Labor Day Weekend Open Thread

Fresh thread...hope everyone is having a great weekend.

We'll pick it up again in the morning.

Have fun. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread - WND on Fred's hat toss

I guess the surprise here is that they are now cleaving to Ron Paul for some reason.

Where should Fred Thompson announce his presidential candidacy?

Read the rest of this post...

Iraq progress: Civilian deaths rose in August

Bush keeps saying there's progress in Iraq. Some things speak for themselves:

Civilian deaths from violence in Iraq rose in August, with 1,773 people killed, government data showed on Saturday, just days before the U.S. Congress gets a slew of reports on President George W. Bush's war strategy.

The civilian death toll was up 7 percent from 1,653 people killed in July, according to figures from various ministries.

Nearly a quarter of the August total comprised 411 people killed in massive truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq on August 14.

Read the rest of this post...

Lies, Damned Lies And Karl Rove Columns

Karl Rove wrote a column for the National Review, stating that history will judge George Bush a successful President. The column was entirely laughable, a series of optimistic statements and misconstrued policies.

But typical of Rove, it was also filled with fabulous falsehoods. Here's what he said about the budget.

It was further weakened by terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, natural disasters, and out-of-control spending with discretionary domestic spending increasing 16 percent in the last fiscal year of his predecessor. President Bush took decisive action, cutting taxes and ratcheting down this spending.

In no way did George Bush ratchet down spending. That is an outright lie, one that Rove should be embarrassed to even suggest. According to a report by the Heritage Foundation, no liberal organization:

· Federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton.

Got that? Rove's idea of "ratcheting down this spending" is to spend it twice as fast. It's hard to believe he could write this without laughing.

Over the past seven years, this country has grown accustomed to the blatant lies of the Bush Administration. And it comes as no surprise that the National Review would publish this rubbish. But ultimately, we must remain vigilant. Because history has yet to be written, and if we allow the Karl Rove's of the world to repeat this lie enough, it might eventually be considered true. Read the rest of this post...

2008 shaping up to be a very rough year for the GOP

Republican Senate leaders were in freak out mode over the Larry Craig scandal. There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but the main was political. 2008 is already shaping up to be a brutal year for Republicans in the Senate. Remember, this is the class that got elected under George Bush's vigorous pro-war campaign back in 2002. Fortunately, the world is a very different place and Americans know what a disaster Bush's policies have been. The Republicans running in 2008 have enabled Bush for the past five years. Payback is a bitch.

The last line in today's analysis from the Washington Post is the best line in the piece:

"About the only safe Republican Senate seats in '08 are the ones that aren't on the ballot," a GOP operative with extensive experience in Senate races said. "I don't see even the rosiest scenario where we don't end up losing more seats."

And, here's some of the meat of the Post's analysis:

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Wednesday rated the Colorado seat being vacated by Sen. Wayne Allard (R) as a tossup, but the state has been trending Democratic. Antiwar sentiments are turning some voters away from the GOP, imperiling the reelection prospects of Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John E. Sununu (N.H.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.).

The Craig scandal is only the latest issue to demoralize the Republican Party, and new wild cards keep springing up, such as an FBI raid on a vacation home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and questions about the role that Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. Democratic surrogates in labor-backed groups such as Americans United for Change have even been attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) in Kentucky.

The Cook Report considers those three seats and the Idaho seat "likely Republican," but if the GOP is forced to spend any money defending them, it would be siphoning funds from races where the money would be badly needed. As of June 30, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $20.4 million on hand, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee had $5.8 million in its bank account.

"If Republicans are investing significant money in Idaho, that means they are losing at least five seats in 2008," [Rothenberg Report's Nathan] Gonzales said. "If Idaho ends up the fire wall, they are in deep trouble."

At least five seats. I think it's going to be more. That list of endangered GOP seats just keeps growing. Read the rest of this post...

Larry Craig speaks -- again

Craig is scheduled to speak at 12:30 pm Eastern time. CNN and the other cable news channels will be covering it live. We'll live blog it and get some video up soon. Can't imagine it will be a long event -- and seriously doubt Craig will be answering questions.

Once this one is over, that same media horde needs to descend on David Vitter's hometown.

12:31 PM. Craig starts by thanking his family...the Governor. Rep. Bill Sali...other public officials standing with Larry Craig is "a humbling experience"

Blessing to serve Idaho. "I choose to serve because I love Idaho."

"I apologize for what I have caused."

To pursue my legal options, while I continue to serve...would be a distraction. These are serious times....

People need a Senator who can give 100%....therefore, I resign as of September 30.


I apologize to people of Idaho for being unable to serve out the term to which I was elected

I have enjoyed every minute.

Suzanne and I have been humbled beyond words by the support....forever grateful.

Read the rest of this post...

NC pol's solicitation scandal parallels Vitter

I have to give props to the NC GOP for playing hardball with hetero Privette; at least they are sending him the kind of message that the GOP on the Hill hasn't given to Diaper David Vitter, who also admitted diddling around with sex workers.

Coy C. Privette, the Cabarrus County (NC) commissioner, retired Baptist minister, and disgraced former head of The Christian Action League, recently pleaded guilty to six counts of aiding and abetting prostitution. Yes, Coy repeatedly broke his religious marital vows over and over for a little horizontal bop on the meter.

The 74-year-old retired pastor is now being urged to resign by his fellow commissioners, and he received a formal letter to that effect.

The state Republican Party chairman said she has sent Privette a priority-mail letter urging him to step down.

..."It was my opinion that he should step down immediately," state party Chairman Linda Daves said Thursday afternoon. "The letter said he's dishonored and disgraced."

...Daves said she talked with Privette on Sunday and told him he should resign immediately for the good of the party.

Here's an excerpt of the letter Privette received:

Despite your many years of service to the people of Cabarrus County and the Republican Party, your behavior has severed a public trust, and you have sacrificed the privilege to represent the people of North Carolina. Your confessed conduct is dishonorable to yourself, your family, the people you represent, and our Party."

Privette, btw, has said he will not step down.

Betsy at Blue NC says this:

I'm not sure I want Privette to resign. See, he and my BFF, Robin "Flipper" Hayes are tight. Coy's followers provide GOTV assistance to Hayes and other local Republicans and I don't want Privette to resign and rob me of the chance to link Robin Hayes to a man who is guilty of straying outside the bounds of morality and using a prostitute to satisfy his carnal desires. Now we know just what kind of "action" he was getting at The Christian Action League.

Speaking of Robin Hayes....he's been silent on the news that his friend and colleague, Coy Privette can't keep his peter in his pants. Does Robin Hayes think that if he stays quiet long enough nobody is going to point out that he and Coy go way back? I mean...they're pinky shake, spit on the ground, best friends fo'evahhhhh kind of pals. A friendship like that simply shouldn't be hidden away at a time like this. Coy needs his buddies. Come on Robin Hayes, show a proselytizing old pervert some love.

Read the rest of this post...

A Freeper smacks down the Base over Craig

A voice of semi-sanity can occasionally be found on the pages of Free Republic. I make light of the ignorance there because it is seemingly endless, but here we find some actual truth-telling about the Craig matter, by FR resident nathanbedford that leaves most of the knuckledraggers there with little to say. You may not agree with this Freeper's views in total -- his argument is less support of Craig (or  homosexuality) as a moral issue but an acknowledgment that far-right efforts to impose their morality through law-making leads to abuse, such as bathroom busts targeting gay sexual conduct versus straight sexual conduct, the latter which never seems to be the target of vice sting operations. For the underbelly of the far-right, this is a rare major smackdown from one of its own.

What should be the proper conservative perspective on laws concerning homosexuality?

First, we must acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision in the Texas case [Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality] exists. Second, we deplore the decision because it is a departure from states' rights-but I think it would be a very serious blunder to deplore the decision because we find homosexuality icky. The world has moved beyond the point where our society arrogates the right to criminalize unseemliness in private, consensual, adult sex. We like to think of ourselves as far more enlightened than the Victorians and we regard them as being a culture locked in irrational sexual taboos. But it was Lady Astor, very much a Victorian, who said, "you can do anything you like in public providing you don't frighten the horses."

Second, we must recognize the tides of jurisprudence, culture, and public consensus are flowing against us. The Supreme Court opinion is very unlikely to be reversed, so the law has already moved substantially against the traditional "conservative" position. Concurrently, the legal and social advances of homosexuals in our society are unlikely to be reversed. The homosexual community is an exceedingly active and effective lobby who can only be expected to campaign vigilantly for their own perceived rights. They are winning the battle. Conservatives who stand against them are impotently standing athwart history and must expect an unrelenting series of Larry Craig type incidents which increasingly alienate us from the general public. I think a truly conservative approach to the issue of homosexuality is to distinguish between that which is tolerable and that which is not because it conflicts with a competing higher value. For example, private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer. The flagrant, obnoxious, in your face primping and even soliciting, should be outlawed because it is repugnant to a higher value, which is the welfare of our children. Likewise proselytizing of our children in the school system. Homosexual marriage can be opposed because it degrades a higher institution, heterosexual marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract.

Third, as conservatives we fear, above all things, intrusive government. We should be wary lest we tolerate government peccadilloes against homosexuals because we are disgusted by them. As conservatives we are rightly or reluctant to turn to the government for solutions to social problems. To the degree that we regard homosexuality as a "problem" we should be very reluctant to look to the criminal law system as the solution. That means that we must be careful not to criminalize or even stigmatize homosexuality because we find it repugnant. Conversely, we must not be intimidated by political correctness from insisting that the law protect our children from physical, psychological and educational abuse. We must be careful to punish acts where appropriate, but not the status. Neither should we tolerate that the status be exalted. We should act only when the horses are frightened.

So all of this brings us to the political implications of the Craig scandal. I have posted in another context as recently as a few days ago my concern about Republicans who throw their fellows to the enemy as soon as storm clouds gather. In fact, I make reference to this deplorable tendency in my about page. I do not think it is necessary to consider what to do about Senator Larry Craig, he is a problem in the process of resolving itself and I have no doubt that he will not be the Senator from Idaho on January 2, 2008. His senatorial career is virtually over. But I dodge the issue, what should be done about Senator Larry Craig if he does not go voluntarily? He should be shunned by the party and all support for him should be withdrawn not because he is a homosexual but because he is a damn hypocrite. Craig did not do much of anything legally wrong-he did not frighten the horses-if but he brings disgrace to the party by his flagrant hypocrisy. And the party must rid itself of him because failure to do so would lay it open to the charge of hypocrisy. He represented the party in the United States Senate for the state of Idaho and he lied to us about matters of morality and "family values." It is one thing to have a rot in the body of the party and to remove that rotten apple from the barrel and quite another thing to regularize perversity as the Democrats have done in similar circumstances.

What to do about other homosexuals? Do we welcome them into the party? I should think so, so long as they are open and otherwise comport themselves in sync with conservative values. That is, when they are not hypocrites.

Ironically, the remarks of Barney Frank seemed to me to be the best placed of this controversy. Of course he did not object to Craig's homosexuality and thought he should remain in the Senate. But he did criticize the man's hypocrisy. In this Barney Frank struck home. So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge. And every time a Republican homosexual is outed, we will become a laughingstock. We are open to the charge that we are hypocrites when we invoke the criminal law to enforce our predilections about sex because we are the party which says it stands for individual liberty and limited government. The Democrats say we intrude government into the bedroom and in this case they are right. So, when they say the same thing about abortion, we cannot effectively deny the charge even though a much higher value-a baby's life-is at stake.

We fall into this hypocrisy trap when we make the fundamental mistake respecting the nature of homosexuality vis-à-vis society. Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy because closet homosexuals within our ranks preach "family values." Why do we let the Democrats conflate these two issues? Because we have done so ourselves. Homosexual activity in private between consenting adults who are not married constitute no threat to my marriage. Nor do they constitute a threat to the institution of marriage. Adultery poses a threat to the adulterer's marriage whether the adultery is homosexual or heterosexual. The adulterer is not a greater hypocrite because his adultery is homosexual. I submit that no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.

Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Good Morning.

It is a beautiful day here in D.C.

If you need a respite from the news, check out the poem of the week. It's Chicago by Carl Sandburg. A tough poem, which does sound like an oxymoron.

According to the Idaho Statesman (probably the most popular news site on the web this week), Larry Craig has scheduled his announcement for 10:30 a.m. (That's Mountain time.)

I'm off for a run shortly. Training for the Marine Corps Marathon again. Doing 14 today.

Have at it. Read the rest of this post...