll showed Steele has a good deal of support from churchgoers. Values typically espoused by religious types aren't exactly a DemoPrat forte.

I like what Steele himself had to say about the subject:

In an interview in his State House office yesterday, Steele clutched the DNC report like a football coach who just got his hands on the opposing team's playbook. He said a copy "landed on our doorstep" in the past week.

"This explains everything," he said. "They're afraid of what I represent. They're afraid of the fact that African American voters have options, and I'm one of them."

Yep. But that won't stop the DemoPrats from trying to smear Steele by what they call "exploiting" his connections to President Bush. Why engage him on issues when you can paint him as an Uncle Tom or a house slave?

This race will be a big one. Keep your eyes on it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

April 04, 2006

Who Hates Who More? Conservatives or Liberals?

Dennis Prager has a good idea.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

February 27, 2006

Members of Congress to be Indicted?

That's according to Cindy Adams of the NY Post:

February 27, 2006 -- PAY attention. Pay large attention. Could be more, but for today the number is a dozen. At least a dozen members of Congress, primarily of the party currently in power, are about to be indicted. Influence peddling. One dozen.

Cindy usually discusses Hollywood celebrities and New York "high society" folks, but she occasionally will come out with a nugget like this. Is it true? We'll see.

Hat tip: Kitty

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

February 26, 2006

Reid on Legacies

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has a prediction:

"This is an administration that is going to be noted for its incompetence not its accomplishments," Reid, D-Nev., said after a forum on Medicare reforms at the University of Nevada's School of Medicine.

Yes, but what will Democrats be known for? Failure? Obstructionism? Finger pointing and grandstanding?

I'd take an incompetent administration over the inability to carry an election any day.

Reid also delivered this well-worn canard:

"The poor are getting poorer, the rich getting richer, the middle class is being squeezed. And this deals not only with health care, but with everything," Reid told The Associated Press.

That's great for scoring political points with those who don't bother to check facts. But how true is it? Jonah Goldberg addressed this topic in a column a few years ago:

Now, the first thing to keep fresh in your mind is that high income inequality is not the same thing as high poverty. As the Gatesbergia example illustrates, you can have outrageous gaps between the rich and poor and the "poor" will still be OK.

For example, according to Robert Rector, an economist with the Heritage Foundation who uses the government's numbers, the typical person in the poorest fifth of U.S. households today spends as much as the person of average wealth in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).

The typical "poor" American, according to census data, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR and a color TV. It should go without saying -but usually doesn't -that in, say, 1960, someone who had a color TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning and a car would not be considered poor.

More telling: Child hunger has largely been wiped out as a major social problem in America. While deplorable instances of hungry children still occur (usually attributable to bad parenting), the real nutritional problem we face today is fat kids.

Not only is poverty relative, it has less to do with money than most people think. Technological innovation makes life less expensive. Fifty years ago, a refrigerator was a big investment, even for the middle class. But it was worth it because it made it possible to buy food in bulk.

Today, refrigerators may not be supercheap, but they're affordable. And the cheapest fridge today is far more advanced than a fridge from two decades ago. Ten years ago, a cell phone was a luxury. Today, they're ubiquitous -even in the poorest neighborhoods.

Here's how relative our understanding of poverty is: The average poor person in America is richer than many entire villages in Africa or Asia, where they still have no phones, refrigerators, and very little food.

Rather than predict the lousy legacy of the Bush administration, perhaps Harry Reid would be better off studying economics.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

February 13, 2006

Cheney's Hunting Accident: Much Ado About Nothing

You have no doubt heard, by now, that Dick Cheney went hunting over the weekend and accidentally shot his friend, Harry Whittington. Whittington is in stable condition.

Now the White House is being harshly criticized for not breaking the news instantly. The blogosphere is awhirl with conspiracy theories and tasteless comments and cheesy online games. One White House reporter even began shouting at spokesman Scott McClellan because he felt his questions weren't being taken seriously.


Hunting is a dangerous sport. Anything involving guns is dangerous. (No, I'm not a part of the gun control crowd.) When you take a gun and go out to shoot it, accidents are always a possibility. Cheney and any other hunter can tell you this. Heck, my brother-in-law can tell you this.

No one seems to care that Harry Whittington was injured. They only care that they can finally "get" Dick Cheney on something, and that they can "get" the White House on not releasing the news the moment they received it.

In the world of 24-hour news cycles and instant access, some cry conspiracy theory if they don't get the information when they believe they should have had it. Do people really think that this kind of thing could have been hushed up? So we found out a day later. Big deal.

I hate to tell you this, but I doubt criminal charges will be filed against Cheney or the White House. So get over yourselves, and wish Harry Whittington a speedy recovery.

Fun time: Who do you want Dick to take on a hunting trip with him? Rachel at Tinkerty Tonk is starting a list.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 31, 2006

Liveblogging the State of the Union Address

8:59--Laura Bush takes her seat, classy as always. Seated with her is a woman in Muslim garb.

9:00--The Supreme Court is announced, and they are joined by newly minted Justice Samuel Alito. Heh. They are followed by the President's cabinet. Yay Condi!

Just saw Joe Lieberman; he has quite the smile on his face.

According to FOX News, Cindy Sheehan, who cadged a pass, was taken out of the gallery a few minutes ago because she tried to unfurl a banner. Rumor has it she was the guest of Lynn Woolsey. She is in cuffs outside and being detained, but has not yet been arrested.

9:08--President Bush is announced and is running the gamut on his way to the podium. He's hugging and shaking hands with people on the aisle. He just shook hands with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

9:11--He is officially announced by the speaker. John Kerry must be eating his heart out. Bush's first remarks were dedicated to Coretta Scott King who died today.

9:14--"We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom...The only way to protect our people...is by our leadership so the United States of America will continue to lead."

9:15--"We seek the end of tyranny of our world...In reality, the future of America's security depends on it...Dictatorships shelter terrorists and...seek weapons of mass destruction...Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer..."

Good. He brought up women voting in Afghanistan and Iraqis getting the vote, as well as Lebanon throwing off Syria's yoke.

9:17--"No one can deny the success of freedom...Terrorists like bin Ladin are serious about...mass murder...They seek to impose...totalitarianism...Their aim is to seize power in Iraq and use it...the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear..."

He mentions the atrocities visited upon innocent people by terrorists. "There is no peace in retreat, and there is no honor in retreat." Standing ovation when he said we will "never surrender to evil."

Excellent. He's mentioning everything going on in Iraq, training forces, helping to create a government and an infrastructure. Focus on the positive. "In less than three years their nation has gone from dictatorship...to national elections." "We are winning," another standing ovation.

Ooh...decisions about when to bring our soldiers home will be made by our military commanders, "not by politicians in Washington DC." Zing! "Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second guessing is not a strategy." Another zing! John Kerry is looking down. "Members of Congress...our nation has only one option...we must...stand behind our military in this vital mission." Quoting a letter from Marine Sgt. Daniel Clay, who was killed in action, and mentioning his family in the gallery. Nice.

"Leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel...and recognize lasting peace." Boy, does Hillary look sour. Didn't anyone tell her she shouldn't eat lemons before being on TV?

Iran: "The regime...sponsors terrorists...that must come to an end...The nations of the world must not let the Iranian regime gain nuclear weapons...America respects you...our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."

He stumbled on a few words...I'll bet the Kos kiddies will be jumping all over that.

"Our country must also remain on the defensive...here at home...They (law enforcement) also deserve the same tools they use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime, so I also ask you to renew the Patriot Act."

Bringing up the surveillance program by NSA and how previous presidents have used the authority he is using to prevent terrorist attacks here at home. "If people in our country are talking to al Qaeda we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and be hit again." Another direct hit.

"Together let us protect our country...and lead this world toward freedom." Another lemon puss from Hillary.

Mentions that our economy has created 4.6 million new jobs, more than Japan and the EU combined. "Our economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent." Saying some say immigrants are bad for the economy. Uh, no, sorry...the first lame thing I've heard tonight...it's not immigrants, but ILLEGAL immigrants that we have problems with.

$880 billion is in the hands of workers, investors and families due to tax cuts and that has spurred economic growth. "I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent." Hear that Teddy? I haven't seen his bloated form yet.

Says he will cut programs that are not perfoming well and plans to save $14 billion by doing so. "I'm pleased that Congress is working on earmark reform." "Pass the line item veto." Heh.

Baby boom retiring will put an enormous strain on the government budget. Tax or cut? Congress didn't act on his Social Security reform last year. Hillary laughed. "The cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. Every year we fail to ask the situation gets worse." Asks for work on SS, Medicare and Medicaid. "Put aside partisan politics...and...get this problems solved."

Discussing immigration and "orderly and secure borders." Duh! "Stronger immigration enforcement and border protection." Brings up a guest worker program. Border protection? He'd better follow through on that one.

Tort reform! John Edwards, are you listening? "I am asking Congress to pass medical liability reform this year."

Says we must concentrate more on technology that can reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil. Coal, sun and wind, and nuclear energy whould be concentrated on. Hydrogen-powered cars, as well as ethanol, perhaps competitive within six years. A pipe dream? Time will tell.

"We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity...give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science." No kidding. "Bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in the classrooms."

"A life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment." Said regarding the lowering of crime rates, abortion rates, drug use among kids. Brought up activist courts and corruption in government. "We must never give in to the belief that America is in decline...Supreme Court now has new has two new superb members on its bench..." more applause and a standing ovation. "I thank the Senate for confirming both of them..." Gives a salute to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Against cloning humans for scientific research. "Human life is a gift from our Creator, and that gift should never be discarded...or put up for sale." Uh oh, the lefties are going to have a fit.

Ethical standards of Washington being discussed. Hey, why haven't I seen Harry Reid yet either?

He wants to spend more money on AIDS treatment, but doesn't mention abstinence as a solution to stopping the spread of this insidious disease. Again, John Kerry looks as though someone gave him spinach for dessert instead of a souffle.

Ends on a high note, saying, "May G-d bless America."

Final thoughts: Good speech 51 minutes not counting applause interruptions. I liked his discussion of Iraq, the monitoring of calls to and from Al Qaeda by the NSA in the US, and national security in general. There was wishy washiness regarding immigration (still afraid to offend) and no real answers about securing our borders. His discussion about energy alternatives was probably surprising to many, and I'll bet the left doesn't like that, as it's something they love to bash him on. I don't mind any of that, and as long as he doesn't propose signing the Kyoto treaty I won't complain. I loved the comments about "non-activist courts" that are servants of the law. Some conservatives may not be happy with the speech, and I'm sure plenty of leftists won't, but he made some very good points, and overall I give it a positive rating.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 24, 2006

Which Party is More Corrupt?

If you were to guess based on media coverage, it's the Republicans. But Bruce Bartlett begs to differ:

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I have no doubt that any poll of the American people asking which party had more frequently been the subject of House ethics investigations would show an overwhelming majority naming the Republicans, when the truth is that Democrats, historically, have been far more likely to have been investigated.

Read it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 23, 2006

RNC Continues to Beat DNC in Fundraising

From WaPo:

Despite a lackluster showing in 2005 elections for the GOP, the Republican National Committee raked in better than $100 million last year and enjoys its largest cash-on-hand lead over its Democratic counterpart in more than a decade.

For the year just passed, the RNC brought in nearly $102 million -- give or take a few hundred thousand -- and had $34 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee raised $51 million in 2005 but showed $5.5 million on hand at the end of the year.

How long before the DNC starts saying the disparity is due to those "rich Republican contributors"?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

January 13, 2006

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

From N.Z. Bear:

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.


N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

And I say, amen.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 08, 2005

Both Sides of the Poll

There's been a lot of talk in the MSM in the past month or two about President Bush's tanking poll ratings (which have gone up within the past week, by the way--an average of 41.4% approval rating, which is up from 37%.).

What we don't see much about is how Congress is rating in the polls.

Within the same week as linked above for the president, Congress rates a dismal 30.6% approval rating. (Yes, I'm aware that the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and I too am none to pleased with their performance of late). As a body, Congress has an approval rating that is way below that of President Bush.

Frankly, none of it is really news, as polls can change with the blowing of the wind. What is newsworthy is how President Bush's low ratings get top headlines while Congressional ratings are sent to the back of the class.

And who has really low ratings these days? Hillary Clinton. According to a Rasmussen poll, only 25% of those surveyed said they would definitely vote for her, while 38% have a favorable opinion of her. That's not much higher than President Bush's low of a few weeks ago.

Again, public opinion is a fickle beast, and polls are not the be all and end all of politics...or rather, they shouldn't be. In which case, it's interesting to take a look at the other side of the coin once in a while.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

December 07, 2005

Blogs for Heather: Wilson Returns Cash

Democrats called for Republicans last Thursday to return any cash received from PACs of former California Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, calling it "tainted cash." Cunningham pled guilty on Monday to tax evasion and conspiracy to accept bribes.

Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) donated $6,830.10 she had received to charity the day before the Democrats' announcement.

Two months ago, Wilson also made the move to return $10,000 she received from Tom DeLay's PAC.

When Republicans are caught breaking the law, Democrats rush to say the entire Republican party is part of a "culture of corruption." This, of course, is hogwash. A few bad apples don't mean the entire barrel is rotten. In fact, there are a few Democrats I profess to like (like Senator Joe Lieberman).

Heather Wilson doesn't seem like she's a part of a "culture of corruption" to me.

h/t: Lucky Dawg News

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 30, 2005

An Answer to MoveOn.org

By now, most of you know that MoveOn.org pulled an ad they were airing over Thanksgiving because they inaccurately portrayed British soldiers as American soldiers in Iraq. Click here to see the ad storyboarded along with the article on CNS News.

Even if they had used American soldiers in the ad, it was still in extremely poor taste. But since when has the left let that sort of thing get in the way of their rhetoric?

I decided to create my own "ad" in the same style. Of course, mine is in storyboard form like the re-creation on CNS News, as I cannot actually create a television ad here in my humble home--but the sentiment is there. There's more than one way to tell a story!


Read More "An Answer to MoveOn.org"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:26 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (1) | Politics

November 28, 2005

Annoying Gnat Buzzes Around Hillary

That's about all I think about this guy:

A former Green Party member who advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq says he will challenge incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2006 Democratic nomination for Senate.

"She's in favor of the war and in favor of continuing the occupation," Steven Greenfield, a professional saxophone player, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his New Paltz home.

Believe me, I am hoping there's a (preferably Republican) candidate who can knock Her Royal C (that moniker stolen from Kitty) out of the park, but I don't think this unknown musician from New Paltz is going to be the one. All he'll do is siphon a few votes away from any serious contenders, and possibly offer some amusing sound bites.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 21, 2005

Nancy Johnson: A Race to Watch in 2006

According to the DC-based Cook Political Report, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-CT), who is up for re-election in 2006, will be one of the ones to watch:

“If you’re looking for a canary-in-a-coal-mine race, this is one,” said Amy Walter, who tracks House races for the organization. “If all of a sudden you see Nancy Johnson slip, it’s a sign other Republicans in similar districts should be concerned.”

It seems the Democrats are sharpening their knives. Because President Bush has not been performing well in the polls (as if polls mean everything), they think that all Republicans are in jeopardy. Of course, the MSM has jumped on the "slaughterhouse" theme for next year's election. They'd like nothing better than for their predictions to come true.

Nancy Johnson is a 12-term Republican in a very blue state. The majority of people in Connecticut's 5th district (mine) must think she's doing a fine job if she's been voted in this many times.

Nonetheless, I'll be keeping my eye on Nancy Johnson in the coming year.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Dare to Ask the Question

Teflon over at Molten Thought dares to do the unthinkable--he questions the patriotism of some of our fine politicians:

Any American who puts partisan politics or globalist fantasies above the interests of their own country is a creature to be despised and shunned. They are not patriotic Americans. I question whether they might even be called Americans. I prefer parasites: bloodsucking vermin who strengthen themselves only by weakening their host.

Hot stuff? You bet. Read it all here, then pass it on!

h/t: Brainster

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Politics

November 18, 2005

If at First You Don't Succeed...

From Reuters:

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Looks like Fitzgerald is trading in his bamboo fishing pole for an expensive rod and reel.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Senatorial Ego Trip Now Underway

According to Drudge, Arlen Specter (RINO-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) want buildings named after themselves!

The 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Conference Report (109-300) names two new buildings at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after the Chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, and Ranking Democratic Member, Senator Tom Harkin.

The building with the new visitors center would be named after Senator Harkin.

The Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was to be renamed as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.

And guess who was on the committee?

Naming Porta Potties after these two jokers would be more appropriate. Unfortunately for them, there are Senate rules forbidding such a folly, and the report was given the royal flush.

Can it get any more ridiculous on the Hill?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 16, 2005

An Open Letter to Bill Clinton

Dear Mr. Clinton,

Please note the salutation. I didn’t address you as Mr. President, or President Clinton, because you are no longer the president. And as such, it is distressing to hear you making proclamations like your most recent one to students in Dubai:

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done…It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

clinton.jpgYes, you also said that our presence there had some good consequences, such as the recent elections and the new constitution. But you’re a savvy politician, and you know which statements would get the most weight in the press.

You had your turn as president, Mr. Clinton, and now it’s someone else’s turn. While there is no written policy on the subject, there is an unwritten one that former presidents do not publicly criticize the current one. George H.W. Bush could have said plenty about you and your wishy-washy foreign policy but, as a gentleman with class, refrained from doing so. (This hasn’t stopped Jimmy Carter either, and shame on him as well.)

Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is a moot point. We are there now, and it behooves us as a nation to stand behind not only our president, but the troops he sent into battle to do a job and do it to the best of their ability. Belittling their reason for being there is not supporting our troops—it’s pandering to the anti-Bush press, both domestic and foreign, and it gives those who fight against us reason to hope that they may still prevail.

Do the country a favor, Mr. Clinton. Keep your opinions on how the current administration is running the show to yourself. And, please remember that not all of us are among your fans.


Blogmeister USA


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:31 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 14, 2005

Bush Fights Back: It's About Time

Finally, President Bush throws the ball squarely back in the Dems' court:

"Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past," Bush said. "They're playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible."

The Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, those crumbs have a way of leaving a messy trail. They also put a lot of stock in the 24-hour news cycle, which whisks one headline out and another one faster than Paris Hilton switches boyfriends.

Fortunately there's an alternative to the MSM...and we aren't letting those who were in favor of going into Iraq forget what it is they really said.

More on this subject:

Ex-Donkey Blog here and here

Mark at Decision '08 discusses the Democrats' revisionist shenanigans

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

November 01, 2005

Sowell on Libby: Gone Fishin'

The erudite Thomas Sowell discusses the recent indictment against Lewis "Scooter" Libby:

It is one thing to tell the world the name of some C.I.A. agent operating in Iran or North Korea, for that agent may never come back alive as a result of being outed. It is something else to say that Joe Wilson got the assignment to go to Niger because his wife sits behind a desk at C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia.

Put bluntly, too often the authorization of an investigation is essentially a fishing license to enable the prosecutor to find something to prosecute, whether or not he can get evidence to prosecute the crime he was supposed to be investigating.

I love this man! Read it all.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 31, 2005

Blogs for Heather...Wilson

If you've noticed my sidebar, you'll see a Blogs for Heather banner. Who is Heather?

Heather Wilson is the Republican Congressional representative for the 1st district in New Mexico. She is up for re-election in 2006, and is facing opposition from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D). Why the fuss, you wonder? After all, I don't live in New Mexico.

Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi in the lead, are going on the offensive and hope that by taking out Heather Wilson, they'll whittle away the majority Republicans enjoy in the House. (It's interesting that Madrid is suddenly interested in running for Congress. Could it be because she cannot run for a third term as New Mexico's AG?)

In any case, this is an important race for Republicans nationwide. This seat represents a swing vote in the House, and therefore it's important for Republicans to hold on to it. I've signed on to the Blogs for Heather cause, started by Chris at Lucky Dawg News, and will be following the campaign as it picks up speed in the coming months.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 25, 2005

Why Brainster Supports Harriet Miers

Read Pat's post here.

Well said, as always. If you check the comments section, you'll see some of his readers don't agree. Yet note that all of the comments are respectfully submitted...a big difference between the right and left, in my humble opinion.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 24, 2005

I've Been Interviewed!

The folks over at National Summary were interested enough in my blogging efforts to interview me on my political views and my perspective as a woman in the blogosphere. You can read their questions and my responses here.

They also interviewed several other women with blogs...their interviews are on the main page here.

Gosh, who knows? Maybe National Review will be contacting me next! (heh)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

March 14, 2005

Kweisi for Senate 2006!

Kweisi Mfume, former president of the NAACP, has announced his intent to run for senate in his home state of Maryland in 2006.

Many observers say Mfume brought credibility and stability, working to
institute corporate style-management practices [to the NAACP].

During his tenure at the NAACP, Mfume showed support for Cuba. However, it's also said that he really didn't resign, but was pushed out due to his reaching out to the Bush administration.

It should be an interesting race for the people of Maryland and for the candidate who says he "can't be bought."

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial