I’m done blogging for the week, so I’ll see you on Monday. Have a great weekend.

I also wanted to say thanks again to Private Pigg who covered for my light blogging this week. I appreciate it, buddy. =)

Popularity: 3% [?]

Here’s the reason, folks:

A measure that would give veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan full four-year scholarships, dubbed a new G.I. Bill, also passed by a vote of 266-166, short of the two-thirds needed to override the promised veto by President Bush.

The added benefits would cost $52 billion over 10 years and would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Calling the new tax a “patriot premium,” Democrats argued that it was time for wealthy Americans to share in the sacrifice that troops are making in Iraq.

That, and then there’s this, from a comment at Redstate:

Nancy has to resubmit it. The original bill was split up for the purposes of letting the progressives “vote their conscience” on withdrawal, then edit it out in the reconciliation with the Senate version. Not going to happen, now; the bill failed.

Republicans don’t have a single problem — and SHOULDN’T have — with funding a new GI bill for the troops when they come home. Whatever they need, we should gladly give them, in my opinion. But we shouldn’t allow Democrats to hold these kinds of things hostage to their anti-war agenda.

They know that the legislation they want passed (i.e., the total cut-and-run package they’d like to have) can’t pass on its own, so they tack on stuff that Republicans would like to pass. And when Republicans stand up against the added stuff (the anti-war b.s., the earmarks, the tax increases, etc.), the Dems get all in a tizzy and start with their political posturing, asking why Republicans hate America or the troops and other silly nonsense (they learned that from reading the kook blogs on the left, btw).

I think we’ve well established who hates the troops and the military (it’s not the people on the right, in case you were wondering). Democrats have played politics with the war since the moment it started, and they have no intention of letting up.

Remember, they were for this war before they were against it:

Here’s another example of how they’re hijacking good legislation to further their agenda:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday added to an Iraq spending bill a controversial provision to help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, a move that may reopen the divisive immigration debate on the Senate floor.

The so-called Ag-Jobs amendment, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would create a process that allows undocumented workers to continue to work on farms. Without the amendment, Feinstein warned that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition, tens of thousands of farms would shut down and 80,000 workers would be transferred to Mexico. The bill would sunset in five years.

“Agriculture needs a consistent workforce,” Feinstein said. “Without it, they can’t plant, they can’t prune, they can’t pick and they can’t pack.

“This is an emergency situation,” she added.

The amendment was approved by a 17-12 vote with defections from both parties. Critics say the amendment amounts to amnesty for people who entered the country illegally. A broader comprehensive immigration overhaul, with a path for citizenship for the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, failed in a divisive Senate vote last year.

“No matter how one characterizes it, this enormous amendment still amounts to amnesty,” said Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). “I oppose amnesty. All these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order.”

Pretty hard to believe that Roberty Byrd is the voice of reason in the Senate, isn’t it?

Popularity: 4% [?]

He’ll never learn his lesson, will he?

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don’t often delve into conservative politics.

So he’s inviting all these lib bloggers to join in “the conversation.” I’ve told you this before, Johnny, but these people on the left are not your friends, and they never will be. You treat them as such, and they’ll screw you over every single chance they get. Like terrorists, you don’t talk to them, you defeat them.

There is an upside to this, though…it has some of the lefty bloggers at war with one another:

The strategy was in full swing yesterday when Mr. McCain invited non-conservative bloggers to join his regular blogger conference call, just hours after he delivered a major speech previewing his war strategy and other priorities for a first presidential term.

It already has started a war among liberal bloggers over how to react to Mr. McCain’s overture.

In answering the first question on the call, Mr. McCain said his likely Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, lacks the judgment to be commander in chief, which set him up for a bruising from the readers at TalkingPointsMemo.com, a liberal-leaning site that joined in the call.

Blogger Greg Sargent said it amounted to “what may be [Mr. McCain’s] most direct attack yet on Barack Obama’s national security credentials.” But commenters were split: Some took aim at Mr. McCain, some said they were thankful for the intelligence on “what the enemy is planning,” and others lashed out at Mr. Sargent, saying he should have been harsher in evaluating Mr. McCain’s attack.

“This IS a Democratic blog, and as such, it would seem to me that there SHOULD be SOME bias with regards to how YOU report of McCain’s craziness, as opposed to treating his ranting and attacks with a sort of dignity they and he DO NOT deserve,” wrote one emphasis-abundant reader.

First of all, if TPM is simply “liberal-leaning”, then I’m Joan Of Arc. It’s a flaming lib website, for heaven’s sake…there’s no “leaning” to it at all.

Second of all, if McCain’s idea here is to start a cyber-war among liberal bloggers, then I’d say that’s a good strategy, on a par with Operation Chaos. It gets these people worked up and fighting with each other, rather than devoting their time doing their usual activist b.s. (you know, like throwing pies at conservative speakers, slashing tires, and registering dead people to vote for Dem candidates).

If that’s McCain’s goal, then great. But I doubt it is. I think he’s thinking he’s dealing with the likes of the New York Times, who treated him somewhat kindly until he announced he was running for President. If he thinks, even for a second, that he’s going to get a fair and honest shake from liberal bloggers, well…he’s even more out of touch than I thought he was. And that’s saying a lot.

Update: I’m with Michelle. If McCain will take questions from lefty bloggers who are hostile towards him, why won’t he invite some of us righty bloggers who are hostile towards him, as well? I’ve been invited to do conference calls with several Republican Presidential candidates since this election season kicked off, but McCain’s people have “mysteriously” not chosen to invite me. I don’t have the readership of Malkin, not by a long shot (she has more readers in five minutes than I get all month), but I’m not a small-fry in the blogosphere, either (more like a junior cheeseburger, I think).

The money-quote from Malkin? This:

This is indeed an instructive example of how a McCain White House would run: He’ll talk to the far left. He’ll talk to “acceptable” conservatives. But the grass-roots Right? Immigration enforcement proponents? You’ll be as out of luck as you would be with Barack Obama in office.

Exactly.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Sorry for my light blogging this week, folks. I’m currently working the schedule from hell and it’s disrupted everything.

Anyway, here’s your open post for the day. It will remain at the top until around 2 pm (CST).

Popularity: 4% [?]

I’ll wait for the cacophony of liberal voices to ask for McCain to “denounce” this ad.

In a preview of the political onslaught Michelle Obama may face in the fall, the Tennessee Republican Party unveiled a Web video Thursday highlighting her comment that she was proud of America “for the first time in my adult life.”

The four-minute video coincides with a visit to the state by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s wife for a Democratic Party event Thursday evening.

It features several Tennesseans saying why they are proud of America while repeatedly cutting to Michelle Obama’s comments.

“The Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America. To further honor the occasion of Mrs. Obama’s visit, the Tennessee Republican Party has requested the playing of patriotic music by radio stations across the state,” said a statement on the party’s Web site that accompanied the video.

“While Mrs. Obama has trouble being proud of the country where she earned degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law School and then became a multimillionaire, her husband makes statements that belittle average Americans’ response to the difficulties of life.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of concentrating on winning the war and doing it as soon as possible, but I can’t help but feel like this claim by McCain was made in hopes of winning over moderate Democrats that are tired of the war. Usually, you see the primaries pulling candidates farther to the left or to the right (depending on which party it is), but McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, and he appears to be getting pulled to the left by the Democratic debates. Democrats are chirping about the war and Democratic candidates are vowing to pull the troops out “immediately” or “very soon” or whatever the language may be. So McCain, in response, vows that he will be done with the war by 2013 (not to be out-done by the Dems, I suppose).

As a conservative, however, I’m not looking for a timetable. I want to know we are going to fight for as long as it takes.

“By 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won,” Mr. McCain said. “Iraq,” he continued, “is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.”

Popularity: 5% [?]

Here’s a rule of thumb: don’t ever elect anyone from the Illinois / Chicago political machine to a high-powered federal office. Why? Because you don’t get to the top of the Illinois / Chicago political scene without paying to play.

In a speech to the Urban League last July, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., boasted of his efforts in 2001 to help a handful of African American-owned investment firms in Chicago get a larger share of business with Illinois state pension funds. “And in six months, they got about a half-billion dollars’ worth of business simply on their excellence,” Obama said.

What he did not say in his speech was that the owner of one of the investment firms, John Rogers of Ariel Capital, is a principal campaign fundraiser. Nor did he reveal that employees of the firms he helped have since contributed to or helped to raise more than $765,000 for his campaigns, according to campaign documents. Nor did he mention that two of the firms have allowed him to use their private jets. Nor did he mention that two of the firms have since been dismissed by the state pension fund for “underperformance.”

Ouch. No mincing of words there.

It’s just another example of Democratic corruption.

Popularity: 4% [?]

As you know by now, the California Supreme Court struck down two gay marriage laws:

The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

(snip)

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice George wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Obviously, the electorate in California disagrees, because one of these two laws was passed by a majority of the voters. Proposition 22, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”, was passed by 61.4%.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example of judicial activism, and why it’s important that we have solid conservative judges on the bench. Unable to get what they want at the ballot box or through the legislature, the left lobbies the courts to impose their will on the American people. And once a court has decided an issue, the only recourse is an amendment to the state constitution, which is no easy task.

And if you think that this is just something that will only happen at the state level, don’t bet on it. The agenda here is to eventually get the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on this issue, and they hope to get a liberal majority on the bench that will rule in their favor. Just as Roe v. Wade saddled the entire country with abortion, liberals hope that SCOTUS will saddle every state with gay marriage, whether the people in those states want it or not.

Isn’t it funny, I might add, that when liberals talk about a lot of things, they want the federal government to make the decision, but when they know they can’t get what they want (yet), they talk about how the states themselves should decide the matter?

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

The problem here is that the state of California DID decide the matter for itself, but people like Obama and Hillary Clinton don’t get that. When they say they want the states to decide for themselves, what they really mean is they want the state COURTS to decide the matter, the will of the people be damned.

Now, it may surprise a lot of people, but I, too, think the matter is best left at the state level. If the voters in a certain state want gay marriage, more power to them. Just don’t expect the rest of the country to follow along when they don’t agree with it.

The problem with that, though, is that a simple law passed by referendum in a state is not going to do the trick. It has to be an amendment to the state constitution, lest another activist court overturn the law, as they just did in California. And, just to be sure that SCOTUS doesn’t nullify those amendments sometime in the future, there should be one in the United States Constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Or, at the very least, there should be one that implicity says it’s a state matter and that the feds cannot interfere.

Take the federal government out of the picture and let the states decide, via amendments to their constitutions, and see what happens. Liberals already know what the result will be if that is allowed to go forth, and that’s why they are pushing this matter before the courts the way they are.

Popularity: 5% [?]

A pretty funny one-liner in there, too.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a “false political attack” with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.

The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush’s words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran’s leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.

In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, Bush said: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The part in bold is what actually caused me to crack a smile. It’s funny because it’s true. Whether it’s socialist domestic policies ala Jimmy Carter, or “direct diplomacy” with terrorists (also, interestingly enough, ala Jimmy Carter), liberals always think they can “re-do” things that have proven to be failures in the past - it’s the old “I can do it even though they couldn’t” mentality. I’m not sure if it is abstract stubbornness to the beliefs that they held dear as young radicals, or whether it is a simple misunderstanding of history.

But check out this response from Pelosi (Obama’s response was non-noteworthy in that it sounded the same as everything else the man says).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also responded during her weekly press conference, saying, “I think that what the president did in that regard was beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.”

“I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself with the president’s remarks,” she added.

Beneath the dignity of the President? That’s funny, considering that Ms. Pelosi didn’t think it was such a big deal that Clinton committed adultery (with a WH intern) and perjury while in the Oval Office.

And what exactly do we need to “disassociate” from - the President’s remark that we shouldn’t appease terrorists? Serious people should disassociate themselves from that concept? Or is she saying they should disassociate themselves from the President “eluding” to Obama’s and the Democrat’s desire to appease eveyone? Please. Prove to us that you don’t want to appease and disassociate yourself from Code Pinko, Sheehan and all the other whackjobs you have no problem “associating with” when you are pandering for the uber-left vote.

Oh, and let’s not forget Pelosi’s meeting with Assad, Syria’s brutal dictator. Apparently, serious people should associate with Assad, and disassociate themselves from our President (the one who didn’t commit perjury while in office, mind you).

And anyone who thinks we shouldn’t talk about terrorism while visiting Israel is insane. What else would you talk about? Is anything else more important to Israel and the region? Yeah, let’s go to Israel, celebrate their history (which has been uniquely marred by terrorism and terrorists (and world leaders) disavowing their right to exist), and talk about tax policy. Or just talk about all the good times during Israel’s existence and just ignore all the wars and skirmishes that have far more broadly defined the country and the region than all other issues combined.

Michelle has more about Obama “protesting” a litte too much at Bush’s remarks (I think McCain has found a soft spot).

Popularity: 8% [?]

I’m going to make this just a regular ol’ Open Post.

It will be up until 2 p.m. (CST).

Popularity: 7% [?]

Right. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, stung by a third election defeat in as many months, scrambled on Wednesday to regain the confidence of voters as well as some of their own members.

Gathered on the steps of the Capitol building, they showcased a package of largely old proposals to reach out to families, including ones to cut the rising price of gas, make health care more affordable and crack down on street gangs.

Talk is cheap.

The funny thing is that it really is not difficult to figure out why Republicans are losing elections - they are trying to beat Democrats at being Democrats. Guess what? You won’t win.

Enforce the immigration laws, win the war, cut taxes and cut spending. Republicans have spent like Democrats, have hemmed and hawed on the war, have supported amnesty, and have generally been Democrat Lite. Keep it up, and the losing streak will continue.

Popularity: 7% [?]

A) Because Edwards has been out of the spotlight and wants to feel special, again (I mean, what is a former one-term Senator and twice-rejected Presidential wannabe supposed to do with his time?).

or

B) He wants to make sure he is on the ticket or part of the cabinet (can’t wait until this moron is AG).

Oh,well.

Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party’s likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.

Popularity: 7% [?]

No word on whether Obama, whose supporters call “racism” at every turn, likewise regrets the tension.

Ridiculous.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she shouldn’t have suggested in a newspaper interview that Barack Obama was having trouble winning over “hardworking … white Americans.”

Told that a top black supporter, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., had called the remark “the dumbest thing you could have possibly said,” Clinton said “Well, he’s probably right.”

Political correctness at its best. The fact is, Obama can’t win over hard working white Americans, especially Democrats. It’s a fact. Hillary has overwhelmingly won the whites. If Obama had declared Hillary “can’t win the blacks,” he’d be right.

But the PC police don’t like you to speak the truth if it involves ethnicity or race. Just pretend that white Democrats aren’t voting for the white candidate or that black Democrats aren’t voting for the black candidate. Just ignore it.

Update: Matt Lauer on the Today Show just remarked that Edwards’ endorsement of Obama should help Obama among blue collar whites, “a group Obama has struggled with.” I’m sure Lauer regrets the racial tension he just created.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on people making more than a million dollars per year:

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.

Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders’ attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit.

“What we’re talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million,” said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. “So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. … They’re not going to miss it.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Democrats decide tax policy. “They won’t miss it.” That’s some good ol’ socialism there, Lou…

Popularity: 9% [?]

As expected, the Oliver Stone movie is turning out to be a huge joke:

A supposed chronicle of his presidency, every scene or shard of dialogue is theoretically - if not proven fact - within the realm of repeated rumor. No imaginary scenes off the deep end. Stone’s trying for legitimacy so he won’t get pilloried. Or audited.

Here’s Karl Rove making W. memorize answers, telling him, “Before you speak, come to me first. I’ll tell you what to say.” W. chiding late-arriving “Balloonfoot” Powell, saying military men should know about being on time. Rumsfeld, who’s hard of hearing. W. happy when Cheney laughs at his cowboy-delivered twang. Cheney stepping in cow poop at Crawford. W. eating his favorite White House bologna sandwich lunch.

In all presidential erudition, telling Gen. Tommy Franks to be sure what he’s doing: “I don’t want to fire no $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the a - -.” Then: “Americans don’t like to see dead boys on their television sets.” Telling education reformers: “Rarely is the question asked, ‘Is our children learning?’ ”

Page 10 on Bill Clinton: “My mother waddles faster than that larda - -.” Page 11: “We’ll move these terr’ists to Guantanemera.” Cheney: “Guantanamo.” Bush: “Right.” Then Bush to Cheney: “Vice, when we’re in meetings I want you to keep a lid on it. Keep your ego in check. Remember, I’m the president.”

In other words, this thing was written using rumor and things that “anonymous sources” (i.e., libtards with an axe to grind) have been repeating on the nutroots blogs for the last seven years. The raving moonbats on the left will fap to this movie, no doubt.

Too bad there isn’t a director/producer on the right who’d be willing to do a smear job honest movie on Bubba Clinton and see how the left likes it. They’d crap their pants in righteous outrage, wouldn’t they?

I’ve no problem with Hollywood making a movie about a politician, but for Heaven’s sake, do it honestly and stick with the facts. If they don’t, then they should expect the inevitable backlash from the paying public. Just ask the Dixie Chicks how that worked out for them.

Popularity: 9% [?]