PunditGuy

Would even Linda Richman buy this CD? The thought of it gives me shpilkes in my genecktegessoink.

Streisand, Gibb Reunite After 25 Years

Barbra Streisand and Barry Gibb hadn’t worked together in 25 years. But Gibb still knew the best way to express what Streisand was thinking — especially when it came to the war in Iraq.

The result was “Stranger in a Strange Land,” written by Gibb for Streisand’s new album, “Guilty Pleasures.”

“I loved the first stanza, because to me this war is kind of senseless, and I don’t know why we’re there,” Streisand told The Associated Press.

“Just the sadness of, we’re there, but don’t want to have those people in harm’s way, and yet we do have to support (the troops). It’s kind of painful, and I had always imagined just seeing footage of the troops, it’s like history repeating itself — here we are again. That was the meaning to me.”

Coming to a bargain bin at a Wal-Mart near you, “Guilty Pleasures” – Babs at her looniest, from Moonbat Records.

Oh dear, now I’m a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic – a Progressive Moderate is neither progressive nor moderate. Discuss!

This was called ‘Basket Weaving 101’ when I was in school.

That’s about as close as I’ll come to agreeing with Kevin Drum.

WHISPERING CAMPAIGN….Is every single liberal blog in the world planning to post a sniggering, wink-wink-nudge-nudge mention that David Dreier is rumored to be gay? Pardon me while I throw up.

And spare me the drivel about the “principled” case for outing gay politicians. I’m not buying, and there’s nothing principled going on here in any case. It’s just childish nonsense that perpetuates the notion that there’s something sordid about being gay. Conservatives were wrong to conduct a decade long witch hunt against Bill Clinton’s sex life, and liberals are wrong to join in when the shoe is on the other foot.

I’m with Kevin on the childishness of liberals who ‘on principal’ put a full-court press on conservatives whom they believe to be hypocrites.

But on the “witch hunt against Bill Clinton’s sex life” comment, I’m afraid he simply restates a tired lefty talking point.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was about perjury, not sex.

When ex-FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before the House select committee last Tuesday, he was questioned directly and sharply (and appropriately as far as I’m concerned) by committee members about the lame job he did in the days following Hurricane Katrina. So, one would expect that an appearance by Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco would be met with the equal criticism.

Think again.

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, blamed by the former leader of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin for many of the city’s post-hurricane problems, was given no questions about her response to Hurricane Katrina when she appeared before a Senate committee to plead for more federal money.

She asked not to be questioned about it and the senators agreed.

Why? If we’re going to get down to brass tax on this and attempt to correct ourselves for future events, we should be calling a spade a spade. Reveal the deficiencies and work to provide solutions.

What? Were these guys afraid of offending or embarrassing the Governor?

Republican senators at yesterday’s hearing by the Finance Committee — Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Olympia J. Snow of Maine, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Craig Thomas of Wyoming, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Bill Frist of Tennessee, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Michael D. Crapo of Idaho — agreed to Mrs. Blanco’s request not to discuss her performance after the hurricane.

Instead, she devoted her appearance to pleading for help to rebuild businesses and creating jobs in Louisiana. She said Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had wiped out a third of the state’s economy.

Is there some new rule in effect now? How is it that an individual who is called to testify before a Senate committee is afforded the privilege of being able to pick the questions they’re asked?

Sheesh! Why are these guys being so wimpy when it comes to Blanco, whom in many ways exhibited as much ineptness as Michael Brown? He leaves his post bloodied and she walks out of the room with billions of dollars.

CBS’ 60 minutes will report this weekend on what life is like today for Elian Gonzalez, five years after.

  

The question is, what kind of indoctrination has young Elian been through since his repatriation? Despite his ‘Stepford Child’ perma-smile, one can only hope he is as genuinely happy as he appears in the photo on the right.

In what Miami Cuban exiles would say is propaganda, Castro attended the boy’s elementary school graduation and declared he was proud to have Gonzalez as his friend. The feeling is mutual. “It’s also very moving to me and I also believe I am his friend,” Gonzalez tells Simon. “Not only [do I think of Castro] as a friend, but also as a father,” says Gonzalez. The boy believes that he could call the Cuban president on the phone if he wanted to.

Elian, his family and his fellow Cubans have hope in one thing – Castro. He is the one who gives them life. Elian’s comment exhibits nothing more than the deification of his “father”, Castro; a common characteristic of communist ideology.

Gonzalez gave a patriotic speech in front of Castro and cameras on the fifth anniversary of the day U.S. law enforcement officers raided his Miami relatives’ house and removed him at gunpoint to be repatriated. It’s all part of Castro’s propagandist plans, says Ramon Sanchez, a Cuban-American who led demonstrations in Miami in support of keeping the boy in America five years ago. “[Gonzalez] is being brainwashed by the Cuban regime. When you see a child talking in the same exact way that the dictator has talked for 46 years, you know he has been indoctrinated,” says Sanchez.

Hard to argue with that.

The boy says his Miami relatives, with whom he spent five months, tried to persuade him to stay in America. “They were telling me bad things about [my father]… They were also telling me to tell [my father] that I did not want to go back to Cuba and I always told them that I wanted to,” he tells Simon. Gonzalez says he missed his father, school and his friends back in Cuba.

The worst parts of his Miami experience were the nights he found difficult to sleep through. “I would have nightmares and my uncles would talk to me about my mother… it was better not to remind me of that because that tormented me… I was very little,” he recalls.

A classic tactic of cultism, convincing the subject that he was ultimately misled by the love of his family. Their love wasn’t real. Only the love and care that comes from the ‘father’ is real and true. 

One of those great uncles who cared for him during that time, Delfin Gonzalez, denies that Elian was unhappy and says he doesn’t believe anything he says in Cuba because the boy is a prisoner there.

Does Elian ever want to see those relatives again? “Yes,” he tells Simon. “Despite everything they did, the way they did it, it was wrong, they are [still] my family… my uncles.”

But will Elian ever be able to leave Cuba to go see his relatives again? Never, as long as communism rules the country. But you can bet that Castro himself or his representatives will reach out and claim that Elian’s family can come to Cuba to see the boy anytime they like without any fear of retribution. They’ll offer this with smiles on their faces.

Death wears a smile, just like the one on Elian’s face in the picture above.

John Roberts has been confirmed by the Senate as 17th Chief Justice of the United States. The 50-year-old Roberts was sworn in a little more than three hours after he was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of 78-22. The oath was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.

I’m guessing Jenna and Barbara aren’t around to give you a hand, so…let me put it to you straight.

Trust me. I would say this to my own father.

Please don’t wear this combination again.

It looks a little goofy, and I’ve already seen a few lefty blogs out there ridiculing you. I don’t know, maybe it’s because the hat is too small. Sorry, but seeing you with it kind of reminds me of this (for some unexplainable reason):

Next time, go with the wide brimmed Stetson.

Uh, and the sunglasses…well, they’re pretty cool, but…you look a little beady eyed. I’d suggest you go with traditional cop sunglasses like these:

And a cigar always works (even if you don’t light it).

 

Oh, and one more thing. I don’t know if that boot color is workin. I’m not so good in the footwear department so I could be wrong, but they just don’t seem to be making it with the rest of your ensemble. Go with black or something.

I guess that’s it. I’m just lookin out for you alright?

We cool?

Thanks.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of reading about these glitzy ‘star power’ dinner benefits for social causes. It’s not the social cause that bugs me. Heck, I don’t care if you put together a $1000-per-plate dinner to raise money for the spotted owl or if you have a local bake sale to pay for the church mission trip. Whatever. The part that irks me the most is the persistent thick fog of fakery lingering at so many of these rich-beautiful-people wearin five-figure-costin custom tailored power suit supper galas.

Like this one.

Angelina, Condoleezza and Hillary combined their considerable star power Wednesday night to cast a spotlight on the international effort to fight HIV and AIDS.

For one night, the campaign against HIV trumped the buzz over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s re-election bid, speculation over whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will run for president, even gossip about actress Angelina Jolie’s relationship with Brad Pitt.

Well of course we’re supposed to believe that everyone in attendance talked only about the fight against HIV-AIDS and that none in the 30-years and under crowd trash-talked Angelina’s makeup and hair, and none of the guys in the audience actually wished they were there to witness a ‘Rage-in-the-Cage’ X-treme cage-fight night between Hillary and Condi.

Riiight. 

The women were all speakers at a dinner of the Global Business Coalition on HIV-AIDS, helping raise $1.3 million.

Volkswagen of South Africa, Getty Images, MAC Cosmetics, Bristol- Myers-Squibb, Virgin United and DeBeers were honored for their work against AIDS.

Corporations representing billions of dollars there to be honored for their humanitarian efforts. And none of these executives had anything on their mind but HIV-AIDS. And don’t believe for a minute that there was any lobbying going on. Naw, no way. Not at such an important night focusing on such an important cause.

Riiight.

While the women went out of their way to praise each other, Clinton drew loud applause when she called on the Bush administration and Congress to recognize the importance of condoms in the fight against AIDS.

“There is a great deal of political pressure to only talk about abstinence, and to deny support for condoms and education on using them,” Clinton said. “This policy will lead to the unnecessary deaths of many people.”

Surely Hillary must have regretted taking advantage of the moment to divert attention from such an important subject so she could shine the spotlight on herself and get a dig in against the president. After all, she wasn’t attending the benefit to espouse any serious political agenda. She wouldn’t have mistaken this special night as just another opportunity for her to practice the stump speech.

Riiight.

Earlier, Rice told the crowd at the Kennedy Center that the involvement of businesses along with government is crucial in fighting AIDS, which she said can threaten the stability of countries and entire regions.

She praised the bipartisan cooperation in Congress in support of funding AIDS prevention and singled out Clinton’s work, telling the New York senator, “It’s a pleasure to share the podium with you.”

My goodness! Who would have known that Condi was such a fan of Hillary Clinton and that she has actually been marvelling Hil’s good works in support of AIDS prevention? But the piece de resistance was the genuine honest comment from Condi about sharing the podium with Hillary. Gee, I wonder if they really do spend a lot of time together? You know, summertime family picnics at the house in Chappaqua.

Riiight.

Clinton got one of the big laughs of the evening when she pondered the life of a glamorous movie star.

“It’s hard being a beautiful celebrity,” Clinton said. “I wouldn’t know, but I’ve got to imagine it has to be very difficult.”

Uhmm… 

Riiight.

Roy Blunt of Missouri will assume Tom DeLay’s House Majority leadership duties.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday unanimously elected Roy Blunt of Missouri as their majority leader, replacing Tom DeLay, who was forced to give up the job after being indicted by a Texas grand jury, lawmakers said.

After a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, lawmakers said Blunt’s position was an interim arrangement for the rest of the year and that he would share leadership responsibilities with Rep. David Dreier of California.

It was not immediately clear how Blunt, who had had been the third ranking Republican member of the House, would share duties with Dreier, the chairman of the House Rules Committee.

“We all believe that he (DeLay) will return once this indictment is out of the way, and be the leader again,” Blunt said.

According to Patrick O’Connor of ‘The Hill’, conservative activists flooded speaker Dennis Hastert’s phone with calls of protest against Rep. Dreier, citing a blemish on his voting record.

By late afternoon, the conference had named Blunt to the post. After press reports shortly after the indictment that Dreier would assume the temporary position of majority leader, conservative activists from around the country flooded the Speaker’s office with phone calls protesting the selection of Dreier, according to one leadership aide. Many of the callers protested his vote on a controversial stem-cell measure earlier this year.

Given the ugly stories pushed from the Left today regarding David Dreier, one has to wonder if that was a factor in the decision to give the nod to Roy. Dreier isn’t completely out of the picture. He’ll help Blunt along with chief deputy whip, Rep. Eric Cantor.

In addition, Blunt’s chief deputy whip, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), will take on an expanded role within the whip office and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) will work closely with committee chairmen to monitor legislation coming to the floor, a role DeLay previously filled in his capacity as majority leader.

Blunt had this to say about the indictment against DeLay:

In his first remarks as majority leader, Blunt said he expected DeLay to return to the post and called the indictment “terribly unfair.”

“It’s not easy to fill the gap left by Tom DeLay,” Blunt said. “He will continue to be an important member in this House.”

And lest you think there wasn’t any soap opera ‘behind the scenes’ drama in Blunt’s selection…

Ever since 1998 when DeLay backed former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) for GOP Conference Chairman and pushed Rep. John Boehner out of the job, Boehner has been waiting for a ripe opportunity to return to the leadership ranks. While Boehner has his eye on the Speakership, he is likely salivating at the No. 2 post as well.

After the indictment was announced, Boehner met with several allies in the Speaker’s Lobby.

But even some Boehner allies, however, warn that the ambitious Ohioan and anyone else who may be mulling a run should keep his or her powder dry for now.

“[Boehner] would be foolish to try to do something … when there’s so much turmoil in the conference and so much anxiety about the coming election,” the source said. “It would be very unwise to do any kind of maneuvering for a future job under these circumstances.”

“Like sand in the hourglass, so are the days of our lives”.

Others: Joe Gandelman |

UPDATE: Attempt to Pick Successor is Foiled

From NRO:

I was an attorney for the [AGENCY NAME WITHHELD] for almost five years, and dealt with the civil side of the law at issue in the DeLay indictment. To say that the law is vague is an understatement – we didn’t know what it meant half the time. And Earle knows that, too. So even if there were a conviction, I don’t see how it could be upheld on appeal.

But Earle’s goal isn’t getting a conviction upheld, it’s the chance to have all the media descend on Austin for another “trial of the century.” If this mess does go to trial, there probably will be a conviction. Ronnie’s Austin jury pool will be made up of the most wacked-out liberals in all of Texas (Austin just loooooves Howard Dean). All the Volvo-driving, latte-slurping, blind salamander-loving nuts that make up this town must be drooling at the thought of getting on the jury.

Please don’t disclose my name or where I used to work – I still have a wife and kid to support!”

Heh.