From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
"In standing by the United States... you have provoked those whom you call terrorists to target you," the man said in Arabic, with a German translation appearing on the screen as the flags of Germany and Austria appeared in front of a burning background.
I'm a bit more optimistic than Powerline about this ..... If Germany and Austria fold as did Spain, I'll be extremely disappointed.
So forgive me or something, but I've never cared for the guy. That guy from New York. No, the other senator. Schumer. Don't particularly care for Imus, either. But Imus did a number on Schumer the other morning and I just found a copy of the transcript.
Imus: Have you been aware, even since 1981, of the state of treatment that veterans have been receiving throughout the Veterans Administration hospitals?
Schumer: Yes, it’s gotten much worse in the last seven or eight years because the funding was just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. I get stories all the time of veterans wounded in Iraq, they get good treatment over in Iraq . . . The Veterans Administration has just been decimated in terms of funding and it’s unbelievable because . . . we ask these people to serve us and in the DoD part, at least in Iraq, and initially when they are wounded from all reports they are treated well, after that they are just sort of forgotten about and the VA is just in terrible shape, terrible shape . . . It’s a little like FEMA with Katrina. They put the wrong people in charge. They don’t really care.
Imus: Senator Schumer, you’re not suggesting to me that this is something that just happened under the Bush administration. This has been going on since Korea, since the second world war.
Schumer: It’s been going on for a while, but what happened with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that the system got completely overloaded and it really broke down.
Imus: We’ve known for years, certainly since 1981, that the care and the way that these veterans have been treated to a large degree, not because it’s the people’s fault — most of them, the doctors and nurses particularly at the Veterans Administration — but for a variety of reasons, in many cases, their treatment and care has been woefully inadequate.
The bureaucratic red tape has been a nightmare for a lot of these people, and that’s been going on for years, and my question is why haven’t any of you ever done anything about it?
Schumer: Well, we’ve tried. I’ve been fighting since I got to the Senate for full funding for the veterans, and we didn’t do any oversight. That’s the real problem here . . . I’ll tell you one other thing that will happen. We’ll get full funding for the VA this year, for the first time. We did actually, to show you a little bit that this isn’t just catching up to the crisis, we did a budget in early January . . .
Imus: Let me interrupt you for a second, but this is nonsense, Senator Schumer. I want to be respectful, but you can’t possibly be serious and suggest — I mean I’m not a fool. You can’t suggest to me that because the Democrats are now in power that something is going to be done about Walter Reed and about the mess in the Veterans Administration and all of this, and that if the Democrats hadn’t taken control of Congress that nothing would have been done. That’s preposterous; of course it would have.
Schumer: Well, something would have been done if the story would have gotten out . . .
Imus: Here’s another question. Have you ever been over to Walter Reed?
Schumer: Ahh, not in a while, no.
Imus: How long has it been since you’ve been over there?
Schumer: Oh, before Iraq.
Imus: So, before Iraq since you’ve been over to see the soldiers. So, we have elected you — first in the Congress and now in the Senate — and you’ve got a bill now to do something we’ll get to in a minute; but you haven’t even been to Walter Reed Hospital.
What a slime-ball.
Here's a YouTube video. Wish we could see the yucker's face.
On second thought -- I don't want to see his face. Again.
So this is how the dims plan to gain support for their version of the Defense Spending Bill -- add on favorite projects ("pork") to appease the folks back home.
It's plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.
"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill.
Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.
The funding — ranging from $3.5 billion for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start — has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.
"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said Senate GOP conservative Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire.
But Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill over the add-ons, and White House aides have conspicuously failed to issue one — though a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions setting a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.
All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.
The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.
Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million.
Those items and others, including $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmakers a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill — regardless of their feelings on the war itself.
Democrats insist they aren't being bought off.
"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim Costa (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat representing a farm district in California's Central Valley. The California delegation is demanding help for citrus, avocado and other farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze.
"I would support this one way or another," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., a driving force behind the drought aid package.
In some cases, such as drought aid for farmers, new money for veterans medical care and additional aid for the Gulf Coast, Democrats are fulfilling promises from last year's campaign.
Still, the need to maximize the vote count among Democrats makes it harder for party leaders to say "no" to lawmakers whose requests are, say, more parochial.
Republicans accused Democratic leaders of larding the bill with spending aimed at greasing its way through Congress.
"They've tried to appease every member of Congress, every coalition, every interest group, by loading this bill up," said Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill. He said the strategy risked having the bill collapse of its own weight.
"If this is a sweetener deal, then it makes me real sour on the whole bill," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn.
There are a few lawmakers — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. — whose support for war funding is contingent on add-ons. In DeFazio's case, it's $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.
The billions of dollars not requested by Bush include $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic and $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor.
I don't know who will be willing to step up and highlight the pork attached to defense spending, but someone should.
Dick Morris is not much of a prognosticator, but he knows Hill 'n Bill. Morris asks the right question (in case dims are listening) and uses Bill's own words to refute Hillary's claims to the c0-presidency during her hubby's reign.
As for the Walter Mitty reference -- remember Thurber's character who was a legend in his own mind? According to Morris, that's also Hillary.
Is Hillary Clinton the Walter Mitty of presidential candidates when she takes credit for the successes of her husband's presidency?
Lately, she's been repeatedly linking herself to Bill's job creation, budget balancing, economic programs and domestic policies initiatives. There's a lot of “Bill and I” and "we” in her speeches. It's all part of the “bring back the Clinton years” theme that she rolls out to Democratic Party audiences.
But there's more to it.
At the core of her highly disciplined campaign message is her claim that her “experience” in the White House and the Senate makes her uniquely qualified to move right into the Oval Office. According to Hillary, her two term co-presidency with Bill specially prepared her for the next Clinton administration and gives her exceptional credentials that no other candidate can match.
And her message is working — the most recent Gallup Poll shows that 45 percent of American voters cite Hillary's “experience” as the highest positive rating about her.
Out on the campaign trail, she often refers to her “eight years in the White House,” when asked why she should be elected.
So, what exactly was it that Hillary did in the Clinton White House that gave her all of that experience?
Well, obviously there was the health care fiasco, Hillary's secretive, expensive and utterly failed attempt to socialize the health care industry. Surely, she can't be referring to that.
So what is it that Hillary is referring to?
One would think that the $20 million combined memoirs of the former first couple could provide some clarification. But a careful reading of their respective stories leads to even more confusion. One wonders whether they ever read each other's work.
It seems that in her book "Living History," published in 2003, the former first lady doesn't really claim to have been an influential co-president working and learning at her husband's side after all.
No, that's all new.
And most of what she does take credit for involves traditional first lady issues, such as childcare and cancer research. She barely mentions any role for herself in the signature issues that confronted the Clinton presidency.
If you contrast her current claims of helping to run the country against her own writing about her White House days, there's a big difference. Now she speaks of the Clinton administration accomplishments, as if she were part of implementing them. But only four years ago, she told another story.
Bill doesn't seem to recall her help and involvement on too many issues. Even on those relatively few things that she actually does take credit for in her book, the former president doesn't have the same recollections that she does about her important role in the White House.
In her book, Hillary discusses her advocacy in the White House on social security, welfare reform, the bankruptcy reform bill, violence in the media, budget cuts and improvement in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
But, in his memoirs, Bill rarely mentions Hillary's role in any of his administration's policies, except for health care. One would have expected that he would have described some of the details of her unparalleled 'experience.'
In fact, of 102 mentions of Hillary in Bill Clinton's "My Life", the content is as follows:
• 34 entries describe trips taken by the first couple • 26 entries are about Whitewater or other scandal investigations • 17 entries are about their personal relationship • 11 entries are about Hillary's integrity, character, her writing a book, supporting American crafts, etc. • Nine entries describe her role in health care • Only five entries concern a substantive role, including: participating in a White House staff gathering at Camp David; speaking out for women's rights in China; campaigning for child protection legislation; and campaigning for Democratic candidates, and the Millennium Project
That's it!
Here's some examples of how Hillary catalogued some of her work and how Bill described the same issue:
Welfare Reform : “I supported welfare reform and worked hard to round up the votes.”
• Bill makes no mention of her role concerning that important issue.
Media Violence and Children :“Bill and I … convened a White House strategy session on how to curb media violence directed at children.”
• Bill remembers it somewhat differently, crediting Al and Tipper Gore with a drive to get V chips in televisions. No mention of Hillary.
Budget Cuts :“I also spent two years helping … Stave off cuts in legal services, the arts, education, Medicare and Medicaid.”
• Bill makes no mention of Hillary in discussing the budget cuts.
Adoption Reform :“I worked hard … to spearhead adoption reform.”
• Bill writes about how proud he was about his “sweeping reforms of our adoption laws.” No mention of Hillary.
Child Support : “Bill and I wanted tougher child support collection efforts.”
• Bill describes signing another of his priorities into law. No mention of Hillary.
Hillary's self-portrait should remind voters of a dog who finally catches a car ....
It was confusing before Fitzie started his investigation of who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. The jury decision this week only confounds that investigation and its supposed resolution .... If the "truth" was known before the investigation, why did it continue? If the jury considered Libby a "fall guy" and kept "waiting" for Cheney or Rove or the President to be called, then why was Libby found guilty? Oh yeah -- he perjured himself .... This observer has said all along that if Libby perjured himself -- he was guilty of perjury, but questions remain .... Was the investigation (at the point of interviewing Libby et al) "legitimate" or was it, indeed, a witch hunt to incriminate someone/anyone from the Bush administration? And if the issue was "only" perjury, why does the jury even discuss or suggest that "others" were involved .... and why, in the closing deliberations -- did the jury need clarification on the definition of "reasonable doubt?" And what influence did the judge's decisions to disallow certain evidences and/or witnesses have on the deliberation process? Was Libby denied the right to defend himself by prejudicial omissions? As for the jury -- Why is only one jurist speaking out? Something or someone doesn't jive ..... The outspoken jurist likely has ulterior motives in his post-trial role(s) .... What is or was his relationship with witnessing journalists? Something just doesn't jive.
Hopefully, other jurists will speak out. I don't trust anyone associated with the journalism community -- especially someone who was a lead jurist and now spokesperson for the jury ....
-- until she posts another rock'em-sock'em discourse, that is.
This filibuster on Coulter's comment has been worked, re-worked and over-worked long enough. Tonight I posted my last comment. Maybe. It was on HotAir's blog ... Here it is --
I’ve watch Coulter’s 28+ minute speech and Q-A session several times. IMO, it’s vintage Coulter. While the f-word (in any context) has never been on my fav list, I thought her reference to rehab as a liberal reaction to everything NOT politically correct as funny! In all honesty, I was more “shocked” hearing MM (whom I respect highly) refer to McCain as John “screw you” McCain in her interview with Sean Hannity. And I’m not even a McCain fan ….
If this comment offends someone, sobeit. I don't really give a flying flip. What I do give a flying flip about is that (whether she's loving all this negative reaction or NOT), Coulter is a dang good writer and speaker. She IS effective. She makes lots of money doing what she does and her counter-points are delivered with wit and precision. And humor. She is articulate, ultra-bright, intellectual. She's also a humorist. A satirist. I'm becoming concerned that many conservative pundits are taking their objection to her a tad too far. I fear many of them may regret some of their protestations .... Whatever has happened to the pundits who have taken a stern objection to Coulter (personally and professionally), I can't answer.
Nor can I "answer" why, on tonight's O'Reilly show, Michelle Malkin shot a harsh eye and warning at her co-guest Kirsten Powers: "I'm not the person to be picking a fight with ...." Dang. Not becoming. And over the Coulter comment? Jeez -- must be the eclipse or something going on we don't know about .... Even O'Reilly cringed.
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, watch Ann Coulter's entire speech and the Q-A session.
Subtitled: How to gain support on the home-front