Sometime I wonder if Harry Reid has been auditioning for the part of Al Qaeda’s spokesman:

Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.

“We hear a lot of Republicans boasting … because of their unprecedented obstruction,” Reid said.

Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.

“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”

Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. Of course, his comments completely contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in Iraq.

I also can’t let this go without noting just how ridiculous Harry Reid sounds when he complains about Republican “obstruction.” Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He even threatened Bush with a potential filibuster if he did not nominate a “consensus” judge to replace Justice O’Connor following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The fact is, when Democrats were in the minority, they supported all sorts of obstruction, with so many of Bush’s highly qualified nominees never getting the vote the deserved. John Bolton was never given a vote when he was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N., even after his recess appointment expired, and his performance was praised by many, Democrats stood firm in their baseless, partisan obstruction.

And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side.

Robert Stacy McCain posts his reaction to Raw Story’s ridiculous claim that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was last year convicted of corruption and is now serving a 7-year federal sentence, was the victim a GOP-plot orchestrated by Karl Rove.

I think we should also have Raw Story look into whether or not Karl Rove planted the $90,000 bribe money in William Jefferson‘s freezer. Maybe they should also determine if Karl Rove was behind the shady land deal between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko.

And that’s not a good thing for her…

Forty percent of Americans say they would vote to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from winning the presidency, more than twice the total for their No. 2 “anti-” pick, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

In a new Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports survey, 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats said the candidate they most want to keep from the White House is Mrs. Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton is better known than any [other] presidential candidate on either side. She has a lot of people who love her and a lot of people who hate her,” said Scott Rasmussen, who conducted the poll.

Clearly, this is more of concern for Hillary and for Democrats if she makes it to the General Election… which I still suspect she will. However, if electability — or at least the perception of electability — is important to primary voters, Hillary may have a tough battle ahead of her to secure her party’s nomination.

Last week the Maine College Republicans relaunched their website which has “new media capabilities, original content, and user-friendly interactive features.” Let’s hope more College Republican groups follow suit.

According to FOX News contributor Bill Kristol, Senator Joe Lieberman is set to endorse John McCain for President.

Assuming this is true, there’s a lot to be said about this.

First, considering Joe Lieberman was once the Democratic nominee for Vice President, and also ran for president as a Democrat, this endorsement speaks volumes about not only the current slate of Democratic candidates for president, but also the Democratic Party.

No one can say that Lieberman is just getting back at the Democratic Party for not sticking behind him when he ran for reelection to the Senate, because he has still be caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate. So, despite the enormous insult he received from the Democratic Party, he still remains somewhat loyal to them. But clearly, this endorsement is a rejection of the Democratic Party being increasingly beholden to the radical anti-war MoveOn.org wing of the party.

But, clearly this isn’t just an endorsement of a Republican candidate, this is a rejection of the Democratic Party’s candidates and their defeatist views on the war on terror. If Lieberman thought any of the current Democratic nominees were capable of effectively leading the war on terror then he would endorse one of them.

This also brings up a the possibility that Lieberman could be willing to join the ticket of the Republican nominee, whether the nominee is McCain or not. That would be an interesting situation, and easily help the ticket appeal to independent voters and moderate Democrats.

Will it help McCain? I would say it helps him less in the primaries than it would in the general election, but it certainly doesn’t hurt him. It certainly makes him appear to be the candidate that can win over more independents and moderate voters, and if that is something important to primary voters it can certainly give him a boost.

It’s just too bad that if Lieberman is endorsing a Republican that he hasn’t made the switch to caucus with Republicans in the Senate. Most importantly, our troops would be getting the funds they need.

**UPDATE** We’re back in working order. Thanks for your patience.

We are currently experiencing some technical difficulties here. I hope we can get them solved soon… We’ll keep you posted.

UPDATE, 10:16 PM ET: Still working on the problem.

UPDATE, 2:02 AM ET: We really do apologise for this; if you are bored and still want to hammer us, you can go over to Hub Politics, Battle Born Politics or GOP Bloggers.

Now, this is a big endorsement for Romney.

Today, noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, “Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today’s endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court’s ruling legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’ His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time.”

Judge Bork continued, “Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.”

With judicial nominations being a big concern regarding who the next president is, getting Bork’s endorsement should help Romney in these crucial weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. The question is, will this eclipse the Tuttman/Tevares story? It might do just that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Huckabee camp will respond by bringing that up again.

On largely party lines, the Democrat-controlled House voted to outlaw using harsh interrogation methods against terrorists.

I’m sorry, but I can’t understand how they could vote in such a way… Five years ago, Democrats wanted to do whatever was necessary America. Now, as 9/11 has faded from their memories, they’ve decided that scoring short term political points with their extremist base is more important than winning the war on terror.

Oh, Democrats can say that using harsh interrogation techniques is torture, that it harms our efforts to fight terror, or that it puts Americans at risk by angering terrorists… but the only way it can anger terrorists is by exposing our interrogation techniques to the world, by, for instance leaking tapes of interrogations to the media — something that only enraged Democrats, clearly disappointed that they lost an opportunity to put our soldiers at risk by leaking those tapes before they were destroyed.

Clinton campaign advisor Bill Shaheen has resigned following his comments that Democrats should be worried about nominating Barack Obama because his illegal drug use during his youth could come back to haunt him in the general election.

But, really, should he have resigned? Was it such a bad thing for him to suggest that it could become a liability for the Democratic Party if they nominated Obama? Because, let’s face it, it would and should be.

Some on the left praise Barack Obama for being honest about his prior drug use, which included smoking marijuana and snorting cocaine, as if his honesty today make his past drug use okay.

If Democrats want to pretend that Obama can turn anything shady in his life or his record into a positive by being “honest” about it, then by all means they should continue thinking that…. Because no matter how you try to dress it up, past issues with drug and alcohol won’t help you in a general election. President Bush’s past problems with alcohol was not only seen as a liability from the left, but it was something they exploited and tied to endless jokes at Bush’s expense during his first run for president.

So, I believe Obama’s past drug use is fair game. But, I’d be more than happy to wait for the general election have that discussion.

UPDATE: Israpundit points out something else that speaks a lot about Obama’s character — and nothing good.

You know the Democrats are in trouble when the MSM has no choice but to report on it.

Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress

Democrats Bow to Bush’s Demands in House Spending Bill

Dems cave on spending

Surge’s success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq