Blogs For Victory

Bush’s approval ratings may not be desirable (though he would see significant improvements in his numbers by supporting more conservative immigration reform) but he’s still doing better than the Democrat-controlled Congress.

More trouble for indicted congressman William Jefferson…

Prosecutors have accused Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, of soliciting bribes in two suspected schemes that are separate from the bribery charges he already faces, according to a published report.

Prosecutors said no new charges would be filed because of the accusations revealed in the document, filed late Friday in Federal District Court in Alexandria and obtained by The Washington Post. But prosecutors planned to use the latest accusations during Mr. Jefferson’s trial as evidence of a pattern of wrongdoing.

The government says that in 2002, Mr. Jefferson asked a lobbyist for an American oil services company for payments of $10,000 a month for a family member. In exchange, Mr. Jefferson said he would help the company promote business in Africa. The lobbyist turned down the request, according to the document.

Mr. Jefferson later made a deal to urge the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to do business with an American rocket launching services and technology company, according to the filing. The company is accused of agreeing to pay Mr. Jefferson’s family business and a relative in exchange for his help.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Jefferson declined to comment.

And to think it wasn’t that long ago that Nancy Pelosi tried to put him on the Homeland Security Committee.

Last week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any “controversial” recess appointments. Roll Call reports that sources said “Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch.”

James Joyner of Outside The Beltway nailed it when he said:

One wonders why they’d do that, given how cooperative the Democrats have been in moving through Bush appointments…

Yes, it’s hard to comprehend how Reid can be serious about calling Bush a “bully” when Democrats have tried every tactic available to them to stall or block Bush’s nominations. Be it Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or John Bolton, Democrats have abused the filibuster to prevent or delay confirmation of highly qualified people, solely because they were conservative and nominated by Bush.

In other words, had Democrats respected the Constitution and given Bush’s nominees the up-or-down votes they were entitled to deserved, recess appointments wouldn’t be an issue.

Another interesting point by James Joyner:

Given that both parties have been in permanent campaign mode for the last fifteen years or so, the traditional checks and balances process has gone from a system to force compromise to one used to bludgeon the other side and score points. That’s led to both branches using extraordinary tools like recess appointments and filibusters on a routine basis which, in turn, ratchets the pressure up another several notches.

I would also add that this “campaign mode” has gotten worse since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential elections. Because of these two events, Democrats feel justified in abusing the filibuster, delaying funding for our troops, leaking the details of classified anti-terrorism programs, etc. etc.

Compromise won’t exist anymore because of the Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1993 by a 96-3 vote. Think any nominee by a Republican or a Democrat will ever be confirmed by such a margin again? Don’t count on it. Democrats have assured that bipartisanship is near death or already dead in Washington, D.C. Harry Reid’s threat to keep the Senate in session during Thanksgiving break is merely a symptom of a disease his party is largely responsible for.

In re: the “lady” who wore a trampy outfit on the plane and now is doing a Playboy spread:

It never ceases to amaze me how some ‘modern’ women choose to ‘celebrate’ their femininity – by posing nude in the pages of Playboy magazine in desperate attempts to extend their 15 minutes of fame. The latest dingbat to bare all is Kyla Ebbert, the gal who was asked back in July by a Southwest Airlines flight attendant to ‘adjust’ her revealing attire – or leave the plane. What’s the title of the pictorial spread? “Legs in the Air.”

Oh my. How original (eye roll)…

…Seriously, what is wrong with people today? And why the hell would her boyfriend support her decision to do this? Wouldn’t a boyfriend who truly loved his significant other put his foot down over something like this? And before any uber-fems start screaming, yes, I know ultimately it’s the woman’s choice but I can tell you right now if I had a b/f, and he came over to the house and announced, “Honey, I’m going to pose in Playgirl. What do you think?” he’d get an earful, and if, in the end, he decided he was still going to go through with it, it’d be time to say adios.

There are some things that you just don’t do, and sharing your body with the world – whether it’s through pictures or sleeping around – is one of those things. This has nothing to do with prudishness and everything to do with possessing a strong sense of propriety, not to mention self-respect. Your body is your temple, and should be reserved only for the person you intend to marry or are married to.

Does all this mean ST would support a ban on smut mags? Of course not. We, thankfully, live in a free society, the Constitutional rights of which I fully support. Not only that, just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean I want to see it done away with. I’m just expressing my opposition to women who, in my view, take their freedom to express themselves to extremes. Who was it that said with freedom comes responsibility?

Now, for anyone who wants to take a stab at the good Sister: keep in mind that she’s exceptionally smart and drop-dead gorgeous. As Winston Churchill once observed, you can’t snub a beautiful woman – the snub recoils, and the woman remains beautiful.

Anyways, Sister is right – one of the things I find exceptionally tiresome is the old-fashioned, worn out notion that we need sexual liberation in order to get things right in our world. That if we would just be more free and open about our sexuality, we’d all be happier..I can’t imagine how we can get more open about it than we are now, but I can say that nothing has become more boring over the past half century than sex. Clue: when you do a thing a lot and talk about it a lot, you’ll swiftly run up against the dregs of it…such as some nitwit of a gal parlaying her horrid fashion sense into a nude spread for a magazine catering to foolish boys and dirty old men (and anyone who isn’t creeped out by Hefner these days is just plain weird, in my view).

What would have been avant garde here is if the woman had learned how to dress and started a campaign to de-ho the fashion sense of young women (and before you get started; yes, we need a campaign to de-gangsta the fashion sense of young men). That would have taken some intellect and some moral courage – dropping her drawers is something a trained monkey could do.

Robert Novak reveals in his latest column:

Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

Could it be more damaging information that has yet to be revealed regarding Obama’s relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko? Perhaps it’s something else. Perhaps it’s just a bluff. Who knows? If such dirt does exist, and Hillary’s campaign is not doing anything with it right now, there’s no reason to believe such information won’t be leaked. In fact, if this report is true, I think it’s a no-brainer that it will be leaked shortly before the Iowa caucuses.

If Hillary is confident about her chances in Iowa, then it would be ideal not to use the information. However, Hillary clearly feels entitled to her party’s nomination, and indeed the presidency, so desperate situations require desperate measures.

If she’s got the dirt, it’ll come out shortly before the caucuses. If the polls show the race close in Iowa, you can bet she’ll use it if she’s got it. If she doesn’t use it, it never existed and was just a bluff.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: CNN making the Las Vegas debate into a pro-Clinton love-fest is garnering a lot of criticism, even on the left.

This is standing up for the Culture of Life in a very public manner:

Boston, Nov 15, 2007 (CNA).- The U.S. Bishops have issued their strongest condemnation yet of pro-abortion views with their “Faithful Citizenship” document issued yesterday. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston also has added his disapproval of pro-abortion candidates in comments to the Boston Globe saying that the support of Catholics for these politicians “borders on scandal”.

Cardinal O’Malley voiced a sentiment that the bishops’ latest citizenship document includes, namely that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

Noting that many Catholics traditionally support Democrats, O’Malley reamed the Democratic Party for being “extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues.”

When the cardinal was asked about the many voters who support Democrats who are in favor of abortion, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”

Abortion is the central moral issue of the modern world – on it hangs all of the associated issues we catagorise as “social issues” in our political debates. If abortion is ok, then so is euthansia; if abortion is ok, then so is same-sex marriage; if abortion is ok, then so is widespread pornography; if abortion is ok, then so is pre- and extra-marital sex; if abortion is ok, then its ok to lie if its for a ‘good cause’…on and on it goes, with abortion being the barometer of our moral disintegration. On the other side of the issue, how can someone in favor of abortion argue against the death penalty? Argue against the war? Argue in favor of open borders? You can be on firm moral ground, or you can be in favor of abortion – you can’t be both.

What the Bishops are addressing here is the way in which people try to keep things in separate boxes – Democrat A is ok because of his support of Issue A and Issue B, and we’ll just ignore his pro-abortion fanaticism. This can’t be done – if you are backing a man who advocates evil because he’ll also throw you a bone on your pet cause, then you are polluting your pet cause, and dishonoring yourself into the bargain. Might as well support a gangster if he’ll throw a donation to Greenpeace.

The reason we are in such a contentious political climate is because of this fundamental disagreement – a disagreement as fundamental as that between the pro- and anti-slavery forces of the 1850’s. There is no way to bridge this gap – you are either on the side of the angels, or on the side of the wicked when it comes to this crucial issue of abortion. Tap dancing around it might make a person feel better about themselves, but the issue remains – the division is still there, and will continue to poison the debate until the matter is permanently settled one way or the other. The US Bishops are calling it as it is – anyone who by act or omission permits the unfettered action of abortion is unworthy of support, and anyone who lends such a person support is engaging in scandalous behaviour. In order to support a candidate, there must first be something in them that will aid an end to the evils of our day, with abortion as the primary evil needing to be ended.

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.”