About Me

Name: The Asylum Pundits
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

$75,000 In Cash, And Weapons Secrets: Sounds Like A Story With Legs

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:30:13 PM
 So where's the dead tree industry with this one? Allah's on it, and wastes no time in addressing the two key questions regarding this story:

A U.S. citizen of Ethiopian descent was arrested as he came into the U.S. on a flight from Amsterdam on Tuesday.

Sisayehiticha Dinssa was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents after he was flagged for secondary inspection on entry to the U.S. at the Detroit Airport and was found to be carrying more than $78,000 in cash. Customs officials became suspicious of Dinssa when a narcotics dog signaled the scent of drugs on the money in his possession.

Customs officers also discovered that Dinssa was in possession of a laptop computer for which he had no power source. During an initial look at the computer, "Inspectors discovered some files that had been downloaded with information about cyanide and nuclear materials," an affidavit from an ICE agent filed in the U.S. District Court in Detroit noted.

According to two senior U.S. government officials briefed on the matter, the files appear to be beyond what someone would normally download from the Internet. According to U.S. officials, Dinssa may have been researching the materials extensively.

Dinssa had claimed he was only carrying $18,000. It is undetermined if this is an alleged smuggling case or potentially something more sinister.

According to federal law enforcement sources, U.S. intelligence agencies and counterterrorism officials have been tasked to run down any leads on Dinssa in their databases. According to the court records, when questioned about the information on his laptop, Dinssa said that he was "interested in learning about cyanide and nuclear materials."

Um, yeah, I'd be a little suspicious myself if I found that on someone's laptop, and they didn't have a decent explanation for it. For example, Marcie and I do a ton of research on a variety of subjects, but that's to gain a working understanding of the subject. I take a serious and particular interest in US Spec-Ops (mostly because I wanted to be a SEAL; they don't take people who wear glasses or those who have arthritis as I do). Because of my desire, I have TONS of hard notes and computer files devoted to my study and research of Spec-Ops. For me, it's natural. Sure, authorities could question why I have the extensive files on the Spec-Ops community, but there's a logical explanation for it.

What's his? Just studying it for the fish? In this day and age, where our enemies are completely interested in such things, it sends up red flags when information like this is found in the possession of an average citizen. Especially when the government comes out and says that this isn't the normal, run-of-the-mill information available to the public. I remember a story about Tom Clancy. Clancy, as we all know, is a techno-thriller writer, and the sroy goes thast while writing the book "The Sum Of All Fears," his research into a nuclear weapons supposedly prompted some questions fromt he FBI. I believe that this was recounted in the Tom Clancy Companion (which I own but can't seem to find right now).

So mistakes do happen where we are suspicious of people who shouldn't have information that they do, but in a situation like this there's no reason not to be cautious. But this guy still has explaining to do. I hope he's got the answers, and I do hope that this guy isn't connected to our enemies.

And in closing, before anyone jumps on me, yes the story comes from ABC News, BUT that's not the dead tree industry. The dead tree industry, for those who couldn't figure it out, are the newspapers. This story broke on Tuesday, and I've yet to see anything from the dead tree guys. It's their job to report the news, and this definitely qualifies as such.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All The Republicans In Congress Are Not That Dense

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:42:38 PM
 Rep. Jim Ryun, who lost his seat to Democrat Nancy Boyda, has penned a piece for NRO today where he hits the Republicans with the cold, hard truth:

If one thing became clear on Nov. 7, it was that the Republican party lost its brand. Once the party of Reagan that believed in limited government and conservative values, those of us who lost became the poster children for what is wrong in Washington, D.C. We became tagged as the party of corruption. With the shameful activities of some of my former colleagues, we more than opened the door to those accusations. This was not a matter of perception becoming reality. It was reality. Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives in 1994 after Democrats were viewed as unethical. This year, we lost the majority for much the same reason.

When it came to fiscal restraint, Republicans abandoned core conservative principles — principles developed as part of the Reagan revolution and amplified by the Contract with America. Rather than reforming government, as we pledged to do, too many of our members were seduced by Washington. Even though the American public still supports the principles of limited government, they came to see the Republican party as what was wrong with Washington and no longer as part of the solution.

In the end, we Republicans lost our way. We betrayed our principles. We governed as the party of big government; we governed like Democrats. As a result, we not only lost the mantle of fiscal responsibility we willingly allowed Democrats to claim it. According to exit polling, Americans believe Democrats, and not Republicans, are the party of fiscal constraint. Judging by our agenda, I can understand that conclusion. Republicans passed the president’s prescription-drug bill, which is the largest entitlement expansion in nearly 40 years. We passed No Child Left Behind, which represents a significant federal intrusion into the traditionally locally controlled education system. I voted against both but my party passed them.

The bottom line of this election, though, is that conservatism has not been repudiated. It is alive and well. We Republicans lost touch with our base and our base responded in kind. That is why Republicans find themselves in the position they are in today. After so many election cycles where conservatives faithfully came to the polls to elect and reelect Republicans, on Election Day their message was, “We sent you to Washington to fulfill a promise and you didn't. It is time for someone else to give it a try.” Message received. And so we Republicans must recommit ourselves to the principles espoused by Reagan, the same principles that made our party great and can make it great again.

On Friday, House Republicans will elect its leadership for the 110th Congress. These votes are a critical first step to ensure that the party returns to its core values. While I will not have a vote in these elections, I have spoken to many of my colleagues and have urged them to vote for leaders who will again make us the party of Reagan. We need real change and that starts with new leadership. The country once again needs Republican leaders with a demonstrated commitment to limited government, fiscal responsibility, and conservative values. We do not need leaders who simply give lip service to those principles, as too many of our leaders have done recently. I hope that my colleagues will chose wisely and in doing so that our party, the party of Lincoln and the party of Reagan will once again be able to gain the trust of the American people.

His piece rings true, and sounds pretty familiar right now. Yes, our column addresses some of what he says, and much more. And whereas Sen. McCain prefers lip service the base--represented by conservatives like Rep, Ryun--would appreciate actions that show conservatism rather than words that evaporate into the wind and are forgotten by who spoke them.

Rep. Ryun is quite correct. It is time that the Republicans return to what put them in power in the first place. Moderation has its place within the party, but when it becomes the mainstay--virtually ignoring the conservative principles that we believe in--then it is time to change the song on the jukebox. We hope that the Republicans are paying attention to what their base is demanding. If not, then 2008 could be another bad year for them.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fun And Games For Senate Democrats

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:27:14 PM
 It's been a dog's age since we addressed any Judiciary business, and today seems just as good as any day to bring it up. John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff have some fun at Democrat expense with their continued obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. It seems they sent some people back to the president with a "no go" reply. The president has renominated them.

Dick Durbin's statement is picked up by John:

Senate Democrats emphasized the need for Republican cooperation. "We really need bipartisanship," said incoming Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who helped lead the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Now this is the mantra coming from the Democrats after the election. They're all pledging "bipartisanship" with Republicans. And while Durbin is hardly one to emphasize this (he is one of the key obstructionists in the Senate), at least we can say that they're trying to make an effort at playing nice. But Paul brings up Chuck Schumer's indignant attitude about having six of the returned nominees sent back to the Judiciary Committee:

“Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. “For the sake of the country, we hope that this is an aberration because the president feels he must placate his hard-right base rather than an indication of things to come.”

The president isn't placating anyone in his base. He's moving forward on his promise to nominate judges who will interpret the law through originalism. If that's "hard right" to Schumer (Duh! He's a Lefty) then so be it. But to the nation, they welcome such judges being appointed to a federal bench that has too many activist judges. But Paul also points to Ed Whelan at Bench Memos who observes the hypocrisy of the Democrats in a decisive fasion:

Not once, I am informed, did Senate Republicans ever deny President Clinton the courtesy of holding nominations over during an intrasession recess (or even an intersession recess within a Congress). President Bush’s action merely restores, as much as possible, the status quo that should be in effect. (In fact, some nominees who were already on the Senate floor now will have to go through committee referral again.)

If Democrats were really serious about being cooperative, they would stop playing these silly games—and stop falsely accusing the President of the very sort of conduct they’re engaged in.

The Democrats have been fighting this war ever since the president sent his first appointments to them. They don't like his choices because they don't believe in the activist attitude that others on the federal bench embrace. And it goes right in line with their tactics over the last decade, or so. Their agenda will NEVER be accepted by the majority of America, and they're pushing it through the courts. As long as they maintain activists on the bench, their agenda will go forward. (At least they hope so, but their most recent attempt to undermine the Constitutional authority of the federal government has pretty much failed. Judge Diggs-Taylor's purely uneduycated decision will be overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court.

The Democrats can preach this or get indignant at that, but it's not going to help the Democrats. The judges are going to continue coming down from the White House, whether anyone believes the president to be a lame duck or not. (Which he isn't really one. Democrats forget that they don't have a veto-proof majority.) Let them prattle on about whatever they choose, but it's not going to change the fact that they're going to go back to the old tyactics of obstructing the president's nominees.

In addition to this, Andrew at Confirm Them sporeads the word that Sen. Specter has decided that renominated judges won't get their up or down vote:

The Senate will be in session the rest of this week, and also for at least the first two weeks of December. Yet, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is reportedly refusing to report renominated circuit court nominees to the full Senate. He reportedy says, "It is obvious that they cannot move."

No, they can move, and should move, and it's his job to ensure that they do. This is the sort of attitude we were afraid would happen with him as Judiciary chairman. I'm not sure why he's decided to pull this sort of garbage, but someone had better yank him back into line before the majority changes hands in January. If not, then Bill Frist needs to move the nominees to the floor himself by calling for their votes. If he wants to redeem himself in the eyes of the base at all, and keep those slim hopes of a presidential run alive, he'd be smart to move in this direction.

And Andrew also takes note of the interview Hugh Hewitt had with Sen. McConnell (who should, and likely will be, the new minority leader in January) regarding the filibuster of judges:

HH: Right. Senator McConnell, today, the New York Observer quotes Chuck Schumer, your colleague from New York, as saying that judges are the most important. One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won't happen. How do you respond to that?

MM: Well, judges are important. And we've gotten two Supreme Court justices. Both of them we expect to be solid conservatives in this current Congress. In addition to that, in spite of the fact that we haven't gotten every single judge, the overall vacancy rate is 5.7%, which is lower than at any time in recent memory. The vacancy rate actually is the lowest it's been in the last 20 years. So we have been able to get a lot of judges on the bench, and we expect to have the same kind of cooperation from them, that has previously been extended when we had divided government. Let me just give you some statistics. In the last two years of the last three presidents, all of which were in divided government, the Senate has confirmed on average 92 judicial nominees, including 17 circuit court nominees. So the precedent in recent years, when you have divided government, in the last two years of an administration of both parties, is that you are able to confirm a significant number of judicial nominees, including circuit court nominees. We expect from them the same level of cooperation we extended to President Clinton. We decided he'd been elected president, and we were not entitled to deny him all of his judges. Elections do have consequences, and in the last two years of the Clinton administration, when we had 55 Republicans in the Senate, we still confirmed over 70 of his judicial nominees, including 15 circuit court nominees. Now a lot of conservatives would say why did you do that. Well, the reason we did it, he won the election. And President Bush won the election, and we expect the same level of cooperation from them, as we gave them under similar circumstances. If we don't get it, let me just confirm again, Hugh, that in the Senate, everything is related to everything else. The minority has a lot of power in the Senate. This is not the House of Representatives. Everything will be linked to everything else. And if they're looking for cooperation from us in moving legislation on the floor, which they will need to be able to do anything, it's going to be tied to fair treatment of the President's judicial nominees.

HH: Senator McConnell, what I would love to hear you or the minority whip, Lott, or someone in leadership say over and over again is that if obstruction is the rule of Senator Leahy's Judiciary Committee, especially as to Supreme Court justices, the next Democratic president, may it be decades away, but when the next Democratic president comes along, there will be payback.

MM: Well, sure. I mean, these precedents that are started in the Senate are almost never stopped. We were able to get the filibuster genie back in the bottle. As you know, Summer a year ago, we were able to get Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor and Priscilla Owen, who had become kind of poster children for the left, we got them all confirmed, not to mention two solid Supreme Court nominees. So I think we've pushed them back on the filibuster. Now the filibuster is considered something that would be done only on rare circumstances. It had become routine. So we'll see whether they honor the most recent precedent. If they don't, they're going to have a lot of problems moving anything on the floor.

That's what we want to hear ourt of the next leader of the Republicans in the Senate. No more ghames. No more obstruction. No more filibusters. There will be consequences if the Democrats go back to the same old song and dance. We're not going to screw around on this issue anymore. And if people like John McCain step up, and stick their nose into things where it doesn't belong, then they need to be taken out at the knees, and cut off from party support.

There is a time and a place for grandstanding. Judicial nominees, and other appointed people by the president, are neither. They get their hearings. They get their votes. End of story.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Deflating The Nuts: No Suit For Rummy

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:11:34 PM
 We paid less than no attention to this story when it broke last week, and mostly because no one was paying attention ot the details involved. Can we remember that dark day last week when news broke off of the Drudge Report that former Sec/Def Rumsfeld was looking at possible war crimes charges coming out of Germany? Allah does, and he has provided the screen captures from Drudge that day to make good ol' Matt eat his hat.

See, what Drudge didn't pick up on is that the Germans are the ones who would have to bring the charges against him. Apparently they're not going to do that. They've decided it's not a great idea. (Took 'em bloody long enough to debate this.) So the balloon the moonbats were hoping would keep getting bigger and bigger just got popped.

There will be no war crimes trial for former secretary Rumsfeld. Suck it up nutters, and chew on that. Again, the nutroots moonbats are denied their idea of justice. Of course this should be a learning experience for them. Just because you think a wrong has been committed doesn't mean that one's been committed.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

R.I.P. Mr. Friedman, And God-speed

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:55:14 PM
 Michelle and Allah tip us off to the passing of a great man. Milton Friedman passed away at the age of 94. From The Friedman Foundation:

INDIANAPOLIS—Today, upon news of the death of Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Milton Friedman, Gordon St. Angelo, president and CEO of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, offered the following statement:

America has lost a true visionary and advocate for human freedom. And I have lost a great friend.

Milton’s passion for freedom and liberty has influenced more lives than he ever could possibly know. His writings and ideas have transformed the minds of U.S. Presidents, world leaders, entrepreneurs and freshmen economic majors alike. The loss of his passion, incisive mind and dedication to freedom are all national treasures that we mourn for today.

Milton never chose to slow down; even at 94 he kept fighting to bring educational equality to all of America’s children. And it’s this vision, this drive for educational liberty that the Friedman Foundation will continue to bring to families throughout America.

His impact on my life over the last 33 years was significant. His impact on the world was momentous. Without a doubt, few people have done more to advance civil and economic liberties throughout the world during their lifetime than Dr. Milton Friedman.

The Nobel Prize winning economist will be greatly missed by many. He was greatly respected amongst many of his peers and associates, and was among one of the foremost, intelligent thinkers when it came to economics. But as Allah points out, not everyone is mourning the man's passing. Leave it to the Left to act childish about his death. I swear, these people impersonate their mascot--a jackass--more and more each day. Grow up already you nutters.

Publius II

UPDATE: On the day that Dr. Freidman dies, The Global Perspective observes another record day for the Dow, S & P, and Nasdaq. And it's also noted that the dead tree industry, and air-head talking heads have nothing to say about this, again. Sigh.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hypocrisy To The Rescue?

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:07:55 PM
 We have both been watching events unfold for the last couple of weeks regarding Congress, and we are not exactly heartened by some of the moves made by the GOP lately. Trent Lott as the minority whip in the Senate? Please. This man was driven from the leader's position after his comments regarding Strom Thurmond, and his failed presidential bid; a statement that praised the then-Dixiecrat's position at the time. Sen. Lott is one of the biggest supporters of pork-spending in Congress, and we were supposed to be moving away fro that. I guess the Republicans failed to note that point of disgust from the base.

In the House, we see John Boehner up for the minority leader position, and while we recognize that he did not exactly have time to initiate change for the party--a switch from spending like drunk sailors in a wh*re house--he is still connected to the past, ineffectual leadership that cost us the election. So honestly speaking, we would rather not see him in the leader position again.

But today, Captain Ed brings up a valid point that the base should be examining:

Where have all the conservatives gone in the Republican party?

So few are even noted anymore that unless you are actually looking for them, you will not find them. Moderates are pushed out by the party to do interviews, and engage the talking heads. Solid conservatism--the sort endorsed by past leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--is what needs to return to the party. The problem is that the ones who need to espouse the philosophy are not getting the airtime or print space from the dead tree industry. Or, as Captain Ed notes, the moderates are lying to the base:

"We departed rather tragically from our conservative principles," McCain lamented recently, offering his take on why the GOP fell from power in Congress. He urged a return to what he called the foundation of the Republican Party — restrained spending, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense and family values.

Fifteen months before the first 2008 presidential nominating contests, McCain is positioning himself as the Republican standard-bearer while President Bush takes on lame-duck status and dispirited party faithful search for a road to recovery. The election cycle was sobering, with GOP candidates losing at all levels of government.

The four-term Arizona senator will deliver back-to-back speeches Thursday to organizations considered conservative cornerstones of the Republican Party — the Federalist Society and GOPAC. He will discuss the current and future state of the GOP.

I do hope that Sen. McCain realizes that he is lumped in with those who have lost their conservative way in Congress. He, with Russ Feingold, wrote and got passed Campaign Finance Reform, which severely curtailed our freedom of speech. As a reminder for people that do not understand WHY so many activists and political strategists are unhappy with McCain's CFR, let me cite something for those confused:<

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That would be the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty self-explanatory, and even though McCain and his supporters believe that CFR was right, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, that is a gross misrepresentation of what that amendment states.

In addition to CFR, we would be remiss if we forgot that it was John McCain who put together the Gang of 14 in the Senate to challenge the president's power to appoint judges to the federal bench. Thomas and I hammered this point day after day when the Gang decided to act. The president nominates, the Judiciary Committee judges them acceptable or unacceptable; those that are accepted go to the floor for their constitutionally-mandated vote. Nowhere in Article I powers does it say that the Senate has a say in who is sent up. That is an Article II power--inherent to the president alone.

If John McCain thinks that he is a conservative, he is in for a seriously rude awakening. He has no hope of taking the nomination, and he has even less chance of convincing the public that he is a conservative. You just cannot do that when your actions of the past and present continue to countermand your own statements.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BREAKING NEWS: Pelosi Denied Her Choice

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:33:43 PM
 The Democrats have finally executed a sensible move since the election. This comes from Breitbart, and the proposed new speaker has suffered her first defeat--handed to her by her own party:

Democrats picked Rep. Steny Hoyer to be House majority leader on Thursday, spurning Rep. Nancy Pelosi's handpicked choice moments after unanimously backing her election as speaker when Congress convenes in January.

A Marylander and 25-year veteran of Congress, Hoyer defeated Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a vote of 149-86.

His election to the No. 2 job came just a short time after the Democratic caucus put Pelosi in line to become the first woman to be speaker, a position which is second in line of succession to the presidency. It marked a personal triumph for Hoyer.

Earlier, an ebullient Pelosi declared: "We made history and now we will make progress for the American people."

In remarks after being chosen for speaker, the Californian vowed that after 12 years in the minority, "we will not be dazzled by money and special interests." Pelosi also called for unity in the party, but within moments she put her prestige on the line by nominating Murtha.

Murtha, a Pennsylvanian, is a powerful lawmaker on defense matters, and he gained national prominence last year when he called an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

He and Pelosi have long been close, and when Pelosi issued a statement supporting Murtha on Sunday night, it raised the stakes in a leadership election within a party that is taking control of the House in January for the first time in a dozen years.

Pelosi and Hoyer have long had a difficult relationship. The two ran against each other in a leadership race several years ago. Pelosi won, but Hoyer rebounded more than a year later when he was elected the party's whip.

Hoyer, 67, is a veteran of 25 years in Congress.

His margin of victory reflected a pre-election strategy in which he showcased support from moderates, veteran lawmakers in line to become committee chairmen and more than half of the incoming freshman class _ the majority-makers whose victories on Election Day gave the party control of the House.

The intraparty battle had preoccupied Democrats, overshadowing Pelosi's promotion to speaker _ a position that is second in line of succession to the presidency.

Hoyer is who we were hoping would get the post. Not because we wouldn't like to see the fight that would occur, but because it sends a message that the Democrats WANT to moderate themselves. Those in the House understand that going hard left would cost them dearly in 2008. On top of that, as the story notes, Hoyer and Pelosi don't exactly get along too well. The question of whether or not Hoyer can get them to stay on track, and tack to the middle--where most of their base resides on the ideological scale--will be a chore. He has Conyers who wants hearings up the wazoo on the administration, Rangel talking about examining the tax cuts, and Pelosi talking about a national health care system, a minimum wage increase, and everyone else talking about bolting from Iraq.

He's got a lot of work to do, and hopefully this is the signal that America was waiting for. With so many conservative (read: moderate) Democrats that were elected last week coming into the House, a hard left agenda won't fly. They won't support it. In the end, that fight could tear the party apart, and those members would find themselves in the cold just as quickly as Joe Lieberman did.

Yesterday, the Republicans elected Trent Lott to the whip position in the Senate, and while we're not too happy with that (he did attack PorkBusters for their oversight on Congressional spending) he does know the rules and procedures quite well, and should compliment Mithc McConnell when he's elected the new minority leader in the Senate. The house election should be coming up within the next few days. Please, head over to NZ Bear's site and view the commentary, transcripts, and answers from those running for the positions in the House. Bloggers are vetting the snot out of these people, and believe me when I say they're not leaving a single stone unturned.

A quick up date on that election shows that Joe Barton has withdrawn from the race, leaving John Boehner and Mike Pence alone for the minority leader's spot. We're pulling for Mike Pence, and for the whiop's position, no one would be better than John Shadegg. The conference chair spot we're hoping will go to Marsha Blackburn.

In addition to the above, Allah over at Hot Air has some updates including these items:

How high were the stakes? The New York Observer’s Politicker blog posted this before the vote:

The damage could be significant if she loses. Forget the public relations angle - this is a woman who has had a remarkably strong hold on the Democratic Caucus, despite the best efforts of her foes (internal and external) to undermine her. But this looks very petty and very personal– a grudge being carried out against a man, Hoyer, who Pelosi simply doesn’t trust and doesn’t like. And that could weaken her support structure within the Democratic caucus, whose ranks she has now divided just days after their stunning win at the polls…

[I]f she does pull out a win for Murtha this morning, she will take the Speaker’s gavel with unparalleled and unquestioned power, the strongest Speaker the House has seen in years. And she’ll have delivered one final, lasting blow to Hoyer - the man she first met 40-something years ago, when they both interned for Maryland Senator Daniel Brewster.

That strength the Politicker blog was predicting had she gotten her way is gone. She will now face off against Hoyer when the agenda comes into question. In fact, Allah notes that Hoyer stated his opposition to Murtha's idiotic call for withdrawal almost a year ago in a WaPo story:

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi’s. “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility,” he said.

On the heels of the generals warning against such a move yesterday, it's obvious to see that the Democrats will have to work up a new strategy for Iraq. Possibly something like what the president is pushing now which is an increase of troop strength, and a literal push against the terrorists there. Personally, I think the president saw that this could prove to be fatal if he didn't do something other than giving in and letting the Democrats kill the mission in Iraq.

One thing's for certain--the sparks are about to fly in the House now that Seny Hoyer's the new majority leader. And I hope Speaker Pelosi realizes that she's in for a long, hard ride the next two years.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Set For Final Stages In Nuclear Program

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:02:09 AM
 Iran announced today that they are entering the final stages of their nuclear program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday Iran was about to take the "final step" in a nuclear program which the U.N. has called on it to curtail and which the West fears may be used to make atomic bombs.

Ahmadinejad did not say what the final step was, but he repeated comments he made this week that Iran would celebrate its "right to nuclear technology" by March, the end of the Iranian year, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Tehran, which says its nuclear aims are peaceful, faces possible sanctions for ignoring U.N. demands to halt sensitive atomic work, but there is no agreement at the U.N. Security Council on any penalties.

Analysts say this may be encouraging Iran in its defiant stance.

"The Iranian nation is about to take its final step in the nuclear issue," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He added that Iran would "resist until the end".

"I hope that by the end of the year we will be able to hold celebrations about the Iranian nation's right to nuclear technology," he said.

In comments carried by Iran's Mehr News Agency, the president said: "This path that Iran has chosen is irreversible and big powers should not make useless efforts to prevent the Iranian nation from moving forward."

Does this warm anyone's heart? Frankly speaking, I think its just about time that something serious was done ot Iran to halt their program. They aren't doing it willingly, and we know that in the end, their research is going to lead to nuclear weapons. That's what Mahmoud "I-Wanna-Jihad" Ahmadinejad wants. He wants the nukes so he can take out Israel. And speaking of Iranian and Israeli relations, YNET has a story about the Iranian papers, and how they're predicting a war with Israel.

Iranian newspapers Kehyan and and Resalat have urged Muslims around the world to prepare for a 'great war' to destroy the State of Israel.

The newspapers published the editorials, translated from Persian by MEMRI , the Middle East translation service, to mark 'Quds' day on October 20, an Iranian 'holiday' calling for the "liberation" of Jerusalem and war against Israel.

"Hizbullah destroyed at least half of Israel in the Lebanon war... Now only half the path (to its destruction) remains," an editorial in the conservative Keyhan newspaper declared.

"It was proven that, by means of an offensive operation that need not be equal to Israel's moves, it is possible to neutralize the Zionist navy," the article said triumphantly.

So, Iran is calling for the attack of Israel upon all of its soldiers and supporters, plus they're getting close to the end of their nuclear research. I really think its time we take measures that go beyond harsh language and empty threats. Isolation, at this point, can't be an option. If they obtain the ability to create a working nuclear warhead, Israel is going bye-bye, and so will any other nation who stands in Iran's way.

Now "I'm A Dinner Jacket" (as our editor likes to call him) isn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination. He's smart, cagey, and shrewd, and there's no way he'd play a game of international chicken with just one nuke. He'll have more in the wings when he launches his strike against Israel. He knows that if he brings only one to this fight, it may not be enough to take out Israel completely, and he can't retaliate if other nations jump in, and fire a few of theirs at Iran, including the US.

Also, Yaakov Lappin has a piece at YNET regarding the Iranian messiah. We've heard this song and dance before from Ahmadinejad. He's spoken about it often. But some thinking heads have gone over the information, and have a revelation for the world. The nukes have a purpose ...

"There is a link between Iran’s nuclear weapons program on one hand, and its ideology of trying to facilitate a cataclysmic event to hasten the return of the Mahdi. As a result, no conceivable positive or negative incentives will influence the leadership of the clerics and the revolutionary guards from acquiring nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons in order to facilitate the ideological precepts of the return of the Mahdi," said Tanter.

"The process of diplomacy as far as Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are concerned is to prevent sanctions that would constrain the nuclear weapons progress, and to that extent Iran has done well to drag out this process," he added.

Citing realist arguments that Iran needs nuclear weapons "to deter neighbors in a tough neighborhood," Tanter said such views were misguided. "These nuclear weapons are tied to the return of the Mahdi, and no one says this," he says.

An excerpt from 'What Makes Iran Tick' left no doubts over the authors view of Iran's intentions: "Just as it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting, so it is in the nature of the ayatollahs ruling Iran to establish an Islamic empire and destroy Israel."

It continued: "Toward these ends, the regime pursues nuclear weapons, subverts Iraq, and supplies money and arms to Islamist terrorist groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad… The deliberate initiation of war with Israel in July 2006 by Hizbullah, most probably at the direction of the Iranian regime, confirmed the worst fears about Ahmadinejad… a nuclear-armed Iran the single greatest security threat to the international community in general, and to the United States and Israel in particular."

Nuclear weapons in the hands of an extremist, commanding a regime that wants Israel and the West destroyed or subjugated. Kind of gives you pause when you think about it, and where the world's headed, huh?

We've dawdled long enough over Iran. Israel claims they could have a working plan to strike Iran within six months, but what if that's too late? The sand is pouring through the hourglass, and time is of the essence. The clock is ticking, and the world's keeping score here, and for the good guys, we're not doing too hot on this one. Further, the international community seems unwilling to address the threat of Iran; preferring instead to worry about climate change and global warming (which ought to send a clear message to the world how ineffective Kooky Uncle Kofi's leadership has been). I've got news for them. It'll get real warm real quick if Iran gets nukes. And as for their environmental platform, what sort of damage tdo they foresee from nuclear exchanges, hmm?

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breaking Down The Election: A Special Mid-Month Column

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:38:39 PM
Yes, we got a shot at a mid-month column from Thomas Lindaman rounding out our thoughts on what happened in the election. As with our regular column published on the first, Marcie and I both wrote this column in the usual way. Please, feel free to read it. If you like it, let Mr. Lindaman know, and let us know. Hell, even if you don't like it, let us know.

While you're there, drop by Mr. Lindaman's column discussing how he'd reform elections.

Read Vincent Fiore's piece regarding Harry Reid's ethics problems.

John Lillpop has a contrasting view of what happened int he elections.

Larry Simoneaux is chasing rainbows. So much so, my wife is whistling the tune from The Muppet Movie.

And Jim Kouri examines the new leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.

Please, we urge our readers to read these fine conservative viewpoints. They're available on the first and sixteenth of every month at Common Conservative.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quickie Political News

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:50:49 PM
 Just a quick post to report on the political news of the day.

John McCain has announced he will file paperwork to run for the presidency in 2008. (May I be sick now?) Joining him is Duncan Hunter, representative from California (Uh-huh; right), and Rudy Giuliani. Also, Hugh announced about five minutes ago that Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has also announced his intention to run for president.

Out of this lot, I give Rudy the best chances. The bloggers will wreck John McCain--on his Senate record alone--before the primaries even get going. Duncan Hunter, who has sefv ed in the House only at the federal level, has no shot. And no one knows Tommy Thompson unless you pay attention to the political landscape. And even then, he barely registers a blip on most pundits' radars.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Speaking With The Candidates

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:03:00 PM
 Dean Barnett, who is guest-blogging @ Hugh's site, has bewen among a handful of bloggers with far more time on their hands than we do, and they are vetting the candidates for the leadership positions of the Republicans in Congress. He has had two days filled with conference calls, and reflecting on the answers the candidates have given. He has not named anyone in either post (a wise move; his opinion will be noted prior to the House election), but he has asked a very important question of these candidates (he admits that he has only had the opportunity with three of them):

What books have you read about Islamic terrorism against America and the West?

Now to some this may seem like an irrelevant question, but to those of us who have been covering the war and our enemy, it is a serious question. Not nearly enough do the research involved with knowing our enemy, and what they want to do to the West. We cannot simply accept only one side of the argument. And for the dinosaur media, they rarely have someone that can speak intelligently about the goals of our enemy, how they work, how they think, etc., and it usually turns into a talking points interview. For those that disagree, take a look at how CAIR debates these experts.

People like Frank Gaffney, Mark Steyn, Robert Kaplan, Michael Yon, and Colonel Austin Bay call our enemy like they see them--in black and white with no PC terms involved. CAIR would have watchers, readers, and listeners believe that these men are "Islamophobic," and refer to their style of debate as a spewing of hate speech. That could not be further from the truth. But when organizations like CAIR control the flow of debate this way, the perception of our enemy is very one-sided.

CAIR has stated repeatedly that when terrorist attacks occur, the "moderate" Muslims are "shouting form the rooftops condemning the actions of the terrorists." Yet, as bloggers have noted--often and repeatedly--the silence from the majority of "moderate" Muslims is positively deafening. Mark Steyn, in his book America Alone, notes that there are cases where these moderates have been silenced through attacks from others within their own communities. It is no wonder why we do not hear more from them, but we agree with people like those listed above: Moderate Muslims are few and far between. That is not to say that there are not any, but their numbers are not as great as the Islamicists. And it shows by how quiet they stay.

To understand our enemy, one must go outside the mainstream. Robert Spencer has written two superbly written books on Islam and Mohammed. They are well researched, and gives novice scholars of Islam, i.e. the general public, an inside view of what the Islamicists believe, and are willing to do to win their global, centuries-old jihad.

Dean wants to know if these men and women (Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee's 7th is in the running for Republican Conference Chair position) have seen, read, or researched anything about our enemy that has not already been peddled by the dinosaur media. These people will obviously have more access to other intelligence resources, but there is only so much that they will see as unfiltered than an author quite familiar with our enemy.

To us here, this is important to know. If (and likely when) the Democrats execute a pull-out of Iraq, the war is not over. We are still, smack-dab, in the middle of it. And I would like to know what our leaders in Congress know about our enemy. More to the point, I would like to know they understand our enemy and their tactics. We see how Europe is handling the problem of Muslim immigration, and that is the last thing that we need to see occur over here. Through intimidation, veiled threats, and sometimes outright violence, Europe is being brow-beaten into submission by the Islamicists and their supporters over there. Bloggers have documented hundreds of accounts regarding the Muslims in Europe; the riots in France last year were covered extensively by the blogosphere.

The general public knows little of our enemy and their tactics. These are not "simple people." They are sublimely clever in the execution of their plots and plans. Through effective work behind the scenes, our intelligence assets and military asstes have helped stop terrorist attacks not only against us, but against Britain and Canada as well. They are sophisticated, as is evidenced by their financial manipulations and transfers. These people have utilized every facet of information resources, and have actively coordinated their efforts via the Internet.

I would like to know that these people wishing to be the leaders of our party in Congress know at least as much as we do. I would hope they know more. But the question is legitimate, and should be asked. I want to know what they are reading, if anything, about our enemy.

We all have our ideas on what these people should be like. Yes, fresh faces and articulate minds. A solid effort to recruit new candidates for our party representation in Congress. Fundraising for those candidates. Yes, yes, yes. But we are still at war, and as our elected representatives this should be the key item on their agenda daily. If we screw this up, innocent people are going to die here. It is that simple.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Shadegg On The Elections

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:33:08 AM
 John Shadegg is running for Minority Whip, and we have endorsed him for that position. Today, he's at National Review Online with a column that shows he understands why the GOP lost, and what it must do to get the majority back.

For months, voices inside and outside Washington had been warning Republicans in Congress to break away from our recent past or we would lose our majority. Last January when I was running for Majority Leader, I heard from long-time supporters that we had drifted away from our principles, particularly in the areas of fiscal responsibility and our promise to change the way Washington works. The drift had gone on for too long and the American people had finally had enough.

We made great strides in our early years in the majority — welfare reform, the first balanced budget in nearly 30 years, and a commitment to smaller government. Since then, we have more to be proud of — tax relief, a strong economy, and no terrorist attack on American soil in five years. But these accomplishments are not enough. We lost the people’s trust.

Now, we as Republicans are faced with a challenge. We must regain the trust of the American people or face being a minority party for a long time. We can regain their trust, but we must return to the ideals that swept us into the majority 12 years ago. The status quo is unacceptable. We heard voters’ message loud and clear. They want change in Washington and that means new leadership and a renewed and shared vision.

When we seized the majority, Republicans promised to deliver on two things; shrink the size and scope of the federal government and remove the ethical cloud over Washington by changing the way it operates. Initially, we made progress, enacted real reforms, and instilled fiscal discipline. In the years since, we have too often forgotten those promises.

Unfortunately, over time, things changed. Federal spending and government expansion increased at an alarming rate. More importantly, we became the party of secret backroom dealing that was sadly reminiscent of the scandal-plagued Democrat Congress we once railed against.

What happened to our promises? Huge government entitlements threaten to bankrupt the federal budget, earmarks exploded and often appeared corrupt and self-serving even if they weren’t, and the budget process has not been reformed. Still, some Republicans were surprised when some of the American people gave up on us and dealt us a decisive blow that quite frankly, could have been much worse.

Yet, in defeat there is a real opportunity for Republicans. We now have an opportunity to evaluate, unite, and change course. We must learn from the mistakes of the Democrats after their loss in 1994, and not spend the next 12 years in the minority. They kept the same leaders and not until they made the necessary changes eight years later did they begin to find a road toward success. If we want to return to the majority soon, we must take corrective action now. We cannot, as they did, count on the others side to make mistakes.

To be successful, our leaders must believe in the principles they are espousing. Paying lip service to reform and principle won’t be enough. The voters saw through it last week and they’ll see though it again. We need new ideas, a shared vision for real reform, and strong, principled, policy positions.

Being a part of the Revolutionary Class of ’94 instilled a sense of optimism and hope in me that still remains. We believed then that we could return our government to the people, and I still believe it now. The American people share the Republican vision for America, but now we must earn back their trust.

We need leaders with new ideas and new energy to reignite our efforts and reclaim our rightful place as the governing party of reform and individual empowerment. These principles will be the keys to our success. We will not regain the majority without them.

John Shadegg gets it. He understands what went wrong, and why. He knows that the GOP made a serious mistake in walking away from what put them in power, and he knows that if they don't make changes soon, they'll be the ones wandering the wilderness for years to come. 2008 is a seriously important year, and one in which we can retake the Congress. But we have to prove we deserve it. As John points out, America isn't going to accept having the woll pulled over it's eyes. They didn't buy it last Tuesday, and made that abundantly clear, and the nation shocked many Republicans by not returning them to power.

Tomorrow, Marcie and I have a special mid-month column at Common Conservative where we break down the election--what went wrong, what went right, and the hope that we have for the future. But that column reflects much of what Rep. Shadegg is saying here. Yes, the war was a serious, mitigating factor in the election, but it was the dawdling of the wayward "Republicrats" that cost the GOP its majority.

Rep. Shadegg's a smart guy. That's why we support him for Minority whipin the House. Mike Pence is a serious conservative in the House who also understands where the party went wrong. (And just in case there are people out there who bring up his pro-amnesty past, a recent interview with Laura Ingraham shows that he understands that such ideas must be left behind for a forward-thinking party.) And now we make an endorsement for minority whip. Lamar Alexander is squaring off in the Senate with Trent Lott. While Lott has paid the price for his comments during Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration, he hasn't paid the price for his own "Republicrat" ways. Sen. Lott is one of those senators who liked playing the games of the past few years, even to the point of attacking bloggers directly.

Sen. Lott was the one who came out swining against PorkBusters, if memory serves me correctly, when he stated he was sick of them constantly looking over everyone's shoulder. Guess what, senator? We wouldn;t have to if you were doing your job correctly. And it's exactly that sort of arrogance that turned a lot of Republicans off. Sen. Lott would be wise to remember that, and so would the rest of the minority in Congress. They need to listen to the reofrmers leading the charge, and pay attention to what their base is saying. The moment they ignore both, they're done like dinner.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Direct Answer

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:11:17 PM
 We just received an e-mail. I'll not give out the name (it was asked of us not to use the name) but I'll cite the e-mail--completely--and give an answer to this person. (I have censored the fould language so it can be published on Town Hall.) I'd also like to point out that we are not singling this person out for any particular reason other than the same old, tired argument that is thrown in our face everyday.

the asylum lolololololol

no kidding. you a**h*les belong there. you are all a bunch of rah-rah bushies that cant see sh*t through the clovers. and youre so dishonest in your opinions. you hype up the repugs like their a gift to the world when you cant even see that their just as stupid as your are. thats prolly why you suckers support them and the bushie in the white wh*re house. thats all you guys care about is keeping the people down with your nazi ways. you a**sh*les make me want to f*cking puke. it makes me so angry to see that a** still in a house of honor, like before your precisous reagan a**h*le, that i hope you a**h*les get your just rewards when we impeach his a** right out of the f*cking country.

Ahem. My apologies to our readers for the foul language. As I said, I was citing it, chapter and verse, as it was. The punctuation and spelling also were unchanged. But I'd like to address the bolded section above.

First off, for all those on the Left that come here, we don't hype up the Republicans or the president. We have gripes with them, and make them perfectly clear when we're in opposition. We haven't given the president a pass on everything. We called him on the carpet when it came to the UAE ports deal, Harriet Miers, and we have criticized some events in this war. We've been critical of the fact he isn't out talking to the American public more, that he takes punch oafter punch without firing back, at least on the odd occasion.

To personify us as "rah-rah bushies" is asinine. Yes, we are Republicnas. And yes, we are conservative. But we're intellectually honest in our opinions, and if ANYTHING changes that opinion, we acknowledge it and explain it. I'll remind our readers that Marcie and Sabrina were both in favor of Harriet Miers' nomination to the USSC, and it was me and me alone, that changed their minds when I showed them her record--an empty manila file folder. In other words, aside from the president's word, there was nothing to show that she would hold true to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. It took me two weeks to convince them of this, but I did. In the end, they posted here about their change in attitude. That is completely legit, and no one should have a problem with that.

Debate is, after all, an attempt to persuade others to see your point of view. I did that, and I'm not apologizing for it. Rarely do we disagree with one another here, and most of that comes from the debate the readers DON'T see that goes on behind the scenes.

When we have a problem with a Republican--be it an elected congressman, the president, or whomever--we make no attempt to hide our disdain when it's called for. Marcie was incensed over the members of the US military brought up on charges from the theater in Iraq, like Ilario Pantano, but she understands that the military has to have its investigations, as well. I love her so much for the emotion she brings here. It is passionate, intelligent, and a sight to behold in person, but in the end, logic takes over and understanding is achieved.

The goal of this site isn't to serve as a mouthpiece for the Republican party. And I'm sorry if readers have perceived that. There have been times (rare as they are) where we have praised not only outlets in the MSM, but elected Democrats, as well. But again, we do it when it's warranted, and as anyone who is a conservative can clearly see, it's not that often. We are honest in our assessments, our opinions, and our thinking. We don't sit idly by and drink the Kool-Aid. This is also one of the reasons why we don't listen to the biggies on talk radio. We like to be challenged to think, and no offense neither Rush or Sean provoke that anymore. We listen to the hosts on the Patriot Radio Network--Laura Ingraham (some of the time), Dennis Prager, Michael Medved (Marice likes him; I don't), and Hugh Hewitt. In addition, we occasionally catch Larry Elder, Mark Levin, and Jerry Doyle. That's it. Only thinkers.

We like to think. We like to debate. We relish in taking the opposition's side in a debate to see how we handle the subject. This is how we stay as sharp as we are. And we don't shirk away from doing research regarding a person, place, or issue. When we post, we post the most relevant, up-to-date information we have in hand. Critiquing our work is one thing (which also fills up our e-mail box with suggestions on what we forgot to add in relevant posts), but to slap us with a wide, general label is uncalled for.

And those who believe that we are nothing more than Republican shills, you obviously haven't read much of us. Go back through our archives and read some of our past work. Also, you can still go to my old site, and Marcie's old site to read our previous endeavors before we joined forces at The Asylum. Go to the old sites and read up. We pride ourselves on being intellectually honest when it comes to debate. And many of those we engage int he chatrooms praise us for being honest when so many are unwilling to do that.

So, while we recognize this criticism, these critics now have their answer. We don't support the president 100%. We support him a majority of the time on certain subjects. But his immigration plan was a disaster, and we called him on it. His choice for a USSC justice was disgusting, and we called him on it. Don't generalize this site. We're not that way.

Finally, we appreciate all the e-mails we receive. It shows us that we are connecting with people out there, and that we're not just doing this for our health. If ANYONE wants to contact us (and you don't already know this) we welcome all e-mails at AsylumPundits@aol.com (which that e-mail address is found on the left side of the screen). Just put who you're addressing the e-mail to--Thomas, Marcie, or Sabrina, and preferably in regard to the respective post--and it will be read. Don't send us spam garbage. They go right to the spam folder and are deleted each day. Please, keep the critiques coming. Foul language in an e-mail we can handle. In a comment, we won't tolerate it. We'll close the comments on a post if we see foul language there. We do, after all, cater to ALL age ranges, and I'd rather not have the commenters see that. We try to be as professional as possible here, and we censor ourselves here for a reason. Foul language may reinforce an emotional response to an issue, but it adds little to the overall debate.

And that's no more evident than in the e-mail above, which fails to make a single, relevant argument. To our readers, I'm sorry that I stood up on a soapbox today, but I was simply in no mood to deal with e-mails that address us this way. I do hope I clarified our position to the e-mailer, and to our readers.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Endorsement For Change

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:04:48 PM
 Since last week, Thomas and I have been going over the possible candidates for the House leadership of the Republican party. And while our list quickly went out the window, it did not go without at least one person from that list making a move to position himself for the new position. That would be Mike Pence. A stalwart conservative who is not one to back down in the face of Democrat aggression, Mr. Pence would serve the party responsibly, and (hopefully) make a return to conservative principles possible.

The other key name on our list who decided to opt out of the leadership race is John Shadegg from our home state of Arizona. While he is not running for the leader position, he is challenging Roy Blunt for the whip position. The Asylum joins with Captain's Quarters, Red State, Right Wing News, and the vast majority of the center-right blogosphere in endorsing both Mike Pence and John Shadegg for their respective positions.

It is, without argument, necessary that a change is needed in the GOP leadership within the House. Not only must they rein in their wayward practices (lack of control on spending, lack of reform regarding lobbyists and earmarks, lack of action on immigration reform, etc.), but this is game time.

They must dig in their heels, and hold the Democrats fast. The only way that they have a chance in regaining the trust of the American public is to hold true to their conservative ideals, and prevent the Democrats from pushing an inherently liberal agenda right down the taxpayer's throats. And for those who do not believe that the Democrats would be that stupid, think again.

Remember Nancy Pelosi's 100 hours pledge. That involves a raise in the minimum wage, a push for national health care, and a "reexamination" of the president's tax cuts. No offense, ladies and gentlemen, but if you all thought that the Republicans had a problem with overspending, you have not seen anything yet.

The current leadership, which includes Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Roy Blunt dropped the ball during their tenure. And I know a lot of people do not believe that it is proper to blame Rep. Boehner, as he was elected only earlier this year upon Tom DeLay's departure, we counter back with this: While he was majority leader he did notthing to curtail the Republican party's nearly incestuous relationship with lobbyists and pork spending. So yes, we hold him as culpable as Dennis Hastert; a fact that Rep. Hastert understood when he opted out of the leader race.

Changes are needed. We cannot say this enough. And with Mel Martinez now the head of the RNC, House and Senate Republicans will have their work cut out for them to regain the trust of America. Starting out on two left feet--Martinez in the RNC, and a return to the past leadership--is no way to accomplish the overall task of regaining both Houses in 2008.

So, call your representives at 202-225-3121 and tell them to vote in favor of Mike Pence and John Shadegg. Leadership starts at the top, and both of these men are definitely on top of their game.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Party Divided Cannot Stand: Infighting Amongst The Democrats

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:28:11 AM
 Yes, Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cannot control her kids. But this is due, in no small part, to her idiocy in stabbing Steny Hoyer in the back, and endorsing John Murtha for Majority Leader. But it is that decision that has Charlie Rangel incensed, and unwilling to cooperate with Pelosi:

The battle between Rep. John Murtha and Rep. Steny Hoyer for the no. 2 leadership spot in the House of Representatives is dividing the New York City delegation to Congress.

Although Mr. Murtha led a charge against the war in Iraq, which contributed to the Democrats' taking both the House and the Senate, many Democratic representatives in New York, including some who co-sponsored his troop redeployment resolution in 2005, are backing the Pennsylvania congressman's rival, Mr. Hoyer, to become House majority leader. The Democrats will decide the matter in a closed-door vote Thursday.

Some of Mr. Hoyer's backers in New York are asking why the likely new speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, has endorsed Mr. Murtha rather than the Maryland congressman, who is the minority whip and the second-ranking Democrat.

Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem, who called Mr. Murtha "a friend" and received support from him in 2004 in his push for the reinstitution of a military draft, said yesterday that Mr. Murtha would make a good majority leader. But Mr. Rangel is going to vote for Mr. Hoyer.

"My kind of politics is, if you do your job, you are supposed to be rewarded," Mr. Rangel, who was one of 105 co-sponsors of Mr. Murtha's resolution to redeploy American troops in the Middle East in 2005, said. "I think Steny has done his job. I cannot think of any reason why this is happening."

Despite the fact that Thomas and I differ with the Democrats when it comes to ideology, and the fact that we disagree with Charles Rangel 99% of the time, Rep. Rangel is spot-on correct here. (No, pigs are not flying around our house right now.) Steny Hoyer has been a loyal soldier for the Democrats for a long time, and Ms. Pelosi's choice was not only follhardy, but it drove a wedge into the party.

Furthermore, not only is Jack Murtha one of the biggest pork-barrel spenders in Congress, he was alos under investigation in 1980 in the Abscam bribe scandal. He is hardly the right choice for House Majority Leader. In addition, he displays no talent for being able to handle the party properly in the House. No experience from his service record is going to help him with his job, and the rift caused by Nancy Pelosi is only going to make his job harder.

Maybe Mr. Hoyer is far too moderate for Ms. Pelosi's tastes. But she would be remiss in backing Murtha over Hoyer; the party's base has already sent a clear and resounding message that they do not like nuts. Ned Lamont lost to Joe Lieberman in a landslide. Their base would prefer a more moderate approach to politics rather than the extreme liberal fringe that has reared its ugly head in recent years.

To add more fuel to her funeral pyre, she has not done a good job in uniting the Democrats behind her. The Congressional Black Caucus, as Captain Ed notes, is extremely disappointed with her backing of Murtha over Hoyer--a fact made clear from Mr. Rangel's and Rep. Maxine Waters' dismissal of Murtha as Majority Leader.

The rift is growing within the House Democrats, and she is to blame. Rather than acting as a uniter, and weighing each leadership position carefully, she is acting like a bull in a china shop. Her decisions seem more like a parent punishing children for the occasional misstep rather than a leader looking to promote the best people for the right jobs. As I noted yesterday, Ms. Pelosi is dumping Jane Harman from the House Intelligence Committee, which clears the way for Rep. Alcee Hastings to take the post. We will recall that Rep. Hastings is an impeached judge--one removed due to his corruption and bribe taking.

Rep. Pelosi can brag all she wants about the Democrats, and she can deny her straight liberal side if she wants. But her actions are speaking much louder than words. Again, instead of appointing moderates who will resonate with the nation, she has opted to shift the Democrat House leadership more to the left rather than the middle. Her choices also signal that bipartisan cooperation is officially dead. She is going to try to play the big boys game in the House, and it is going to backfire badly. In closing, Ms. Pelosi should remember that she does not have the power she thinks she does. The president still has a veto pen, and her majority is not big enough to overcome a presidential veto.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »