The Umpire

Guiliani Finally Comes Clean

2007-05-11T13:10:00.000-05:00

Deciding that the recent heming-and-hawing and the rhetorical rumba he had been dancing on the topic of abortion was starting to wear thin, it appears that Rudy has now decided to come clean.

The problem is, for those hoping he would emerge as the party's standard-bearer next November, his recent statements make that significantly less likely. (My prediction: He will not be the GOP Nominee in 2008.)

At a meeting at Houston Baptist University (of all the places to affirm his pro-choice stance, he chooses a Baptist university), the Houston Chronicle reported the following about his remarks:

"Saying he believes abortion is "morally wrong," Republican presidential hopeful
Rudy Giuliani told an audience at Houston Baptist University this morning that
he respects a women's right to choose to have the procedure."

Notice the delicate and euphemistic language being used... it's not "her right to kill her baby", nor her "right to terminate her pregnancy", it's a "right" to have a "procedure".

Let's not get into the details of what that "procedure" would entail or what the result would be... that's just not polite. What people with this distorted view on abortion like Guiliani holds don't seem to do is take their comments to any rational conclusion. For example, if he really thinks abortion is "morally wrong", why is it morally wrong?

If the reason is because it kills a child, well, do you really think that people should be able to "choose" to "have a procedure" to kill their own child? And why else would it be "morally wrong"? Anyway... but I digress...

This was the kicker for me to finally post again to this blog that has gone ignored for so long...

"In a stump speech outlining his plans to battle terrorism and tackle
economic and social issues, Giuliani urged listeners to find common ground with
him even though they may disagree with him. Tolerating differences makes the
country what it is, he said."

"We understand how to respect each other's difference," he said. "It's in our DNA."

Really, Mr. Guiliani? It's in our DNA? Maybe it's in yours, but it's not in the genes of at least 40 million babies because they are dead -- because their moms chose to kill them. Oh, wait, I'm sorry... "to have a procedure."

Not a Bad Call!

2006-11-13T09:57:00.000-06:00

There are very few who read this blog, and that's OK because it's really more as a vent for my own opinions more than anything else, but I do feel a need to point out that my take on the outcome of the TX governor's race was pretty darn close.

Towards the bottom of a post about the Houston Chronicle's attempt to perform CPR (Chris (Bell) Political Rescusitation) on the Chris Bell campaign, I wrote this:

"The problem is, this is not a "very basic" race. If it were, he wouldn't have polling numbers that show him less than 20%. Rick Perry is virtually guaranteed 35-40% just by virtue of the being the lone "R" on the ballot. Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Jones is a lock in at least the 15-20% range. Kinky is good for perhaps 10-15%, and the Libertarian is probably good for 3-5%. That leaves 20-37% left for Bell. And do we really think he's going to land on the high side of those numbers when recent polling shows him at 18%? Yeah, I don't think so either."

The outcome? Rick Perry - 39.0%, Chris Bell - 29.8%, Carole Strayhorn - 18.0%, Kinky Friedman - 12.6%, James Werner (L) - 0.6%.

The only "missed call" in those numbers was the poor performance by the Libertarian candidate. Yeah, it's a fan club of one, but for an amateur political prognosticator, I say, "Good call, Ump!"

Every Once In a While, the GOP gets it Right

2006-11-10T10:14:00.000-06:00

I think I just wet my pants: (via the Washington Times)

RNC asks Steele to replace Mehlman

Not only did they pick the right guy, but according to various sources, he's accepted the job!

I can't wait to see him head to head with the Deaniac himself!

Looking to the Future in a Rear-View Mirror?

2006-11-10T08:23:00.000-06:00

So much for the Democrats claims of a "new direction"... particularly with regard to the war in Iraq. It seems everything old is new again...

[George] McGovern to Meet With Congress on War

If the Dems are looking to a politician whose peacenik policies were resoundingly rejected by the American people thirty-four years ago for answers on the future of Iraq, they're really starved for new ideas.

From Wikipedia: "In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform that advocated unilateral withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war [White p. 122] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country [White p. 360], an "anti-war" platform that was presaged, in 1970, by McGovern's sponsorship of the McGovern-Hatfield amendment, seeking to end U.S. participation in the war by Congressional action."

Too bad Harry Truman is dead...

It will be a "Merry Christmas" at Wal-Mart!

2006-11-09T10:51:00.000-06:00

Well, this was a nice thing to read after all the disappointing political news...

Wal-Mart: We're not afraid to say Merry Christmas
No. 1 retailer has decided to abandon its generic 'Happy Holidays' greeting in favor of 'Merry Christmas.'

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Wal-Mart has told its employees that it's OK to once again greet shoppers by saying "Merry Christmas" this holiday season instead of the generic "Happy Holidays."

(snip)

"We, quite frankly, have learned a lesson from last year," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Linda Blakley told USA Today in a separate report. "We're not afraid to use the term 'Merry Christmas.' We'll use it early, and we'll use it often."

Here's hoping that other retailers will follow suit... but I'm not holding my breath.

An Exercise in Futility

2006-11-09T10:23:00.000-06:00

You knew it was possible, and, as Michelle Malkin points out, some Dems are going to grab the reins of government toward what noble task? That's right: Impeachment!

The impeachment drumbeat begins

Apparently, some former Representative from Brooklyn is putting out a book that gives four possible issues by which Bush could be impeached:

1. Lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq (except that witnesses who will be called to testify that their belief at that time that Iraq had WMD's will include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Tony Blair, etc...)

2. Allowing the torture of prisoners (unless making people feel sad, uncomfortable, or frightened is torture, this approach is a non-starter)

3. Leaking classified information (on what? who? Is this a dig at the long-disposed of and discredited Valerie Plame incident? Either way, there's no "there" there, as it were. And I'm aware of no allegation that even suggests that GWB was himself behind any such real or imagined act.)

4. Botching the federal response to Hurricane Katrina (while I have no first hand knowledge of how well or how poorly the federal government "responded" to HK -- although it should be pointed out that there are some people who are still living in government-provided housing -- "botching" something is hardly a criminal act. If incompetence were a crime, Jimmy Carter would be serving a life sentence!)

It's number 4 in particular that makes me realize the person who put forward these suggestions is a particularly unserious individual and borderline kooky.

But, we knew it would happen... and even though it would be an exercise in futility, it can at least be said that exercise is good for you!

An Interesting Turn of Events

2006-11-08T09:03:00.000-06:00

Nationally, there was a "cleaning of the House", one might say. Not anything out of the ordinary, however, as the number of seats changing hands was right in line with the average for a six-year mid-term election -- but the change is significant nonetheless. The Republicans broke their 1994 Contract with America and paid the price for their breach. A painful but necessary punishment.

Locally, in Katy and Fort Bend County, it was business as usual -- Republicans swept all but one FBC race (Dem County Comissioner Grady Prestage was reelected as expected), and the Katy ISD bond passed as expected. Despite some lackluster and/or questionable GOP condidates, the Dems couldn't manage to put anyone else on the ballot that was compelling or qualified enough to overcome the fact that Dems are still a minority party in FBC.

But there was an interesting contradiction that emerged nationally that I put out there for your thoughful and introspective consideration:

Overwhelmingly, voters (where such issues appeared on their ballots) affirmed the traditional view of marriage by an average vote in favor of 63.6%. Meanwhile, voters also chose to raise their state's minimum wage by an overwhelming majority average of 65.5%.

Here's the breakdown by state with the winning percentage in parentheses:

Affirming Marriage ___Raise Minimum Wage
AZ (rejected - 51%)_______AZ (66%)
CO (56%) _____________CO (53%)
ID (63%)______________MO (76%)
SC (78%)______________MT (73%)
SD (52%)______________NV (69%)
TN (80%) -Wow!_________OH (56%)
VA (57%)
WI (59%)

Now, it's no national referendum - and the fact that there is overlap in only two states makes it exceptionally unscientific, but it makes you wonder about the nature of the electorate that a traditionally liberal issue (raising the minimum wage) should pass just as easily (actually, with even a stronger margin of victory) as a traditionally conservative issue (affirming marriage).

And just a brief comment about Arizona: talk about a strange place... the same place that narrowly rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (51-49), approved an increase in their minimum wage (66-34), and overwhelmingly established English as their official language (74-26). No wonder this is the land of Senator John McCain!

Overall, a very interesting turn of events, indeed!

Help us, John Kerry!

2006-11-01T13:26:00.000-06:00

You don't need the details from me... suffice it to say that John Kerry is an idiot.

If only John Kerry would listen to our "uneducated" troops...

Boy, who needs an "October Surprise" when you have good 'ole John Kerry!

The Houston Chronicle Performs "CPR" on the Bell Campaign

2006-10-24T09:59:00.000-05:00

Not that there was much life in the Chris Bell for Governor campaign, but the Houston Chronicle is certainly doing all it can with this article to revitalize this flagging campaign that has never seen 25% support in the polls when all current candidates are factored in...

Bell's political revival harder than imagined

The secondary headline reads: "Donation and debate showing revitalize effort".

Let's do a little cut and paste commentary, shall we?

"Chris Bell's political career was in the dumps by Christmas 2004."

(And for the last two years, it hasn't gotten much better...)

"...the road has been steeper than Bell could have imagined. Democratic leaders and financial donors dodged his calls. The news media cast him as an underfunded also-ran."

(...isn't he still an underfunded also-ran? Except for John O'Quinn's taxpayer-funded tobacco money, of course... I mean, he is a major party candidate in one of the largest states in the nation.)

"...The July campaign finance reports showed Bell keeping up with independent Kinky Friedman. Polls had him running about even with Friedman and independent Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, while incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Perry was vulnerable. Libertarian James Werner trailed badly."

(When the "psychological turn" in your campaign is that you are "keeping up" with a guy whose political slogan is "Why the Hell Not?"... a guy who has the backing of no major political party and no political experience ... how far down do you have to be that to look to Kinky is to look up?!?)

"...Then Bell made an impressive showing in the only gubernatorial debate of the fall, followed by a $1 million campaign donation from Houston trial lawyer John O'Quinn with a promise of more. Bell's campaign got a new burst of life with television advertising that moved beyond cable."

(An impressive (to whom?) showing in a gubernatorial debate that no one watched... and the polling showed that his performance only bumped him to the high teens. That might impress political prognosticators looking to pump up a flat campaign, but it certainly didn't impress the few political die-hard voters that were watching. ... And are you really sure that having to publicly and visibly have your campaign rely on taxpayer-funded tobacco money from a trial lawyer is a good thing?)

"(after mutliple paragraphs of bio background)...In the current race, Bell's campaign is counting on getting a very basic Democratic turnout. The Democrat who did the worst statewide in 2002 got 1.4 million votes, or 33 percent of the turnout. If Bell could match that, his campaign believes it would put him in the running to dislodge Perry in a five-way race."

(The problem is, this is not a "very basic" race. If it were, he wouldn't have polling numbers that show him less than 20%. Rick Perry is virtually guaranteed 35-40% just by virtue of the being the lone "R" on the ballot. Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Jones is a lock in at least the 15-20% range. Kinky is good for perhaps 10-15%, and the Libertarian is probably good for 3-5%. That leaves 20-37% left for Bell. And do we really think he's going to land on the high side of those numbers when recent polling shows him at 18%? Yeah, I don't think so either.)

"...Steen said the fact the contest can be won through a plurality has kept everyone associated with the Bell campaign saying: "This is not impossible. That's been our war chant all along: This is not impossible.""

No, it's not impossible... but it's not likely or probable, either. Chris (Bell) Political Rescusitation efforts notwithstanding.

Reagan's Right Again

2006-08-15T09:22:00.000-05:00

(Yeah, I've been gone for a while... sorry, but I've been swamped with work. So for the few of you who actually read my musings from time to time, I apologize...)

One of the dictum's that Ronald Reagan is known for is "Trust, but Verify". Now, that was written in the height of the Cold War when Reagan suggested that we trust the USSR, but still insist that we verify that they live up to their agreements.

Now along comes Glenn Reynolds on the heels of the latest controversy in the lame-stream media: Don't Trust If They Won't Verify. Hmm... a dictum once used for the USSR is now applied to the MSM. Hmmm.....

He begins:

Once again, fake news is in the news, as it turns out that many moving stories of carnage in Lebanon were not only moving, but, well, fake. This raises major questions about the future of the news business, and offers a significant threat to free expression.

He then proceeds to slap the MSM around a bit:

We've seen this kind of fakery before, of course, and not just where Israel is concerned. The Boston Globe ran fake rape photos purporting to show U.S. troops raping Iraqi women. The photos turned out to come from a Hungarian porn site. Nor does the fakery stop with photos. Rutten's own L.A. Times ran a nasty piece about Paul Bremer's departure from Iraq, saying that he didn't even give a farewell speech and suggesting that he was afraid to look Iraqis in the eye. In fact, Bremer had given a speech that was nationally televised in Iraq. As columnist John Leo observed in response to this bit of bogosity: "What's new about the press is that so many
people who follow it with a critical eye now have an outlet to howl about inaccuracy and partisanship. The big media used to be able to shrug off critics like this. Now they can't."

He then concludes thusly, in a statement that I just might be convinced to agree with:

"It's not too late for the press to save itself yet. But it's getting close."

But when you see much a masterfully crafted and excellently timed summation of the more high profile propaganda lies recently surrounding the conflict in Lebanon, it's hard to swallow. This short video is a must see for anyone interested in Truth: http://www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp

Complex Issue - Simple Argument

2006-07-18T16:52:00.000-05:00

Senate Approves Embryonic Stem Cell Bill

Without getting into all the minutiae of all the arguments revolving around stem cell research, I just wanted to recognize and applaud this statement on the issue from White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (an inspired choice for the job if ever there was one):

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking
something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

I would add that it's not just something living, but someone... but the point is right on target. How anyone could have supported the bill in question and still consider themselves pro-life is beyond my understanding.

Word of the Day: "Mondegreen"

2006-07-07T10:51:00.000-05:00

While looking up the expression "safe as houses", I came across this interesting word:

Mondegreen - (noun) "a word or phrase resulting from a misinterpretation of a word or phrase that has been heard"

Here's the origin according to Random House's "The Mavens' Word of the Day" feature:

This word was coined by the author Silvia Wright in an article in Harper's in 1954. The poem in question was an old Scottish ballad called "The Bonnie Earl of Murray," which contains the couplet, "They hae slain the Earl o' Murray/And laid him on the green."
Ms Wright heard this as a child as "They hae slain the Earl o' Murray/And Lady Mondegreen," and went through life in sorrow for poor Lady Mondegreen until she encountered the ballad in written form and realized her error.

This phenomenon is relatively common, and it's useful to have a name to apply to it. A classic example is "Gladly the cross-eyed bear," for the hymn actually going "Gladly the cross I'd bear." Fans of the genre are referred to Gavin Edwards's book Scuse Me While I Kiss This Guy, the title a mondegreen from the line in Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze" that actually goes "Scuse me while I kiss the sky." The book, to which there have been several sequels, contains several hundred examples of song-based mondegreens, of which perhaps the best is "The girl with colitis goes by," from "the girl with kaleidoscope eyes," the real line in the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

One of my other favorite mondegreens is "Bingo Jed Had a Light On" -- a mangled rendering of Steve Miller Band's "Big Old Jet Airliner". What is your favorite (or memorable) mondegreen?

"Just when I try to weasel out, they pull me back in..."

2006-07-06T11:05:00.000-05:00

With apologies to "The Godfather" for the above, and with a hat-tip to M.C. Hammer for the below:

"Oh-oh oh-oh oh-oh... Here comes the hammer!"

Judge Sparks has apparently put the kibosh on "former Congressman" cum "current candidate" Tom DeLay's attempt to run from the political consequences of his, um, "questionable" dealings while in office.

Via Chron.com: Judge's ruling keeps DeLay on ballot

Although the article states that "Details of Sparks ruling were not immediately available," it does summarize the ruling that "...Republicans cannot replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot for the 22nd Congressional District race."

"Sparks ruling halts the process of replacing DeLay on the ballot, but the GOP is expected to appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals."

Having not read the justification for the decision yet, I have no idea how likely the GOP may be to prevail on appeal, but if the judge's decision stands, it sure throws a nice "wrench" into the "Hammer's" engine.

"If the Republicans lose on appeal, DeLay will have to decide whether to campaign for an office from which he already has resigned."

But who will staff the office?

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

Ken Lay, R.I.P.

2006-07-05T09:37:00.000-05:00

I was never much of a fan of Ken Lay... to the contrary, I was disappointed and shocked that a man who had contributed so much to the community would preside over such an (ultimately) immoral and egregious organizational collapse.

Nevertheless, I was a little bit shocked and saddened to read this via the Houston Chronicle:

ENRON'S KEN LAY DIES: 'HIS HEART SIMPLY GAVE OUT'

"Convicted Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay suffered a massive coronary Tuesday and died, according to Dr. Steve Wende, of First Methodist Houston. He was 64."

A more detailed bio/obit can be found here.

He was in Colorado awaiting sentencing when he died. Thus, despite being found guilty on all six counts that related to Enron fraud -- including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, perpetrating wire and bank fraud, and making false and misleading statements to employees at a company meeting, as well as to banks, securities analysts and corporate credit-rating agencies -- Mr. Lay never served a day in jail for those crimes.

By passing on July 4th, Ken Lay joins such other notable Americans as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. Granted, he did not contribute as greatly to the American experiment as these men, but he will certainly go down in history -- unfortunately not as the corporate giant he once was, but as an icon of corporate greed, manipulation and excess.

R.I.P., Mr. Lay. May the Lord have mercy on your soul.

A Mixed Decision

2006-06-28T09:31:00.000-05:00

UPDATED: To include link to Supreme Court's decision...

The ruling from the Supremes is in... Read the actual decision here.

Via AP: Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights."

Yeah, this is the kind of race-based politics that really chaps my hide... you know, when you read stuff like this:

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan."

Uh, I'm sorry, Mister Justice, but where in the US Constitution does it say that a racial group is entitled to "elect a candidate of their choosing"?!? Does that mean that the Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc. get their own representatives as well?

Does that mean that members of Congress are elected to serve the interests of a particular race -- or for all the citizens of a district?!? Arrggh!

But, the decision isn't all bad... (You know the one about blind squirrels and nuts, right? The one about stopped clocks? You get the point.) After all, it did say this:

"...the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like - not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

That might bring some nasty fallout to the GOP in some areas of the country, but it's good for Texas (at least for the near future). The bottom line of this, though, was that they ruled that the recent redrawing of the boundaries in Texas was acceptable, vindicating Republican claims to that fact. It only disagreed with how some of those boundaries were drawn.

The technical legalese is summed up by Justice Kennedy thusly: (via SCOTUSBlog)

"In sum, we disagree with appellants' view that a legislature's decision to override a valid, court-drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstiutitonal political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge."

Read some soon-to-be great commentary on the decision (which the bloggers there have not posted on yet, but will soon) at National Review's Bench Memos.

It may not be good news for Congressman Henry Bonilla, but it's good news for Texas Republicans.

Now this is a 5-4 I can support!

2006-06-26T10:10:00.000-05:00

With the changes in the members of the US Supreme Court, it's nice to see that Roberts and Alito have helped keep the Court on the "right" side of most issues -- particularly this most recent ruling by the Court released today:

New justice breaks tie to uphold Kansas death penalty law

Rather than get into the minutia of the decision -- like most Supreme Court cases, the technical issues at hand are a lot more complicated than the way reporters make them out to be -- it's at least comforting to know that this guy will still have a death sentence hanging over him:

"Marsh was convicted in the June 1996 killings of Marry Pusch and her 19-month-old daughter, M.P. Marsh confessed that he had been waiting in Pusch's house when she and her child came home. Pusch was shot, stabbed and her throat was slit. Her body was set on fire. M.P. died several days later from severe burns."

How his lawyer can look at himself in the mirror after trying to get such a barbaric and merciless killer off death row on an alleged technicality is beyond my understanding.

And if Kansas has trouble finding time to get Mr. Marsh on the docket for an execution, just send him to Texas. We'll take care of him.

Oh, and yes, I am just a little nervous about this Court when we have to count on Justice Kennedy for vote #5...

Dominoes, anyone?

2006-06-20T09:10:00.000-05:00

The first domino in the Jack Abramoff scandal takes a fall... the first of many, I would imagine.

Former Bush administration official found guilty

Seems there was this little trip to Scotland that David Safavian went on that was paid for by Jack Abramoff when Abramoff had pending business with the General Services Administration while Safavian was its chief of staff... anyone know anyone else who took a similar trip???

But are you ready for this? You want to know who his wife is?

Her name is Jennifer Safavian -- and she is Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations on the House Government Reform Committee.

You can't script these serendipitous circumstances, my friends... but that doesn't mean someone won't try. This is a movie waiting to be written.

Tom DeLay, call your agent.

En América, hablamos inglés

2006-06-15T14:40:00.000-05:00

And it's not just me that thinks so...

According to Rasmussen: 85% Support English as Official Language Of U.S.

"Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans believe that English should be the official language of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that only 11% disagree and 4% are not sure."

Wow. I knew there was pretty strong support for such a measure, but 85% is overwhelming. And it's not a partisan issue, either.

"Making English the nation’s official language is favored by 92% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 86% of those not affiliated with either major political party."

There's not much of an age gap.

"It is supported by 91% of those over 40 and 78% of those under 40. "

Or a gender or income gap.

"There is little difference in the views of men and women or across income categories."

And it's not a race issue, either.

"Eighty-eight percent (88%) of white Americans support English as the official language along with 76% of non-white Americans."

I bet you more than a few illegal immigrants are talking among themseves and saying: "You know, my friend, maybe those protests were not such a good idea after all."

Or, "Tu sabes, mi amigo, esas protestas no era quizá una tan buena idea después de todos."

I can name that tune in... C-notes!

2006-06-14T12:10:00.000-05:00

(Good ol' "Name that Tune"... I wonder what ever happened to that perky gal who hummed those catchy tunes? (Yes, I know what happened to Kathie Lee Gifford!) )

Seems our (arguably, at least in this case) morally tone-deaf Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives just doesn't get it. No wonder people think politicians are just about money and power... the cushy corporate jets, lavish family vacations paid for by lobbyists, $500 lunches, treated like royalty, and then this from the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

$700,000 donated to fix up Craddick apartment

"Businessmen, a lobbyist and a major corporate foundation have donated almost $700,000 in the past eight days to pay for the renovation of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick's [nearly 2,000 square foot] apartment inside the Capitol, according to documents obtained today by The Associated Press."

I agree with this guy:

"Special interests shouldn't be lined up to give the Craddicks a personal gift of a new apartment," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "If it's in need of repair or if it's in need of renovation, then it should be paid for by the people of Texas.""

and this guy:

"But Alex Winslow, executive director of the consumer advocate group Texas Watch, said the way the project is being handled "creates a sense of impropriety.""

Not to mention the sheer extravagance of it all. ("The carpets in the apartment and the speaker's office also are being replaced with carpets made of 100 percent New Zealand wool at a cost of nearly $37,000.") I mean, it's a frickin' 2,000 square foot apartment and the "renovations" (which seem rather minor) cost $700,000!

Well, maybe it's old and run down right? Nope!

"The apartment was extensively renovated in the mid-1990s during a sweeping $187 million Capitol restoration project. And three years ago, the Craddicks spent at least $25,000 in private donations refurbishing the unit."

That's a lot of renovations for such a small place. What kind of parties and party-goers are they entertaining that it should need so many fixes?!?

I mean, I certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed here by Craddick's spokes(wo)man -- "the speaker and his wife don't think it would be appropriate to use public money for the renovation project" -- but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

And not even Kathie Lee could sweeten this deal any more... does this bother anybody else, or is it just me?

Blame Game

2006-06-13T14:09:00.000-05:00

Random thought that's been mentioned by a lot of different people in a lot of different places:

If you are at all upset, dismayed or distraught over the whole CD22 mess, you only have one person to blame.

His name is Tom DeLay.

Period.

Patrick Kennedy says, "OUI"!

2006-06-13T12:34:00.000-05:00

"Oui!"

As in O-U-I -- "Operating Under the Influence"

As I previously blogged about here: ("I'm not as think as you drunk I am..."), U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy (D - R.I.), 38, wrecked his car into a barricade near Capitol Hill at 2:45 one morning. His explanations varied as to the what/why/how of the accident, but there was no doubt it shined a bright light on his substance abuse.

Now it is reported that he is heading to court today to plead guilty to one charge in order to avoid prosecution for additional charges...

"Kennedy is slated to appear in court this afternoon where he is expected to plead guilty to the charge of operating under the influence. Charges of reckless driving and failure to exhibit a drivers permit will be dismissed as part of the deal, which was worked out behind closed doors."

Kennedy was not reported to have said, "Please help us! Please help stop our family before we drive again!" At least we have one Kennedy who is willing to take at least some blame for his vehicular misadventures.

As usual, Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Picking your fights

2006-06-09T12:27:00.000-05:00

One of the more important things a campaign can do is to "frame the debate" -- to pick the key issues where your vision/experience/results differ from your opponents vision/experience/results and to make them a focus of the campaign.

After reading this article in the Houston Chronicle which implicitly referred to Chris Bell as conservative, I shook my head a bit. I mean, come on -- Chris Bell??? Conservative???

Then I thought, well, let's just check out his website. So I did.

I thought perhaps he'd hit on some good liberal issues like abortion or affirmative action. To my surprise, it was rather tame. His "issues" page highlights these topics:

Rebuilding Public Education
Reducing Barriers to Higher Education
Honoring our National Guardsmen
Protecting Kids
Fighting for Rural Texas
Healing the Sick
Expanding Home Ownership
Finding Common Ground

Not "conservative" issues, but certainly not "lefty" ones, either. A nice, safe assortment of "America, Mom, & Apple Pie" topics. (I mean, really, who would rationally be against any of these things?) Rather than poke into each one here, I'll just highlight one in particular: "Expanding Home Ownership".

Now, remember framing the debate is usually about highlighting your opponent's weaknesses and showing your strong alternative. Not only does Mr. Bell set up a false straw man based on things that haven't happened and don't exist, the reality flies in the face of his allegations.

Perhaps Mr. Bell's team didn't run across this little nugget:

Governor Rick Perry Proclaims June Home Ownership Month in Texas: Home Ownership Makes a Vital Contribution to Building and Strengthening Texas Communities

In that article (press release), we find out that:

"While Texas is among the states with the 10 lowest home ownership rates in the
nation, Texas' home ownership rate is steadily increasing, facilitated by
homebuyer programs like those offered by TDHCA."

See the article for other details about what Texas (under Gov. Rick Perry) actually does regarding home ownership.

Again, this topic was considered so important by the Chris Bell campaign that it is highlighted on his website. If this is the best he can do, this is just one example of many why Chris Bell will not win this election.

Catfight! (H.C. vs. A.C.)

2006-06-07T21:43:00.000-05:00

Me-OW! Granted, Ann Coulter didn’t exactly “win friends and influence people” with her insensitive and ill-advised attack on some liberal 9/11 widows – writing in her latest book, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” So she should have expected these remarks from resident NY alpha-female Hillary Clinton who lashed out at Ann Coulter for her "vicious, mean-spirited attack".

And then came the smackdown from Ann (via Drudge):

“Before criticizing others for being ‘mean’ to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey’s husband was committing suicide.”

OUCH!

(I would add his illegal release of classified information on Linda Tripp, his use and abuse of Monica Lewinsky in the Oral – er, Oval – Office, that flight attendant, oh – and then there’s THIS excellent summary.)

It's About Time!

2006-06-06T11:08:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Just as an FYI, I found this nice little factoid via Conservative News Service (from data provided by the Congressional Research Service) -- "From its modest $1 billion budget in 1966, the Medicaid program’s cost has rocketed. It now costs taxpayers approximately $300 billion a year."
--------------------------
Let's see.... Medicaid has been around for over 40 years, and they are finally getting around to ensuring that illegal immigrants cannot legally receive benefits. It may not be much, but it's a start. After all, it's estimated that here in Texas we spend around $100 million a year on Medicaid for illegal immigrants.

First, there was this article via AP: Medicaid Recipients Will Need Citizenship

"The requirement that beneficiaries provide proof of citizenship goes into effect July 1. It's designed to root out cases of illegal immigrants getting their health care paid for by the government."

By the way, did you catch that at the end? You know, where it said "paid for by the government" as if the government has its own little bank account that doesn't consist of taxes forcibly extracted from workers' wages? So don't worry -- it's not your money paying for these services -- it's the government's money!

The next day, the Houston Chronicle rounded up the usual "groups" who had this to say about it: Groups say change in Medicaid will do little

"The Bush administration's plan to make Medicaid applicants show proof of U.S. citizenship will have little impact on illegal immigrants because few of them apply for the low-income health benefit, Houston immigrant advocates said Monday."

Inside the article was this unintentionally amusing quip:

"However, advocates say that illegal immigrants have always been wary of applying for a government benefit that requires citizenship, especially when lying on the application is a federal offense that could lead to criminal prosecution and deportation. "

Yeah, because illegal immigrants are so concerned about upholding the integrity of our laws. And, plus, they are extra concerned because we are so ruthlessly efficient in our "criminal prosecution and deportation" of illegal immigrants.

The Bush Administration has fumbled this immigration issue since day one, but here's at least one thing they got right!

Just checking

2006-06-01T23:15:00.000-05:00

Did you do your first assignment of required reading?

I hope so, because here it comes...

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

It's just a sop to appease the social conservatives, but it signals the beginning of the fight for the integrity of our social fabric. Are you ready? There are no sidelines in this game. Everyone has to take a side...