Variety says:
Hollywood producer Peter Paul has sued former President Bill Clinton, and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, contending the former first couple got him in trouble with federal authorities by failing to report his $2 million in-kind contributions to her Senate campaign.
What I want to know is why Hillary isn’t being dragged to court on this.
Here’s yet another reason why Canada’s ‘open door’ policy is foolhardy at best. Interesting listening to the Hamilton and Toronto stations about all of this. The consensus seems to be that once the US falls, Canada is also in danger of attack.
I’ll say this point blank, and Terry Pearson take note: There are several smug, self rightious Canadians re-examining their position, about the Middle East, and the US’s actions there, this morning.
Mona Charen, as usual demonstrates she has a firm grasp on reality, unlike those she usually writes about.
Interesting write-up from Jimmy Walker, on Limbaugh / ESPN, this morning.
Money lines:
Here are a couple more stories that those attacking Rush would like you not to know about the role of racial politics and double standards in professional sports.
Kordell Stewart is a Black quarterback formerly with the Pittsburgh Steelers, and now with the Chicago Bears. After a few sub-par seasons the Steelers suggested that Stewart switch to either running back or wide receiver. Mr. Stewart refused. Fearing the team would be perceived as racist, the Steelers said nothing and did nothing.
Stewart was eventually beaten out for the job by a White quarterback.
Yet, Eric Crouch, a white quarterback from the University of Nebraska and a Heisman Trophy winner, was drafted into the NFL. His team asked him to be a wide receiver or defensive back. He said, “No” — and never played in the NFL, “opting” instead to retire at twenty-two.
Like the odor of a dead skunk, Affirmative Action has floated its way into the NFL.
Another masterful political move.
(Sound of tounge popping from cheek)
This move by Teddy Kennedy is totally inexcusable.
Brother Jack once intoned…
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. ….
…..To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—”
I can’t help but think of what ol’ Jack would think of his brother Ted’s actions on Iraq. I think he’d agree…
Ted Kennedy is dispicable beyond measure, and not deserving of the title of “Human” much less “Senator’.
Perhaps mentioning the two as brothers is no longer fitting. Consider Teddy’s voting record vs the words of Jack:
“And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
No…. I guess I’m convinced; There’s no way these two were related.
Side point; I wonder if this JFK quote won’t be invoked in the USSC/pledge case.
Money lines in the (Reuters) story:
The U.S. jobs market is showing signs of improvement and inflation remains low in the economy outside the energy sector, government reports on Thursday said.
The number of Americans filing an initial claim for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level since early February, the Labor Department said, a hopeful sign for job seekers.
Underlying inflation, stripping out volatile food and energy costs rose 0.1 percent in September, in line with expectations. Over the last 12 months, the core CPI has risen just 1.2 percent, the smallest increase since February 1966, the department said.
“By and large these numbers so far today show a strong economy,” said Pierre Ellis, senior international economist at Decision Economics.
First-time filings for state unemployment aid fell 4,000 last week to 384,000 from the previous week. The number was broadly in line with analysts’ expectations that claims would be 388,000.
Dead wrong on the economy, Dead wrong on Iraq. what will the Democrats run on, now?
Annie says, just today:
“There is a fundamental difference between taking any drug – legal, illegal, prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael Bloomberg – for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain. There is a difference morally and a difference legally:. (Link)
Remember back on October the Tenth I said:
“There’s a major difference between someone becoming addicted to a pain med incidental to said meds being prescribed for a genuine need, and someone doing it for ‘kicks’. The former is a victim. The latter is a criminal.”
(link)
I’m not bitching at all. I like the idea that we agree.
There’s been much said, even in this space, as regards how the position of the left has shifted as regards our actions in Iraq. I’ve devoted megabytes to the topic here, in the weekly BITs and in Usenet. Sullivan provides another example this morning, in the form of liberal apologist Maureen Dowd….
Here’s Maureen Dowd on March 9 of this year:
The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam. The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America’s primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats. And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a “statement of principles,” signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41’s realpolitik and shaping what would become 43’s pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,” with America extending its domain by challenging “regimes hostile to our interests and values.”
And on June 4, only three months later, we discover that
For the first time in history, Americans are searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over… Conservatives are busily offering a bouquet of new justifications for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq that was sold as self-defense against Saddam’s poised and thrumming weapons of mass destruction.”
So what was it? An incoherent set of multiple reasons or a single, crude one, i.e. self-defense against the “imminent” threat of WMDs? It doesn’t really matter to Dowd, of course. Whatever the Bush administration does, she will criticize it. When it offered many reasons, she lambasted it for incoherence.
…. while in the end, being incoherent herself. The fact is, (and I’m annoyed Sullivan missed this) it is the left that has been incoherent, and has shifted it’s position. The purpose of that shift is clear… to differentiate themselves from Mr Bush so as to regain their far left wing following. They got caught following Mr Bush because his actions were inherently correct.
Which of course would make liberals now, wrong…. not that you’ll get them to admit that now.
But all the signs are there… and the American people see them.
Kevin McCullough has isued a partial retraction on his comments on Ed Asner, posted in this spoace a couple days ago.
However, a lot of people are taking this with more weight than needs be, I think. There’s still the idea that there were other people who heard the same thing, and reported such in their own channels. I have to wonder if this retraction wasn’t issued because of pressure brought to bear on McCullough.
We’ll have to wait and see how this one falls out.
…. before we see the Cubbies get this close.
Geeeeezzzz… there’s that word again… not heard since Ultra-Leftist Mario Cuomo found himself on the losing end of a govenor’s race up here in NY, and was forced to carry Bill Clinton’s fetid water for him….. “Gravitas”. It’s interesting that when this word comes up, it’s used to reference people to whom by definition, it most certainly does NOT apply.
This time, it was uttered by John Kerry, defending his use of his being in Vietnam to gain votes…. against John…. I mean Howard, sorry….. Dean.
Dean’s camp has apparently discovered that Kerry is vulnerable for the reasons I already discussed in this space, where I noticed at the debate…
…how many times John Kerry reminded us all, (With a sanctimonious flair of his nostrils) that he’s served in Vietnam. One must needs ask the question; what the beep would this guy be running on, had he not done so? He’s clearly in trouble, and knows it. Will someone please explain to me how having served in what most Democrats regard as an illegal immoral and totally unjustified war against socialism, can score any points with said Democrats?
I have to wonder what Clark’s camp will respond; the uniform being all that Clark ever brought to the table, in the first place. He’d be wise, politically speaking to stand back and watch. Question is, will he?
Dean, who as I said at the time, is still supporting terrorists, apparently feels some rightious liberal discomfort about someone actually holding military service up as an example to he followed. Unless of couse, they’re fighting for Usama BinLaden.
I swear, all the Republicans are going to need to do is stand back and watch them bloody each other. THe woldcard,here is Hitlery.
Interesting bit by Jill Stewart today, as regards the actions and motivations, and frankly, the bias, in the recent elections in California.
Money lines:
“It was visceral, and he made it clear he wanted something bad on Schwarzenegger and he didn’t care what it was.”
[…]
“The air of unreality among people here was so extreme that when they did the office pool, of something like 113 people who put in a dollar to bet on the outcome of the recall and on who would be chosen governor, only 31 bet ‘yes’ on recall and ‘yes’ Schwarzenegger to win. All you had to do was read a poll to know how wrong that was, but inside this place only about 25 percent of the people could see the recall coming.”
[…]
“People inside here are far more detached from the new media reality. They are generally unaware that the Times is reviled by large numbers of Southern Californians.”
[…]
“The reporters probed everything they could think of about Schwarzenegger: his health, his businesses, his charities. They couldn’t find out anything horrible about his charities, but they tried very, very hard. His business empire made him look good—so the business empire story was buried in the paper. It ended up on something like, I don’t know, Page A36. And as these issues got abandoned because they produced no dirt on Arnold, as desired by Carroll, the team going after him got more and more focused on sex and steroids.”
[..]
“It was awful to watch Carroll. It became a Capt. Ahab and Moby Dick thing where they felt an increasing need to nail those points that could most hurt Schwarzenegger. At times, it made me physically uncomfortable to be in the newsroom.”
No leftist bias, my butt.
Three more dead on the Gaza strip.
When does the west learn that there are some people you simply do not negotiate with?
Michelle Malkin has an interesting column in TownHall this morning. Hers usually are, of course, but this one extends a discussion I’d started about liberals and racism…. their own, that is.
“On Oct. 12, Times editorial writer Adam Cohen penned a hit piece masquerading as a profile of Bobby Jindal, the remarkable Republican gubernatorial candidate in Louisiana. Cohen began by noting that while Jindal’s primary night victory celebration the previous weekend was attended by a diverse mix of whites and Indian-Americans, “there was scarcely a black reveler there.”
How many “black revelers” were in attendance at Democratic rival Kathleen Blanco’s election night gathering, Cohen did not see fit to print.
Cohen sneered at Jindal’s “almost freakishly impressive resume.” At 32, the GOP Rhodes Scholar has already turned around Louisiana’s bankrupt Medicaid program as secretary of the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals; raised graduation rates, retention and private donations as president of the University of Louisiana system; and served as a senior health policy adviser in the Bush administration.
If a young, minority Democrat candidate possessed such a striking record, Cohen almost assuredly would have described it as “extraordinary” or “prodigious.” But since the resume belongs to a conservative who happens to be pro-life, pro-school choice, pro-gun rights and pro-free market, “freakish” is what came to Cohen’s narrow mind.”
