MrSpkr's random thoughts . . .
Monday, November 29, 2004
Jonathon Chait is right.
This columnist is advising Democrats to dump Dean, Kerry and . . . Clinton in 2008 or face losing yet again.
Problem is, it ain't up to Chait. It's up to Democratic party activists. And my money says they nominate Clinton by a wide margin -- and she will lose badly.
Evan Coyne-Maloney Strikes Again
Evan Coyne Maloney is the genius behind some short films exposing the lunacy of the left. His website, brain-terminal.com, contains his films and political commentary. Prior films, such as "When Protesters Attack", "Protesting the Protesters", and "Peace, Love and Anti-Semitism", are masterpieces at lampooning the ridiculous nature of the modern Left in America.
Now, Evan is back with a feature-length documentary revealing the biases present on the modern university campus. His new film, "Brainwashing 101", is worth the download (or purchase).
Be sure to check it out.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Okay, just one more post.
Thought you would want to see.
Before I head out for Chicagoland
I though I would link to this piece by Michael Novak on the Specter Judiciary Committee. Apparently, Bill Frist has decided to actually (*gasp*) act like Senate Majority Leader rather than act like the co-chairman of the Senate Glee Club (like two previous Majority Leaders did).
Good on him. Now we will see whether his trust in Specter's word was misplaced.
I'm also glad to see that my Senator, John Cornyn, was one of two hold-outs who put Specter's feet to the fire. Specter initially only wanted to promise that all nominees would get out of his committee. He has since agreed that, not only will those nominees get out of committee, but he will lead the fight for their confirmation on the Senate floor.
We shall see.
Chicago, Chicago, you're my kind of town . . .
at least for the next forty-eight hours. Back to posting on Wednesday.
Friday, November 19, 2004
I'm off . . .
to watch my beloved Sooners scrimmage, er, play against the Baylor Bears.
How did Baylor end up in the Big 12 again? I'd rather see TCU -- they have a better program.
Anyway, here's a link to a great time-waster. I scored 2750 the first time out. How about you?
The New York Times > Washington > Judiciary Panel Backing Specter as Its Chairman
Sigh. I am particularly frustrated by the Republican committee members' quick commitment to Arlen Specter as Judiciary Chairman. The atmosphere of 'collegiality' that I so despise in the United States Senate is very much alive and well.
I know the arguments for Specter: he has supported Bush's nominees, he opposes judicial filibusters, yadda, yadda, yadda. I also recognize that, theoretically, the Republicans could remove Arlen from the Chair if he stabs a Bush nominee in the back. I find those arguments unconvincing. They ask us to trust Specter to act in conservatives' interests when he has a long record of fighting those interests. Specter votes conservative values only when he has an upcoming election that requires him to secure the Republican base. That impetus no longer exists.
Some say the prospect of being removed from the Chair will secure Specter's loyalty, but I find that unlikely, too. It is simply too disruptive and would cause too much bad publicity (the mainstream media would have a field day with stories of Republican intolerance, etc.) to do so. Once he is in power, he is in power. End of story.
Next time my Senator, John Cornyn, is up for re-election, I fully intend to vote for his primary opponent as a protest vote (cetera parabis). I have no illusions that Senator Cornyn will lose the primary, but I want to send him a message: he ignores the political philosophy of conservative voters at his peril.
If qualified candidates like Charles Pickering are blocked from the Supreme Court and Arlen Specter is in part responsible, then I'll vote for Cornyn's Democratic opponent. I'd rather have someone who is openly against conservative desires in office than someone who merely says they favor conservative positions, but caves in to peer pressure (and let's face it, that is what the 'collegiality' bit really is) when it counts.
If I seem embittered, well, perhaps I am. I recognize that blocking Specter from the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to be a difficult fight to win; however, I think Cornyn's commitment to Specter at this early date is unwarranted and unwise.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
But I thought the Liberals were teh ones who FOUGHT racism . . .
rather than perpetuating old racial stereotypes?
Interested in hunting, but not all the gear, smell, and cold, lonely mornings that go with it?
This might be the thing for you.
In other news, sun hot, bright . . .
This is, of course, the paper of record.
Next, they'll be trying to prohibit running to the refrigerator, too . . .
Yet another reason to be against giving Arlen Specter ANY position of authority in the Senate. He wants to be chairman of the judiciary and doesn't see teh free-speech implications in this legislation?
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Dagnabit, John! You are far too trusting . . .
Panel Member Wants Vow From Specter
A conservative member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he could support Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as chairman of the committee if Specter issued a public statement saying he would not try to block a Supreme Court nominee who opposes abortion rights.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Specter assured him in a conversation Tuesday he would push for swift up-or-down votes on nominees without regard to their positions on abortion. Cornyn indicated he was satisfied by Specter's comments but wanted them expressed in an official statement.
Asked if he thought Specter would get the chairmanship, Cornyn said, "Today, yes, I do."
Cornyn also said Specter is seeking a meeting with Republicans on the judiciary panel next week to resolve doubts prompted by his comments last week suggesting that the Senate was unlikely to confirm nominees who would overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. Conservatives have flooded the Senate with protests, urging Republicans to reject Specter as chairman.
With all due respect, Senator Cornyn, you are just plain wrong. Senator Specter cannotbe trusted on this important issue. His long history is one of consistent liberalism with brief forays to conservatism in the twelve to fifteen months prior to an election. Senator Specter will find a way around this "vow", leaving Senate Republicans with the unpalatable option of either removing a sitting Judiciary Chairman or letting a good nominee be voted down.
I urge you to reconsider your position. I urge my fellow Texans to call Senator Cornyn and voice their opposition to his statement.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Whew. I'm glad that's over with. . .
I just finished editing and cite-checking a 72 page appellate brief that has to be filed by tomorrow.
And I have to meet a client at 6:30 a.m. to head to a court two counties away for an 8:15 hearing.
And I have to go back by the office (fortunately it is on the way to the courthouse) to grab the file because, like an idiot, I FORGOT THE STUPID THING!
Oh, and I find out tomorrow morning if we are set for trial on Tuesday.
I'm off to sleep. Regular posting to resume tomorrow evening, unless we get called, in which case y'all are on your own for a few days.
Missing Smoke Detectors Cause 70% of Home Fires.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
What the heck is Karl Rove thinking?
Bush is reactivating his plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Thanks, pal. Let's see how many conservatives you can irritate right after winning a big election.
Fortunately, the Democratic leadership is so far to the Left that they can't move to the President's right on this issue.
I've said it before -- had a strong moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrat run against Bush, allieviating my concerns on taxes and terror, I probably would have voted for him if he had presented a better immigration policy than George's (like, maybe, a policy of ENFORCING OUR EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS!!).
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
More 'free speech' in Europe
Again, free speech in Europe is only guaranteed so long as you don't offend anyone who is in a minority group.
Busy today . . .
preparing a new lawsuit, plus reviewing ongoing litigation in Illinois and doing the final trial-preparation for a case that is slated to go next week. Posting may be light for a few days
Monday, November 08, 2004
I sure will hate to see old Terry go . . .
I mean, he's been worth five points in each of the past seven congressional elections.
Of course, Howard Dean as his successor is even MORE fun.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Schumer thinks Specter should be on the Supreme Court
If Schumer thinks Specter is a good choice for the Supreme Court, that tells me all I need ot know about Specter as a Judiciary Chairman.
No thank you.
TRANSCRIPT: Specter on Face the Nation
CBS Face The Nation 11/07/04
BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning again, we begin in Philadelphia with Senator Arlen Specter, and to sort of set the stage, Senator Specter, let's review what went on, uh, last week, you said, and I believe this was your quote, "It would be unlikely for staunch opponents of abortion to be confirmed to the Supreme Court by the next Congress." Now, you are the incoming or are going to be or are in line to be the new Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and when you said that it set off something of a firestorm among many conservatives, um, among them, James Dobson, who's head of Focus on the Family, who said, and he said it just this morning, uh, you have now become a big-time problem and you should be derailed. They're trying to block you from becoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. What's your response to all this, Senator?
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: Well Bob, the problem started when AP reported that I had quote 'warned the President' which is not so. Rush Limbaugh and Fox said that they were trying to put a spin on what I had said, and when people are opposing me as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, these are the same people who came to Pennsylvania during my primary and tried to defeat me, but the fact is that I have supported all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor. I have never applied a litmus test. I have supported Chief Justice Rehnquist for confirmation as Chief Justice when I knew he had voted against Roe versus Wade. I supported Justice Kennedy and O'Connor, and Scalia, and, uh, I led the fight to confirm Clarence Thomas. So that, uh, my record is pretty plain, that uh, though I am pro-choice, I have supported many pro-life nominees.
SCHIEFFER: So, uh, do you believe, I mean, uh, just to go back to what you said, uh, the first time around, do you believe anyone that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade would be confirmed by the Senate?
SPECTER: Well, the . . .
SCHIEFFER: Or could not be?
SPECTER: Well, what I said was that you need sixty votes for cloture. And, uh, we have had a history, where the Democrats have been filibustering. So, the, the, uh, concern as to confirmation, uh, is really the recognition of, of a political fact. I voted to cut off debate all the time, I have voted for cloture, which means 'to cut off debate.' But, uh, with 55 Republicans, you aren't at the magic number of sixty so you have to anticipate problems with the Democrats, uh, as we had a lot of them in the past Congress.
SCHIEFFER: Well,let me just ask you this, Senator, uh, what do you make of this, uh, drive among some people to try to block you from becoming Chairman of the Committee? Do you think that's, the, you think, do you take that seriously?
SPECTER: Well, I take everything seriously. But, uh, these are the same people that came from Pennsylvania from all over the country to try to defeat me in the primary election, and they, they were unsuccessful. They, they do not like my independence, and, uh, I am, uh, I believe, the only pro-choice Republican on the Judiciary Committee, uh, but that doesn't mean that I, uh, have a litmus test or that I don't give appropriate deference . . .
SCHIEFFER: Well . . .
SPECTER: . . . to what the President, whom the President nominates.
SCHIEFFER: Well, then, what do you say to Mr. Dobson. He heads a very powerful group of people out there, this Focus on the Family group, there's no question that a lot of people pay attention to what he has to say. What, what do you say to him?
SPECTER: Well, if he would call me up, I would say, 'Dr. Dobson, the situation on getting sixty votes is not my making, it is the making of the Democrats and they have demonstrated that, and, uh, I have been in the corner of deference to the President with people like Chief Justice Rehnquist when it was plain from his vote in Roe versus Wade that he was uh, against a woman's right to choose, and led the fight as to Clarence Thomas, almost lost my seat, Bob. Uh, I was up for election immediately after that confirmation hearing. That's what I would tell him.
SCHIEFFER: Alright, well, let me ask you also, because a lot of conservatives say you take the wrong stand on stem-cell research. Uh, What do you have to say this morning, where are you on that?
SPECTER: Well, I believe that stem cell research has enormous hope for the future, but I would point out that I am joined by Senator Hatch, a noted conservative. I'm joined by many conservative colleagues on the Republican side of the Senate. I'm joined by Mrs. Nancy Reagan and by, uh, the vast majority of the American people. Look here, Bob, if these embryonic stem cells could be used to produce life, I would never want to have tests on them, and in my capacity as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, I took the lead in having an appropriation of a million dollars for embryo adoption. But you have 400,000 of them. They're either going to be used to save lives or they're going to be thrown away. So that, uh, I think my position is uh, pre-eminently reasonable.
SCHIEFFER: Okay, let's just talk about things in general up on the Senate. How do you view the President's win? Clearly it was decisive. Do you think he has a mandate, or should he begin now to reach out? He said in his victory statement he wanted to reach out, uh, to Democrats. Where are the places that he could work with Democrats?
SPECTER: Well, I think that, uh, the President should reach out, that's what he said he wants to do. I got to know the President pretty well on his 44 trips to Pennsylvania during the election. I have great respect for him. If uh, if his public persona is what I have seen up close, it would be uh, is very very strong. I think he will be reaching out to Democrats to try to heal the wounds, uh, we still had, uh, a fairly close election and there are a lot of issues where, uh, we're going to need support. I learned a long time ago that if you want to get something done in Washington you have to be willing to cross party lines. And we have a solid number, it's a great victory that Bill Frist engineered and George Allen did. But fifty-five is not sixty, which means you're going to have to have Democrats to support us to get a legislative agenda through, and the President understands that.
SCHIEFFER: Well, uh, you said, uh, right after the election, that if you have a race that is won by a percent or two, you have a narrowly divided country. You said that is not a traditional mandate. Do you, do you still believe that? Do you believe the President doesn't have a mandate here or do you think that he did have a decisive victory?
SPECTER: Well, I said, I said it was not an arithmatic mandate. Senator Frist said about the same thing in an Associated Press interview, that we did not have a mandate, that we made a lot of, a lot of progress. When you think about an overwhelming mandate, you think about what, uh, what President Roosevelt got. The, the President was a clear-cut victor, he has a lot of political capital which he's identified, he's prepared to use it, but still, the fact of life is that if you want to pass something legislatively you've got to get sixty votes in the Senate, and that means you have to reach out to Democrats.
SCHEIFFER: Okay. Well, I think Senator we'll stop it right there. I want to thank you for joining us this morning. We're going back to the studio now. Here with us is Senator Susan Collins. She is head of the Government Affairs and the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate. Senator Hagel, who has always been a key voice on foreign policy for the Republicans.
Afterwards, Senator Collins echoed Specter on the need for sixty votes, and began talking about Social Security and the budget. Seems they are sidestepping the issue of Specter as Chairman.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
I can't take any more games like this, doggone it!
Texas A&M played very well, and Franchione did a good job against us.
Thank goodness all we have left is Baylor and Nebraska (who would have thought, five years ago, that one would view Nebraska as an easy game?).
I called my Senators yesterday . . .
regarding Arlen Specter as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was very polite and forthright -- told them I was politically active, a practicing trial lawyer in Dallas and a Republican contributor -- and stated something to the effect that I could not think of a single member of the Republican Senate Caucus that I would be more opposed to chairing the Committee than Senator Specter.
The aides were nice, respectful, and obviously had been getting calls on this all day. Senator Cornyn's office, in particular, was difficult to get in touch with -- as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committe, I imagine this issue has swamped his office during what should have been a quiet period in the days following the Presidential election.
I have heard rumors that the Senate Republican Caucus will be meeting next week to make determinations about Committee positions -- one can only hope that we can keep the pressure up long enough ot have an impact.
Senator Specter wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut or at least express gratitude to President Bush after this past election. He has no sense of loyalty to mainstream Republican values and, therefore, should not be in the position of "gatekeeper" for President Bush's judicial nominations.
Editorial: Specter for Senate / Moderate Republicans are an endangered species
Why did the Pittsburgh Gazette endorse Senator Specter? Well, comments like this seem to be important:
The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that capacity, he would be in a position to block some of the ideologically extreme federal judges likely to be nominated by President Bush in a second term, some of them for the Supreme Court. Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench.
But Senator Specter now says he will fully support any Bush nominees. As usual, he is trying to pander to conservatives because he has something to lose -- but there is every reason to believe that, once he is Chairman, he will revert to his old, left of center ways.
Senator Specter may have a long history in the Senate. He may have helped get Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court (right before an election, IIRC). But his history in regards to judicial appointments is such that Republicans cannot risk placing him in charge of the Judiciary Committee.
Mexico upset that Americans don't want unrestricted immigration
And thus rises one of Bush's positions with which I strongly disagree. We need to control immigration to facilitate assimilation. Our current immigration policies do not allow this.
"These people don't want to change our society, they want to destroy it,"
The Dutch political class seems to be awakening to the presence of Jihad in the Netherlands. The murder of van Gogh combined with assassination threats against Dutch politicians seems to have finally made the Dutch government confront the danger within their midst.
One can only hope it is not too late.
Friday, November 05, 2004
New Thoughts on Free Speech in Old Europe
The great-nephew of my favorite artist, Vincent van Gogh, was murdered earlier this week by a Muslim fundamentalist. Van Gogh was cut down in the streets of the Netherlands because, according to the Muslim, van Gogh had offended and blasphemed Islam by producing a short documentary regarding the ill treatment afforded many Muslim women and allegedly profaning the Koran by painting a verse on a semi-nude woman's body.
Following the murder, a Dutch citizen painted (in Dutch) the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" on a wall as a protest.
Local officials, responding to complaints from a nearby Mosque, have sandblasted the mural claiming the words are "hate speech". A video of this is available at the link above (in Dutch).
This is indefensible, and is why the cultural gap between the Old World and the New will continue to grow wider. How can any nation claim to champion free speech when it actively suppresses the most important form of speech, political speech? How can you be a democracy? How can one engage in healthy civic debate if one cannot be honest, or take a stand some may dislike?
This is in the same vein as actions in Belgium to suppress a conservative political party and laws in several central European countries barring national socialism. Rather than debating, and defeating, these ideas (and the Nazi ideas are repugnant, indefensible, and morally outrageous), they prefer to use the heavy hand of government prohibition to silence those whose voices the political class dislike.
In Europe, then, it seems that freedom of political speech only applies so long as the political speech does not offend anyone else.
That's not freedom -- that's a mockery of freedom, a pale ghost of liberty.
And it is tragic.
Why you should never put your picture on the internet
Nuclear drink alert! Safe for work, home.
Hat tip, National Review.
A note to Texans contacting Senators Cornyn and Hutchison about Specter:
Cornyn is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer as saying that he was hopeful Specter would promise to stand behind Bush's nominees. "I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to work. We want to know what he's going to do and how things are going to work."
Sorry, Senator Cornyn, but with all due respect, Senator Specter is not trustworthy on this point. He is not running for re-election anymore, and there is nothing to stop him from doing just what he said he would do when he thought his assumption of the Chairmanship of Judiciary was a fait accompli. From killing Robert Bork's nomination to undermining spending cuts by insisting on pork for Democrats in appropriations bills to his bid to win the 1996 Republican nomination by attacking party conservatives to having his name right alongside Kerry's on campaign signs last week, Specter has shown himself to be unreliable, hostile to the mainstream Republican party, and clearly biased against conservatives. We cannot risk having a Judiciary Chairman like Arlen Specter.
The guys at Southern Appeal . . .
have added me to their links list under "My Huckleberry"! Cool! I highly recommend their collaborative blog -- good guys, and very interesting conversation on an array of topics.
Thanks for the honor, gentlemen.
A new Anti-Specter Site
A great organizing website that I am now adding to my links. They are reporting a rumor that Specter might be able to stay if he makes major concessions.
I hope not. I do not trust this man, and the judicial nominations are just too important to chance it.
My letter to Senator Frist regarding Senator Specter
I sent this letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist this morning.
Dear Senator Frist:
Congratulations on expanding your majority within the Senate. As a conservative voter, I appreciate the work you are doing to advance the conservative agenda in the United States Senate, and the support you have given to conservative candidates around the country.
I am contacting you today regarding the future Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is my understanding that Arlen Specter, R-PA, is, due to seniority, in line to take over the Committee next session when Senator Hatch is term-limited from that position. As a conservative, and as a trial lawyer, I cannot overemphasize my opposition to allowing Senator Specter to hold that position. It is my belief that Senator Specter represents a minority view within the Republican Party, and that his appointment will give too much political cover to Democratic obstructionists who have blocked President Bush's judicial appointments over the past four years. Giving the Democrats that type of political cover will make it more difficult to defeat leading Senate Democrats who might otherwise be vulnerable.
As I am sure you are aware, it appears very likely that President Bush will have an opportunity to appoint two or more people to the United States Supreme Court during the next four years. These lifetime appointments are opportunities for conservatives to retake ground lost through rampant judicial activism from the Left over the past thirty years. If the Republican Senators cannot come through with more conservative judges than Senator Specter has traditionally supported, it is my belief that the Republican Senate leadership will be held accountable by conservative activists across the country.
This is particularly true in this instance. Senator Specter made a reckless statement that can easily be interpreted to mean that he would impose a litmus test on Bush nominees, particularly in regards to the Roe v. Wade decision.
Perhaps Senator Specter did not mean that to sound as though he would impose any such litmus test. I suspect that he will strongly protest that he was only trying to give President Bush some friendly advice based upon what Senator Specter believes to be the political realities of the situation. Perhaps it was merely a gaffe, and Senator Specter will work to get Bush's people appointed.
That's not the way it appears, however, and in politics, as you are aware, appearances often carry more weight than reality. This is particularly true in Senator Specter's case, given his past actions regarding conservative judicial nominees to the Supreme Court.
In this instance, Senator Specter's statements have actually changed reality. He can no longer be viewed as an unbiased Senator interested merely in making sure that a particular candidate is qualified to serve upon the bench. His statement has placed him in the impossible position of having to defend any negative action against a conservative judicial nominee from charges that Specter killed the nomination over the abortion issue, whether or not the charge is accurate. Due to the perception and reality his statements have created, I do not believe he can effectively perform the duties of the position.
I recognize that Senator Specter has had a long career in the Senate, but tenure does not carry with it the right to assume power. I strongly urge you to assist in blocking Senator Specter from taking this crucial Committee chairmanship during the new term of Congress.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am also contacting my Senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey-Hutchison. I have heard news reports indicating that conservative reaction to Senator Specter's comments is beginning to undermine his prospects, so I urge all twelve or so regular readers (you know who you are) to voice their opinion to their United States Senators as soon as possible, before Senator Specter can rally his supporters.
This kind of stuff both infuriates and saddens me
If you are here for some political commentary or legal analysis, look at a different post. I am posting this as a father.
Stories like this scare me, anger me, and sadden me. This young man, a fifteen yaer old boy with a severe physical handicap, was tortured by someone in his special education classroom.
The teacher says she left him alone for a moment, and when she came back, he had a minor burn, apparently from a hot water faucet.
The water was so hot (170 degrees) it would have caused third degree burns within 2 seconds of skin contact. That's about 30 degrees hotter than most hot water tanks are maintained.
The kicker is, this young man is so physically disabled, he could not have done this to himself.
As a father of a child with a disability (Down's), I am terrified that something like this could happen to my Katie.
And if it were the result of a malignant act (as this appears to be), I greatly fear what impact of my reaction would have on my family. I have three other kids, and I would hate to do anything that would deprive them of my companionship and fatherly advice.
On the other hand, my anger at this event involving a total stranger is such that, were it to happen to my daughter, I am not sure i could control my reaction.
How can one be so inhumane to another person?
If I ever strike it rich and don't have to work for a living, I'd either take up cases like this and sue folks, or I would prosecute child abusers and other who do violence to the most innocent and helpless amongst us.
This is unconscionable.
Paul Krugman gives the Dems some advice . . .
Hmm. He basically says that Democrats must stick to their principles and not change a heck of a lot in response to this election. He says that the Democrats will once again have a majority.
Wretchard points out some information from Samizdata that would tend to put the lie to that claim. Population numbers and shifts are such that the Red States are gaining more power in the electoral college and the House, and the Blue States are losing.
But, if Paul wants to tell the Dems how to cut their own throats, who am I to stop him?
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Great Steyn quote on the "Youth Vote"
The "youth vote" is the Left's equivalent of the Rapture: it may happen one day, but not on any schedule you want to put money on.
Go read the rest!
Chiraq can't find time to meet with Allawi in Brussels . . .
but he sure can stop over to visit his rapidly assuming room temperature PLO terrorist buddy, Yasser Arafat.
Yeah, and he wonders why France is so unpopular with average Americans.
A Great Idea from K-Lo at NRO : Stop Specter!
We need a grassroots campaign to stop Specter from becoming the chariman of the Senate Judiciary committee.
A few readers have already told me they have e-mailed Bill Frist and/or their senators. The more I think about it, this election is not over—there is unfinished business. As you know, Arlen Specter warned the president yesterday, in the press, that he will have a litmus test for judges if Specter is judiciary chair, a foregone conclusion as far as most are concerned. Fact is, folks, HE IS NOT JUDICIARY CHAIR, but there will be elections in the Senate in the coming days which could very well make him judiciary chairman.
Conservatives, as we have seen, won this election. Many of you personally played no small role in that. Why should Republicans stifle their conservative base by putting Arlen Specter in as judiciary chair? There is no reason. If there was some deal cut that he would be judiciary chair, it seems to me he broke it yesterday.
Some might want to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Not me.) Maybe Specter just wanted to keep the liberals who supported his reelection bid off his case, so he issued his warning to the president on the day of his victory (and a very conservative victory across the nation, at that). Fact is, we only know what he says. And I, for one, will take him on his word.
So, simply put, Arlen Specter cannot be judiciary chair.
If you agree—if you agree that good men and women cannot be kept off the Supreme Court because they are against abortion (disqualifying, for starters, any faithful Catholic, many evangelicals, Muslims, automatically…)—call and e-mail Bill Frist (and your Republican senators, if applicable) today. I’m pretty certain an overwhelming outcry from conservatives in the next few days is the only way Arlen Specter can be kept from becoming a huge obstacle.
So get to work. Frist’s number is 202-224-3344.
P.S. I'd congratulate Frist on his great wins in the Senate, too!
So what are you waiting for? JUST GET ON THE PHONE OR EMAIL AND WORK FOR THIS!
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
That no good, ungrateful SOB -- THIS IS WHY BUSH SHOULD HAVE BACKED TOOMEY, DOGGONE IT!
Specter warns Bush on high court nominations
In other words, the Dems won't have to worry about an abortion litmus test -- Specter (RINO -- PA) will do it for them.
Bush backed Specter when Toomey could have defeated him in the primaries. Specter diddn't deliver PA for the President, and now he's going to lecture Bush about potential judicial nominees?
Screw that. I'd like to see Frist take him on and remove his but from the Judiciary committee. It's not like Specter is a reliable Republican anyway -- and he's out after this term, anyway.
Man am I angry about this. It just goes to show that compromise is wasted on those without honor. Bush should expend political capital getting people in office who will support his conservative programs, rather than compromising with RINOs that get conservatives nowhere.
Timothy Carney says it all so much better than I have managed.
When Wealthy Idiots Fund Losing Causes
George Soros is upset at the Bush win. Well, he's not as upset as Michael Moore, but again, he didn't make as big of an arse of himself as Moore did.
But still, he's upset. I don't think he understands how someone he despises could be so popular, or how his vaunted money club (you know, the one that once took down the Bank of England) failed him here.
Heh. As long as you don't get it, we keep winning.
It feels pretty good, George.
No posts til late tonight
I have beaucoup stuff to file by five. Besides, Blogspot has been sluggish.
If you want to have some fun, check out the Democratic Underground, where emotions from rage to heartbreak to stunned disbelief are running rampant. Some folks are asking whether it's easier to emigrate to New Zealand or Canada; others are turning on Kerry for refusing to "count every vote" (despite the fact even Kerry could see there weren't enough votes out there for him to win Ohio); others are advocating violent uprisings (seriously); still others are vowing to drop the Democratic Party and form a new progressive party.
Wow. Sucks to be them.
Dan the Man
is now providing his best "How John Kerry Might Still Win and Beat that Hated Bush OffSpring" strategy session.
Watching Dan the Man go through a personal meltdown is very amusing.
"For George Bush, it's first and goal from a yard out. Sometimes that yard can be very hard to get."
Sigh. Dan also contends that the world will end if we have a 269-269 tie.
Oh dear Lord
Edwards is now coming out to say that they are not quitting because they are going to fight in Ohio.
He's trotting out the old "every vote will count, and every vote will be counted. Tonight, we are keeping our word, we are going to fight, and we are going to see that every vote is counted. You deserve no less."
Please. John, you know as well as I do that you are going to lose. You can try and deny the inevitable, but it IS going to happen.
Now, you can call in all of your NTLA friends to tie things up in court.
Stupid. But, good billable hours for all involved.
Delusions of Victory . . .
Fox News is now reporting that the Kerry Campaign is objecting to the call of Ohio for President Bush, saying that there are 250,000 votes still left and therefore Kerry is not mathematically eliminated from winning (they are now down 135,000 votes).
In other words, they would have to win about 77% of the remaining votes, some of which are from heavily Republican Hamilton County (where a write-in campaign for a county office has slowed down election returns).
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
But they can dream.
In other news:
Thune is beating Daschle by an increasing margin (I guess it is hard for Democrats to cheat with poll watchers at the Indian reservation polling places).
Martinez is holding on to a small lead in the Florida Senate race. Vitter has won the Louisiana Senate race outright. It looks like the Republicans will pick up five seats in the United States Senate.
With 89% of the vote in, Bush leads Kerry by 27,000 votes in New Mexico. On that basis, I am calling New Mexico for Bush (and hence, I am calling the election for Bush as well).
By the way, the conspiracy theorists at the Democratic Underground are heating up.
My favorite DU comment so far, though, is the following by a Lefty lamenting the fact they have lost the popular vote by over a million votes:
This country doesn't deserve John Kerry and John Edwards.
You know, I think I agree. On that note, good night, folks. God Bless America, and God Bless George W. Bush.
Bush's victory -- and yes, I am calling this race for Bush right now . . .
is really a tribute to Jacksonian America. This is a triumph of individualism and self-sufficiency over the forces of collectivism and dependency.
That is not to say that the forces of collectivism and dependency are out of our lives. This election is way too close. I suspect part of the reason is the fact that Bush himself does not project many domestic policies that Jacksonian America would adopt.
But, Jacksonians are willing to set those differences aside in the face of actual or perceived foreign threats. They have done so once again.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Bush wins Ohio
and Alaska will probably go for Bush -- giving him 269 electoral votes.
Now, if Bush wins New Mexico, then we win.
I think that will happen tonight.
Wouldn't this be fun!
As of right now, Bush has 237 ECV, Kerry has 145. Ohio is still in play.
Let's say Bush loses Ohio. Bush then goes on to win New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada and Wisconsin.
That gives Bush 269 electoral college votes. If Kerry wins everything else, then the race is a tie, and it goes to the House of Representatives.
Wouldn't that be fun?
The networks just gave Pennsylvania to Kerry. Totals as of right now are Bush 196, Kerry 134. The West Coast polls close in two minutes, and I expect all three states to be called for Senator Kerry, taking the totals to Bush 196, Kerry 207.
I still think we win Florida, Wisconsin, and probably Ohio -- which means we win.
It also looks like the Republicans are going to increase their grasp of the Senate. Thank goodness.
I looked at the Ohio Counties
whose precincts have been reported. Most are in what should have been strong Kerry country -- Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Trumbull (Warren) -- and Kerry is not doing well enough to carry the state. Bush, on the other hand, is winning in the suburban counties and rural areas. I think we have Ohio.
Misha's site has been down most of the day . . .
anyone know what is going on?
Good news from Florida
accoding to analysis from Fox News, turnout is up significantly in the north-central counties of Florida, where Bush has also picked up significant numbers over his 2000 vote. Also, the high number of Broward County absentee ballots that never got delivered has to hurt the Democrats. I'm feeling better about this race.
CNN has a cool interactive map . . .
that will allow you to click on specific states and pull up a county-by-county map. Check it out.
Bush is ahead thus far, with 18% of the precincts counted. Hopefully, the panhandle is uncounted and will (as per tradition) go heavily for the President.
We need Florida. We can lose Ohio and make it up; we cannot lose Florida.
Here's a link to the real-time Florida Vote total from the Florida Secretary of State.
In just a few minutes, A heck of a lot of Polls will Close
Right now, it is Bush 39 Kerry 3.
With the 8am polls, it appears to be Bush 66, Kerry 78.
Lords. I'm not panicking yet -- I have my Jack Daniels, my Graf Spolberg, and my laptop -- but the fact several states are appearing too close to call is not good.
I'll be up all night.
The Netherlands Experiences More Political Violence
This time an apparent Muslim assassin has murdered a filmmaker (a direct descendant of my favorite artist, Vincent van Gogh) who made an anti-Muslim film. The film, "Submission", is a fictional account of a Muslim woman forced into a violent marriage, raped by a relative, and brutally punished for adultery.
Unfortunately, sexual subjugation and punishment of victims for their own rape happens all too often in the Muslim world.
Your Election Day Survival Kit!
Courtesy of Clay Barnett.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Sir George On Voting
A nice riff of the famous Patton speech.
LC's, this stuff we hear about regular Americans wanting to stay clear of politics, not wanting to vote, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to vote - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of balloting. When you were kids, you all admired the class president; the homecoming queen; the big league debaters; the toughest leaders. Americans love a winning vision and will not tolerate a loser, especially a loser like John Kerry. Americans despise cowards. Americans despise traitors. Americans despise appeasement weasels, pander weasels, commie weasels, and just plain old weasels. And as Americans we vote to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who just ran as an incoherent self-serving protest. That's why a whining anti-American candidate will never win the White House, for the very thought of a whining loser is hateful to an American. Just look at how esteemed Al Gore was after he threw tantrums over his ignominious loss. Even his home state, the proud state of Tennessee, voted against the bum, and after he went crying to the court house to throw away the votes of fighting Americans, soldiers, he didn't dare run for dog catcher. That's how much Americans despise a loser.
My daily dose of Steyn
reveals a few tidbits. First, he is calling the Election for Bush, 315 to 223. Steyn also puts Thune over Daschle in South Dakota, calls for two new GOP seats in the Senate, and five more in the House.
My official predictions -- for what they're worth
296 Bush, 242 Kerry; Bush takes Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa; Kerry gets Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshire.
See you tomorrow.
I found this election blog
and I really like it. The Horserace Blog looks at the Bush-Kerry race in several states, and conducts in-depth discussions of polling results and why some polls differ wildly in their results.
Definitely worth a read.
Update on Presidential Vote Equation Model
As of October 29, 2004, the model shows Bush getting about 57% of the vote.
I don't think that will happen (though I still think Bush will win). The model is an interesting one, but so many things about this race have been pretty unique -- the new campaign finance laws, the impact of 527s, the level of personal vitriole extended to the President, and the obvious anti-Bush bias by the mainstream press (how else does one explain the fact that this economy, while described in disparaging terms by the MSM aand John Kerry, is, by the numbers, is in approximately the same position it was back in October 1996, the supposed Clinton Boom Years?).
Today is going to be busy -- I have a Wednesday filing deadline for pre-trial motions, etc., in a case set for trial mid-month. On top of that, I've got a sinus infection.
I mention this because I hoped to put together some lengthy posts on the election, and on the electoral college. I am not sure that will happen now.
So let me summarize those positions here, and perhaps I will have time to espouse upon them later. I think Bush wins this election, carrying Ohio, Florida and Iowa. I think there will be riots in at least two states, Ohio and Florida (specifically in Cleveland and Miami) once those results are announced. There will be more grumbling from the left about stolen elections, though they will not want to do anything substantive about the problem.
I also want to state, for the record, my support of the Electoral College. Win or lose, popular majority or no, I will not be one of those who whines about the "outdated" Electoral College. It is still relevant and useful (and, to counter one of the more ignorant anti-Electoral College rants) is not rendered unnecessary because we have better, faster communications now than we had in the past.
Blogger predictions on the election
Smug Monkey is feeling confident of a Bush win. Protein wisdom calls it for Bush, too. Vodkapundit not only has his own prediction (Bush 286), but several other BlogWorld calls. Spoons is more pessimistic, giving Kerry over 300 Electoral votes.
The most comprehensive roundup of blogger opinions is at Les Jones' blog.
For the record, I think Bush will win, 290+ electoral votes.
For those who want to have a live map of the election, VodkaPundit has one that will be continuously updated tomorrow night.