Isn’t an interesting coincidence that after Hillary bashed Tim Russert (for beating up on her in the Philly debate) and warned Wolf Blitzer (to keep it easy on her at the Vegas debate) that not only did Blitzer go easy on her, but Hillary is also praising Blitzer’s performance. Via Drudge we get this quote from Hillary, “[Blitzer] was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided the personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far. Voters were the big winners last night.”

Voters were the big winners because Hillary avoided being asked tough questions?

If Hillary is too scared to go on Fox News or answer tough questions, how can she be trusted to handle fighting the war on terrorism, or anything else for that matter?

Democrats are so tough that they’re calling President Bush a “bully.”

Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.

“He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check,” Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ Senate leader, told reporters. “Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House.”

Meanwhile as Democrats cry to their mommies about Bush being a bully, they’re denying much needed funds for our troops.

Now it is being reported that Harry Reid is keeping the Senate in session in order to prevent recess appointments. So, Reid whines about so-called “bullying” from Bush, and then pulls his own stunt, which could easily be described a bullying tactic. And Democrats blame Republicans for the partisanship that plagues Congress. If there are positions that need to be filled, but no specifics names being floated for one position or another, then there is no justification for such a move. If Harry Reid wants to set the precedent that the opposing party of the president will block every and any action he tries to make, then Democrat will one day have to lay in the bed they’ve made.

Democrats have already abused the filibuster, how else are they going disrespect the Constitution?

My earlier post on the Democrats’ war on science sparked some interesting debate on the three issues I highlighted where Democrats ignore science in favor of ideology.

Well, here’s the latest contribution to the argument over the alleged “consensus” in the scientific community over global warming:

A new survey of American members of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested.

DemandDebate.com, a Web site skeptical of global warming “alarmism” that advocates more debate on the topic, released the results of its poll on Nov. 8. The group attempted to survey the 345 American scientists affiliated with the IPCC.

And yes, the survey size was small, but that’s hardly reason to dismiss the data:

While the survey’s size was small, Milloy said, “I certainly think that it’s large enough to indicate that the IPCC members really ought to be probed as to what they think.”

There’s also another interesting nugget of information worth mentioning here.

The issue over global warming sparked a typical debate of the the legitimacy of sources. Naturally, liberals think any source cited by a conservative is flawed, while theirs is treated gospel. Of course, the IPCC’s latest report was cited as ironclad evidence of global warming’s existence and that it is man-made. However, the results of the aforementioned survey clearly challenge the claim of global warming alarmists that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. The story also made this interesting point:

The 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, published in three sections by three separate working groups, is written by selected IPCC members. Some members who have criticized the reports complain that their objections to some of its claims are ignored.

“There’s reason to ask these people more questions,” Milloy said. “I don’t think the debate is over. Al Gore is rushing to close the debate because the more data we get … the flimsier the science gets.”

There have been plenty of rebuttals to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but these criticisms are coming from scientists associated with the IPCC. If liberals want to play the sources game, then they have to give equal scrutiny and even skepticism of the sources they cite too.

Is there hope for the Democratic Party yet? Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), while on the House floor yesterday demanding his party not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

During his speech he said, “Progress is being made. Do not let anyone today say it is not. Violence is down. Political leaders are reaching out across the aisle. Shias are meeting with Sunnis. Sunnis are meeting with Shias. They need more time to succeed, and an insecure situation will undermine the progress, not further it.”

We’ve all heard Barack Obama talk about how evil lobbyists are, but I guess some lobbyists are more evil than others.

Democrat Barack Obama opposes a bill that would change the nation’s 135-year-old mining law – the same stance as mining industry executives who employ a Nevada-based lobbyist advising the presidential candidate.

The Obama campaign and Billy Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, contend there is no connection, saying they have never discussed Obama’s position on the mining bill.

Sure.

Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, is a member of Obama’s Nevada steering committee and has contributed $2,300 to his campaign. He is a lobbyist for the Nevada Mining Association at the state level and the chief executive of the advertising and lobbying firm hired by two mining companies to lobby for them in Washington.

Denver-based Newmont Mining Co., one of the world’s largest gold producers, hired Las Vegas-based R&R Partners’ Washington, D.C. office in January. The firm has represented silver and gold miner Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp. (CDE), in Washington since 2006.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Vassiliadis has advised the campaign only on politics, never policy.

“I have not had a single conversation, not one, with anybody in the Obama campaign about mining,” Vassiliadis said.

You can always trust the word of a lobbyist right? This is getting ridiculous. Between faux-transparency and changing his position on Iraq depending on the political climate, and now this interesting little lobbyist connection he has, how can anyone believe a word he says?

There’s been a lot of talk about Hillary’s records from her days as First Lady, but I wonder how much attention is going to be given to this:

Barack Obama, who’s been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can’t step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate. He says he hasn’t got any.

“I don’t have — I don’t maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn’t have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records,” he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn’t sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, “It could have been thrown out. I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

That’s just too hard to swallow. No records? Eight years in the state senate and we’re supposed to believe there’s nothing he can show?

Now, Obama has based his campaign on him being an outsider, and fixing government, and he’s even made an issue specifically about government transparency. Obama has even suggested that Americans would trust government more if government was made more transparent.

So, since Obama can’t be more transparent, since his records apparently no longer exist, I guess we cannot trust him.

It’s also worth noting that Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, ran on a pledge of openness and transparency, and has since had what could very well be the most secretive governorship in Massachusetts history.

…before some leftist blog/website to accuse us of “ditching Bush.” So congratulations to Think Progress for being as ignorant as it is predictable.

So, let’s set the record straight. Changing from Blogs For Bush to Blogs For Victory is merely a change in branding. We absolutely support President Bush. The morons at Think Progress can tell themselves all they want that we have “ditched Bush,” but nothing could be further from the truth. But, since when has the Left ever been concerned with the truth?

They can go ahead and keep an eye on our blogging here for as long as they want.. They’ll discover that we have not “ditched Bush.”

So, the plan that caused Hillary to fumble during her disastrous debate performance is now dead.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Wednesday dropped a controversial plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants because of overwhelming opposition to the policy.

“I’ve concluded that New York state cannot conduct this program on its own,” Spitzer said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic.”

Spitzer’s plan sparked a national debate over the extension of certain privileges to illegal immigrants and haunted Democratic presidential front-runner New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.

I bet Hillary is wishing this had happened a month earlier.

According to an independent study by CRA International:

Energy legislation pending in Congress likely would have significant adverse effects on the economy and consumers – including nearly 5 million lost jobs and $1 trillion in lost economic output, according to a report released today by API.

The study, prepared by CRA International and commissioned by API, found that the combined effect of seven legislative proposals would restrict the supply of energy available to the U.S. economy and would likely increase the cost of energy supplies to consumers and businesses.

“This legislation would put consumers in a squeeze,” said W. David Montgomery, a vice president and co-head of CRA’s energy and environmental practice. John Felmy, API’s chief economist, said: “This study points out the folly of energy legislation based on taxing the oil industry and raising the cost of energy to consumers.”

Higher energy costs likely would reduce total consumption, employment, investment and economic output, the study found. In addition, the study also found that by 2030: Economic output likely would decline 4 percent, or more than $1 trillion; non-farm job losses caused by higher energy costs likely would result in nearly 5 million lost jobs, and households likely would suffer about a $1,700 reduction in real income.

API is the industry’s national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. CRA is a worldwide leader in providing economic, financial and management consulting services.

A PDF of the Proposed Energy Bill Study Report is available here.

Suitably Flip takes note of how Barack Obama’s position on Iraq has changed over the past few years, and what his explanation for that change is.