Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Dana over at Common Sense Political Thought pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democrats:
"Our friends on the far left have been disappointed by the results of the filibuster against the confirmation of (I can write it now) Justice Samuel Alito.
You know, if they had stood a chance of actually blocking the confirmation of Justice Alito, it might have made sense. But with a nominee as strong as Mr. Alito, exceptionally qualified both personally and professionally, and the Republicans controlling a substantial majority of seats in the Senate, and the nuclear option lurking in the background, and a strong performance by the nominee in the committee hearings, the Democrats really didn't have a chance."
Monday, January 30, 2006
The U.S. Senate on Monday voted 72-25 to end debate on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Democrats opposed to Alito's nomination were unable to muster the 41 votes required to continue debate. The final vote on Alito's confirmation was scheduled for 11 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected that he will be confirmed by a comfortable margin. If confirmed, Alito would become the 110th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He would replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and join Chief Justice John Roberts as the second justice appointed by President Bush. (CNSNews)
While the people over a Liberal Avenger and even the radical DU were being civilized (for the most part) about their disapointment, the folks (moonbats) over at KOS are in a total meltdown:
I'm out.And this was some of the "softer" stuff they had to offer. There was one interesting point while reading all of their post; a whole lot of em' said "not one dime" to the traitors that voted for cloture. I hope they keep their promise.
I mean, how fucking long will it take for these people
to stand up for us? Ya, ya, some fucking Dkos cheerleader is going to come
along and downrate me for this but I could give a fuck after this. I am so
pissed. Every damn day our party lets us down. Every fucking
day. this is how facism happens. its a slow, pedal backwards by the
good guys. They always think that if you give in it just wont be as
bad. Fact is, its WORSE if you give any ground. The Dems do nothing
but give ground. I've fought for this party for years and this is what we
get. No, we are not going to take over this party. They wont let us
in. Bingman is my Senator and he dropped me today. Anyone in NM can
run against him? NO. Why? cause he's got it all tied up.
He can afford to let us down.
It almost brings me to tears. how many of
these Dem Sens are going to be whining away in a few years about this
mistake? I mean, WHAT THE FUCK!!?!? What in the name of God
are they thinking?
Valle Vidal - A real soldier died in his Hummer so you
could play soldier in yours.
by environmentalist on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at
03:20:26 PM PDT[ Parent ]
"I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said in a statement."
First of all, it was your son that paid the "ultimate price" you idiot moron. Second, besides not having the qualifications to run against Lady Di, you don't reside in her district. You would have a better chance of running for senator of Pluto. Then again, SF may embrace you for a Berkeley dog catchers position.
CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET Via Drudge
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.
CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
On second thought, maybe Cindy would have a better chance running against Hillary than Dianne. And Cindy, where's your disdain for Hillary anyway? She's is pro-war, pro-troops.
I may have jumped the gun on the Alito confirmation in a previous post (link) . The ski-bunny from Aslo has returned home to get his two cents in, and Cindy Sheehan "threatens" Diane ("I was for cloture before I was against it") Feinstein with running for her seat. Being a native Californian, I always had a certain respect for "Lady Di". She was always tough on crime and had always displayed a form of dignity for the seat she has occupied. Until now. Her "moderate" ideals have gone into the toilet with the far-fringed-left that is far more out of touch of the "mainstream" of America than any argument she had against Alito. Where did your principals go Diane? Remember Ginsberg? What a bunch of hypocrites. The cesspool of the democratic party is sadly growing into an ocean of madness. "Marginalized" is a term quickly evaporating. They are becoming the party of the "irrelevant".
Congrats to Powerline: 50,000,000 hits
California Quagmire: My response to Captian Ed on this post
"Feinstein's relatively centrist approach has made her a tougher target for Republican opponents in liberal California. The state Republican party has been in disarray for several years and mostly unable to mount serious challenges for state-wide seats for the last decade."
Thank you for the kind words regarding the state of the Republican Party in California. You probably don't have enough bandwidth to properly explain the strangle-hold the Democratic party has held over conservatives for most of the past forty years. Keemo posted some of the devestation, while yours truly has been forced to put up with this garbage for 54 years.
With the combination of Brown, Willie Lewis, Jr. (See, we had a "slick willie" too) Speaker of the California State Assembly, 1981-95, and a media that dominated the liberal agenda, i.e. the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee, this state became the largest welfare and entitlement structure in the world. Only when Ronald Reagan had the "ear" of the people did the brakes get put on the "tax and spend" mentality, and the fiscal responsibility Reagan forced on the legislature put the state on a path for unprecedented growth and personal wealth.
But when Reagan left for "higher ground", California, and the liberal machine slipped back into the mindset of government regulation/distribution and wasteful spending that has again choked off any signs of growth or prosperity. Only the outright mismanagement of the state treasury by our previous governor(Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis, Jr.) allowed the people to rise up in disgust and oust him.
Schwarzenegger is out on the very thin limb and the Dems and the media got their saws sharpened. Businesses continue to leave the state in droves with over-taxation and regulation.
Of the three mentioned here with national interest, (Boxer,Pelosi, and Feinstein) Feinstein had the most credibility among the Republican Party for her tough stand on crime and national security. But she is now (shamefully) bowing to cries of the extreme left and letting the principals that were admired by some disintegrate rapidly.
Even the liberals here understand (I think) the strength and longevity of Diane Feinstein and would not abandon her for a joke like Sheehan. Could it make her venerable? Maybe. Is there someone who could give her a run? I doubt it. Schwarzenegger is the only person that comes to mind that could give her a serious challenge, but he wants to remain a governor for four more years.
The shear numbers of this blue state, (the Bay-Area and Los Angeles) sadly controls the electorate. County by county George Bush won California overwhelmingly in 2004, but those two districts kill any hope for conservatives.
If only Rush (Limbaugh) would have hung around the state for a few more years, opinions and the absurdity of the left may have been more exposed.
Conservatism on the "Left Coast" will sadly remain a misnomer. We have "ivory towers" here too.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
for Frank Rich at the New York Times:
"Actually, it's Frank Rich, pompous columnist for the
scandal-plagued New York Times, writing on Jan. 22
about CNSNews.com allegedly launching a "fictional
"I have two words in response to Rich: Jayson Blair."
"Okay, more than two words."
"Frank, you haven't forgotten the scandal in which Blair
fabricated quotes, whole interviews and plagiarized from
other news sources for articles that your paper's editors
gladly published without practicing any due diligence,
"It was just four years ago Frank. You remember. The
paper admitted to at least 36 instances of journalistic
fraud and it resulted in Times Executive Editor Howell
Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd losing their
"But, if you need to vent Frank, I'm here for you."
Now I know I'm getting perilously close to copying
too much here, and I hope CNS will forgive me, but this is
just what the Gray Lady and Rich have coming. This is
more than the "pot callin' the kettle"; a reputable news
service putting Rich and his "cronies" at the NYT's on the
carpet with their "holier that thou" attitude. David
Thibault, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief goes on to defend
the report on our "cut and run" specialist John Murtha:
"But there's a curious thing about what you and your
cohorts have to say Frank. None of you can point to the
Cybercast News Service article on Murtha and find
anything erroneous about it. I mean, the story is
triple-sourced, contains Murtha's side, heck it even asked
Murtha to embellish his story."
I would warn Mr. Thibault (at this point) to be careful about using words like "triple-sourced" when addressing a paper like the NYT's, they don't have time to look up words that may force them to relinquish any journalistic integrity. Finally, Mr. Thibault (after taking one across the bow) fires back with a direct hit:
"What have you got left Frank? Whining, squishing, lazy elitists who wouldn't recognize a good story if it jumped up and bit you all on the backside. But hey, thanks to you, Helen, E. J., Dotty and Jill, our audience is way up."
Time to get the sling shots out and fire a few rounds. As Mr. Drudge would say...........Developing.
Editor's note: ( My link function is broken at the time of this post, and I will edit soon to include links to this story)
Friday, January 20, 2006
Lesson for the day: Don't take political advice from liberal
That might seem like obvious advice, especially for those
seeking office in "red states," but Senate Democrats seem
not to have gotten the message. Now they are paying a
huge price as Samuel Alito moves toward confirmation --
and Democrats move toward marginalization.
Pinkerton refers to a New York Times story that describes how liberal law professors got together to "strategize" and find a path to stop GW from moving the supreme court to the right:
How all this happened was revealed in a recent New York
Times article headlined, "Glum Democrats Can't See Halting
Bush on Courts / Concede Strategy Failed." In 2001, 42 of
the 50 Democrats then in the Senate -- the number is down
to 45 now -- went on a retreat to "hear experts and discuss
ways they could fight a Bush effort to remake the
judiciary." The experts were three liberal legal eagles --
Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein of the
University of Chicago Law School and Marcia Greenberger
of the National Women's Law Center in Washington -- who
told the Democrats that they could "oppose even nominees
with strong credentials on the grounds that the White
House was trying to push the courts in a conservative
direction." And now that's the strategy that has failed,
leaving Democrats "tilting at windmills," as a rueful Tribe
told the New York Times.
Pinkerton sums up his essay by implementing these suggestions:
Under such pressure from all quarters, old and new, it's
little wonder the Democrats are folding their opposition to
Alito. Looking ahead, the besieged and numerically
diminished Democrats might reach two conclusions.
First, their long love affair with lefty law professors must
come to an end. For decades, the party has let itself be led,
at least perceptually, by the avant-garde ideology of such
litigation-obsessed outfits as the National Organization for
Women and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Second, if the Democrats really believe that President Bush
and his Republicans are overreaching on judicial issues,
they should let them overreach. Will the repeal of Roe v.
Wade bring an anti-Republican backlash? Fine. Bring it on.
Let Alito on the Supreme Court and hope that he does his
worst, Roe-wise, leaving elected Republicans to deal with
the ballot-box consequences.
Now there's some sound political advice for the Democrats:
Skip the top-down legal elitism; try some bottom-up small
"d" democracy instead.
Sound advise is not the "norm" for the left these days. The self-destructing "Bash-Bush-at-all-cost" seems to distort any reality on their part, (most of the time). This writer can only hope the "status quo" continue it's path to marginalzation for another nine months.
Friday, January 13, 2006
With the confirmation hearings winding down and the "dog and pony" show ending, many are glad to see the camera plugs pulled. The party on the left has once again demonstrated the lack of class and respect that they used to possess. And a nation, indeed much of the world saw a shameful display of a portion of our democractic process regulated to demogogry, unsubstantiated
character assassinations to a man who has dedicated most of his life to public service with impeccable credentials. If these are truly the "shining stars" of the democratic party, (Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, et al ), then their display in these hearings is a testament to the level this party has become. Even the once respected Diane Fienstien found herself (for what ever reason) wading into the mud puddle. Are they proud of their actions? Many have said they were playing to their constituents for political gain. But at what cost of the integrity of the process of "advise and consent" have they destroyed? Was the civility of a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court ever relegated to this level of mud-slinging innuendo when the shoe was on the other foot? I don't recall. If these are the "true colors" of the democratic leadership, then by all means, leave the camera plugged in.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
At a Move-on.org sponsored town hall meeting these two "cut and run" losers got a spanking from two Patriots who understand that we will win this war on terror despite their political aspirations.
The first "spanking" comes from veteran Mark Seavey via Michelle Malkin and the next one comes from Vietnam veteran, General Wagner, which (after each of their comments) you could here a pin drop in that room.
And now Confederate Yankee has a stunning comment by Murtha declaring that "a slow withdrawal would be a sign of victory". Say What? Victory?......I didn't know that word was in the Democrats vocabulary.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The generally "hawkish" Jane Harman (U.S. Rep. (D-Venice), Ranking Member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) has done an "about face" in support for the war on terror, and has (appearently) decided politics are more important than the security of this nation. Or some one made the decision for her?
Via Junkyard Blog:
Well, supporting vital national security programs in the middle of a war was sooo 2005. Rep. Harman, in 2006, thinks the adminstration’s handling of the program was illegal:
In a letter to Bush, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the National Security Act requires the heads of the various intelligence agencies to keep the entire House and Senate intelligence committees “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.”
Only in the case of a highly classified covert action can the president choose to inform a narrower group of Congress members about his decision, Harman said. That action is defined in the law as an operation to influence political, economic or military conditions of another country.“The NSA program does not qualify as a ‘covert action,’” Harman wrote.
KERRY KICKER: If you’re looking for a quotable line about Harman’s Heartburn: She was for the NSA program—to the point of advocating that the NSA create it and then sitting in on several years’ worth of briefings on it—before suddenly and mysteriously turning against it.
This is going to get "interesting", but please read the whole JunkyardBlog story first, and the comments.
One has to wonder where "Lady Jane" will be standing on the Patriot Act anytime soon?
She was for it today according to this statement on her website. It's not too late to get your spine back Jane and stand on your own convictions.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Blown Away via Times Standard Wind gust up to 84 mph, 64,000 "powerless", (including me). High Tides put storm surge at 10 to 15 feet
The lights (power) went out around 10 a.m. on New Years Eve, and we, (the folks on Cummings Rd.), were the last to get back on line Sunday night around dusk.
Adventure and pics will be updated soon............
UPDATE: Its not over yet!
Today thru Friday:
Showers Likely, Chance Of Showers, Rain, Chance Of Showers, Chance Of Showers, Partly Cloudy, Slight Chance Rain, Light Rain ,Light Rain
There's only one day this week that doesn't mention some form of "moisture". Hopefully, this week won't be as bad as the prior week when we got back to back storms that produced 11 inches (in 24hrs) and 7 inches two days later. Like I said in my previous post, we got lots of water for sale.