Day: March 29, 2006

This is an outrage.

This has got to be a joke.

Right?

Ahem, Right?

(h/t Bryan)

Two bits gleaned from Drudge this afternoon. Both are priceless.

Congresswoman McKinney Punches Police Officer… MORE… Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a U.S. Capitol Police officer today after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector, HOTLINE reports… The entire incident is on tape. The cop is pressing charges and the USCP are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims…

I can’t wait to see the tape.

And…

Former DISNEY Chairman Michael Eisner scored a zero rating in his talkshow host debut, NIELSEN claims. Eisner scored a 0.0 rating and 0 share on CNBC Tuesday night, pulling the lowest possible audience levels… ‘Conversations w/ Michael Eisner’ scratched with 95,000 viewers and scratched with 39,000 in Adults 25-54.

Dear Mike,

Give.It.Up.

The New York Times has a story today about Lou Dobbs and his views on the future of U.S. immigration policy. I appreciated this insightful gem:

In the course of insistently offering his ever more passionate views on immigration all across the television landscape in just one 24-hour period, Mr. Dobbs underscored that what works in cable television news is not an objective analysis of the day’s events but hard-nosed, unstinting advocacy of a specific point of view on a sizzling-hot topic.

By the way, that’s the same formula that runs the blogosphere, and the primary reason why I blog.

Go read the whole thing.

Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who plead guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud, received the minimum sentence allowed for the crime and will sit in jail for nearly 6 years.

At least he’ll have plenty of time to sign a multi-million dollar book deal, write his tome, and live lavishly once he’s released from prison.

Why is it that politicians who are desperate to regain power, who don’t have a focused message, and whose party has no unified platform, retreat to the promiseland to invest in commitments they can’t keep?

Politicians of all stripes make this mistake. Today, it’s the Democratic Party’s turn.

The Democrats have promised that if they are reelected in 2006, they will ‘eliminate’ Osama bin Laden and ‘ensure’ a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida’s elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

“We’re uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security
George Bush has promised but failed to deliver,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security.”

The Democrats fundamentally misunderstand the war on terror. To them, terrorism is encapsulated in one person – Osama bin Laden. By promising to find and kill bin Laden, the Democrats push the notion that if you get rid of the man, you rid the world of terrorism. Of course, this position falls flat on its face when you consider there are terrorist cells throughout the world who disagree with bin Laden and act unilaterally even though they consider themselves members of al-Qaeda. Just consider Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There are global terrorist factions who rally around and take orders from this man. What are the Democrats going to do when Zarqawi replaces bin Laden?  

Removing bin Laden is a one trick pony approach to fighting terrorism. It’s a law enforcement solution which might work if we’re talking about cleaning up a neighborhood by taking out the guy who runs the crack house down the street. Unfortunately for the Democrats, terrorism can’t be localized like this. There are other neighborhoods and thousands of guys who run crack houses. There are other countries and a million terrorists. 

When Democrats talk about a withdrawal from Iraq, it’s not about bringing troops home and preventing further death. It’s not about freeing the Iraqi people from U.S. occupation. It’s not about “playing nice” in the hopes that the French, Spanish and the Russians like us again. To Democrats, a withdrawal from Iraq is about stopping terrorism. They believe a redeployment of troops to other parts of the world sends a message of peace which will soften the hearts of terrorist groups and lessen the risk of further attacks. By pushing this ‘solution’ the Democrats do nothing to disprove the fact that they completely misunderstand the terrorist mentality.  

This election year posturing by the Democrats further substantiates their national security weaknesses. Republicans owe it to voters to expose this weakness and show that it is wrong for America.