Blogs For Victory

Not that we should have expected anything different from Oliver Stone, but his planned film “about” President Bush apparently has as much accuracy as a Michael Moore documentary:

Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.

“It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy,” said Robert Draper, author of “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush.” “Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run.”

Jacob Weisberg (“The Bush Tragedy”) was skeptical about Stone’s claim that he wants to make “a fair, true portrait” of Bush. “His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest,” Weisberg quipped.

[..]

In the script — then titled “Bush” — the president’s policy judgments are often manipulated by his White House staff, a depiction several of the biographers said did not ring true.

“The problem here is it goes to this notion of Bush as being the passive receiver of policy and the White House being run by (Dick) Cheney, (Donald) Rumsfeld, (Karl) Rove and others,” Draper said. “Bush’s adversaries have been ill-served by this belief that Bush is an observer to his own presidency. This notion that his schedule is driven by what’s on ESPN is ludicrous.”

This is just a sad attempt at liberal Hollywood trying to define Bush’s presidency with their usual lies, but I’m guessing that you won’t see Bush do to Oliver Stone what the Clintons did prior to the premier of “The Path To 9/11” back in 2006…

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries’ writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it’s crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”

Oliver Stone won’t define Bush’s legacy. History will. And history will look back favorably on Bush’s presidency, no matter how much Hollywood and the Democratic Party tries to distort it.

Details over at our McCain Blog…

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery charges, has been released from prison pending an appeal of his conviction. Siegelman contends that the investigation into his illegal actions was politically motivated. When you consider how many Republicans were brought down by the same Justice Department, it’s a rather ridiculous claim for him to make — but not an uncommon ploy of corrupt Democrats to deflect attention away from their own guilt.

What makes his claims even more ironic is the Democrats’ undeniable politically motivated crusade against corruption leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. As Mark and I documented in our book, Caucus of Corruption, Democrats ignored the rampant corruption in their own party while they simultaneously campaigned against a so-called “culture of corruption” in the Republican Party. Truth be told, the Justice Department under President Bush did more to put away corrupt Republicans than the Democratic Party has ever done to rid itself of its own corrupt members in its entire history.

So, really, it’s time for the Democratic Party to cut the crap. We can only clean up corruption if we go after all corrupt politicians, just the ones in your opposing party. No more excuses. Siegelman is guilty, and he should serve his time.

According to ABC News, Condi is courting the Republican VP slot:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.

“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.

“There’s this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders — about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”

Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.

My gut instinct is that there’s not much here. I don’t think you’ll see Condi on the ticket… but I would like to hear everyone thoughts on this.

Actually, we’re just anticipating the media bias vis a vis Benedict XVI’s upcoming visit:

With a papal visit less than two weeks away, American readers can anticipate a spate of “analysis” stories, assessing the health of US Catholicism and predicting the content of the Pope’s message to America. Be forewarned: most of this coverage will be grossly inaccurate.

Writing for National Review Online, George Weigel cites a tendentious Washington Post piece as the early favorite for what he calls the Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology. Weigel makes a strong case; the Post piece is definitely a contender. But there will be others, equally wrongheaded, before Pope Benedict’s visit is finished. The Boston Globe has not yet weighed in with its editorial opinion, and Father McBrien himself can never be counted out. This competition will be fierce.

The most popular theme for simplistic journalists is the contrast between the blithe spirit of American cafeteria Catholics and the inflexible dogma of the Roman Pontiff. (If you see the term “Panzerkardinal” in what purports to be a news story, you’re probably reading another entry in Weigel’s competition.) It’s easy to see the papal visit as a confrontation: the Vatican enforcer coming to town to bring order to American chaos.

We can expect the MSM to trot out the usual suspects – the Catholic theologian who stands athwart Catholic teaching; the pro-abortion Catholic; pro-female priest Catholic…heck, one of these days I’m sure we’ll come across the differently-abled, transgendered person of color Catholic (who wants to be a priest and nun, at the same time), just to make certain all bases are covered. The general line of these stories is to demonstrate that the Church is out of step with its membership and this is the reason why the Church in America shed so many members over the past few decades…such a line makes for, perhaps, a nifty narrative for an ignorant editor, but it doesn’t even touch upon the truth.

The Catholic Church is not, however, a democracy – truth cannot be decided by popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the MSM could demonstrate that every single Catholic in America is opposed to a particular item of Catholic doctrine – it wouldn’t change. Doctrine is something that comes from God and to determine just what shall be obligatory on believers is something only discovered after very careful – and, usually, very long – deliberation all up and down the line in the Catholic Church. You’ll never hear such phrases as “lightening fast” and “lickety split” applied to the way the Church considers matters of faith and morals. So, the crtitics will hammer away – female priests! Married priests! Birth control! Abortion! Such matters have been settled, and won’t be unsettled unless something extraordinary happens…and that thing won’t be the carping and complaining of certain people who really wish Truth could bend to their desires.

As for me, Ive decided that I’m going to keep track of “Panzerkardinal” during the Pope’s visit – for my own amusement (and for a future “What Media Bias?”), I want to see how many times it is used over the next month.

Charlton Heston died this evening at the age of 84. Heston’s family issued the following statement:

“To his loving friends, colleagues and fans, we appreciate your heartfelt prayers and support. Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played. Indeed, he committed himself to every role with passion, and pursued every cause with unmatched enthusiasm and integrity.

We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humor. He served these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity. He loved deeply, and he was deeply loved.

No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country. In his own words, “I have lived such a wonderful life! I’ve lived enough for two people.”

The Associated Press reports.

Air America host Randi Rhodes has in the past “joked” about assassinating President Bush, yet she’s only just now been suspended from Air America for insulting Hillary Clinton.

Jokes about assassinating the President are apparently acceptable to Air America, but insulting Hillary Clinton… that’s a real punishable offense…

UPDATE: More…

Hillary reportedly said to Bill Richardson that Barack Obama “cannot win,” but has since given a rather unconvincing denial that she ever made such a comment. Honestly, I don’t see why a denial is even necessary. Well, okay, that’s not entirely true. If Obama does get the nomination it wouldn’t look good at all if Hillary had made the comment. But let’s face it, the longer she and Obama campaign against each other, they both move further and further away from being electable.

And it’s not just the Democratic Party that is divided over the Hillary/Obama race… The liberal blogs are getting even more nasty than they usually are if you thought such a thing was possible.

Things aren’t looking any better for our friends on the left… The party is looking to Howard Dean to bring end to the primary stalemate.

I’m loving it. Hillary has repeatedly declared her intention to stick to it until the bitter end, and since this race is ultimately going to be decided by the so-called super-delegates, it’s going to get even nastier at the convention. I didn’t watch the Democratic National Convention back in 2004, but I think this year it will be worth tuning into. Hillary is now saying she’ll try convert Obama’s delegates.

Sit back and enjoy the chaos. They’re going to destroy each other.

All your, folks.

..since Hanoi Jane has endorsed him for President.

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery in June 1972 singing an anti-war song with soldiers during her visit to North Vietnam in the Vietnam war has just endorsed Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois for president

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress’s approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet.

[…]

Many people question the value of celebrity endorsements, whether they actually attract anything other than simply more publicity, not to mention votes. The imprimatur of Fonda, who’s been an antiwar activist for decades, certainly supports Obama’s antiwar credentials.

Less examined is whether some celebrity endorsements may actually cost a candidate votes. This could be one of those less desirable votes for part of the country, especially if Obama was hoping to attract some crossover Republicans if he’s the Democratic candidate come fall.

It’s hardly surprising that there was no fanfare over this endorsement. This is an endorsement that has the potential to really hurt Obama… especially if he ends up with his party’s nomination. That last thing Obama would need in the general election, when his opponent was a POW in Vietnam, is the woman who was taking pictures with North Vietnamese who were fighting against American troops.