Democrats determined to set record for most asinine statements in single campaign

This today from Congressman Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee --

"Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner.”

More like, the unvarnished state truth

Sen. Tom Harkin praising liberal radio host Ed Schultz on Schultz's show this past Friday --

I gotta tell ya, Ed, a lot of us have talked around here and we just say thank God for Ed Schultz. I mean that sincerely. He's getting the truth out to the American people, the unvarnished state, straight truth of what's going on around here and we're grateful for that.

And we're really, really stateful, uh, grateful for that, Ed.

Gentlemen, you can't fight here, this is the war room!

Caller on Ed Schultz's radio show today who identified himself as "Raymond," chairman of town Democratic committee in Dartmouth, Mass., describing his approach to moderating town hall forum on health reform Aug. 18 attended by Bay State congressman Barney Frank --

As chairman of the party, in chairing that meeting, I made a statement at the beginning that I won't tolerate political stances.

Guess this means Barney Frank remained uncharacteristically silence through the meeting.

Report: GOP Sen. Arlen Specter Switching to Democrats

As being reported by CNN, according to an email blast I received a few minutes ago. If true, hardly a surprise but begs the question -- will Specter continue crossdressing?

Update, 2:20 pm -- Guess this means Michael Moore won't be doing any documentaries about Specter's long-suspected role in JFK assassination ...

Congressman Keith Ellison, representing the Democrats' clown caucus

One of the most insipid interviews I've heard, between liberal radio host Ed Schultz and Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the sole Muslim in Congress as Schultz invariably describes Ellison. Choice morsels from their schmooze on Thursday --

Schultz: All right, congressman, you're on the Financial Services and Judiciary committees. They're going to get a lot of attention in this next session. The incoming Obama administration, should they launch a criminal investigation into the Bush administration officials to see whether they broke the law in the name of national security. Are you for or against a Sept. 11-style commission with subpoena power?

Ellison: Yes. And that's a complete sentence.

And I sincerely mean that, Ed ...

After regaining his bearings, Ellison went on to say that, yes, by all means, let's pursue show trials of Bush junta hooligans for putting the lives of American citizens ahead of the comfort of jihadists.

Schultz and Ellison also talked about proposed Treasury Secretary and tax scofflaw Timothy Geithner, with Ellison playing role of Obama's ventriloquist dummy, mouthing the president-elect's words nearly verbatim but with a vintage Ellison observation to boot --

Ellison: If our standard for being appointed is perfection, then somebody's going to be appointed. There's nobody who is not messed up, screwed up or goofed and I don't think we should have an unreasonable standard.

And the "messed up, screwed up or goofed" are deserving of the most consequential jobs in our government.

Next up, discussion of alleged need for Obama economic stimulus package, seeing how previous government initiatives to print reems of currency and dump it from airplanes have met with resounding success --

Ellison: We had a couple of economists come in last week and month and (what) they said is that time really is of the essence and every day that we delay, you know, more people are going to get laid off, and if you're laid off then you don't want to spend no money 'cause you don't know if you're going to have any money and if you don't spend any money, then people, somebody else is going to get laid off because their company isn't making any money. So there's this ugly, vicious cycle.

Yet despite dire situation warranting immediate attention, the specter of show trials for Bush, Cheney, et al., is impossible for Ellison to shake. Schultz points out that Obama appears lukewarm to such a spectacle.

Schultz: Is this front and center? I mean, I know that the Congress can multitask, we got a lot of things going on, but do you think this will happen in a timely fashion?

Ellison: Well, if I have anything to say about it, it will. I think that there's a number of members of, in Congress, in the Progressive Caucus, in other things like that ... As a matter of fact, earlier today, you know, we had a presentation from some professors on this issue who have studied it quite a bit who said, look, you know, if you guys let this, you know, we've had impeachments based on a president lying about sex. Now if you say that this guy doesn't have to, that there's no rebuking of what he did, we're essentially greenlighting everything he did. And so there is, there's a strong (sic) people in the community who want something done and there's a number of members of Congress who want something done. So around here, you know, things happen if you put effort behind them and I'm willing to do that.

Among those who want "something done" is the legal arm of al Qaeda, whose members are following developments with keen interest.

Murtha: 'The surge is working'

A headline I also never thought I'd see, or at least the part that includes Congressman John Murtha. But in fairness to Murtha, an early proponent of US withdrawal from Iraq before the job is done, the man is willing to give credit where credit is due.

Here's the full story as reported today by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Dept. of Unintentional Humor

"We have to play hardball if we're going to try to end this war" - US Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., speaking today with radio talk show host Ed Schultz.

There they go again

A dutiful heads-up about Democrats in Congress by way of the observant editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal, from an editorial in the May 19-20 weekend edition of the paper --

"With all the other news this week, the media barely noticed that Congressional Democrats passed a budget outline that envisions more than $200 billion in tax increases over five years. Seems worth reporting to us." (emphasis added)

This at a time when the cumulative effect of the Bush tax cuts have federal revenues climbing so rapidly "that this year they may reach 19 percent of GPD -- above the 40-year average of 18.3 percent. Apparently, Democrats think this tax windfall isn't enough."

Change in jihadist tactics

Anyone else find it significant that the Fort Dix Six allegedly targeted an American military base -- as opposed to American civilians?

Whether the suspected terrorists would have carried out their plot had the feds not intervened is impossible to know, but it's hardly a stretch to surmise that the plotters would have encountered much less resistance -- and firepower -- had they targeted a shopping mall, commuter rail station (or college campus) than a military base.

Then again, why target civilians when the likely effect would be to unite Americans against the jihad? That's the last thing terrorists want. Far better for them if Americans remain divided on the true nature of the threat we face. For example, a Rasmussen poll released last week found more than one-third of Democrats, 35 percent, believe President Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were coming. Another 26 percent of Democrats "weren't sure" while 39 percent doubt that Bush knew of the onslaught in advance.

What's the point of killing American citizens if jihadists can already count on Democrats acting as useful idiots in losing the hearts and minds?

Also known as a purge

Not content with Democrats holding all six constitutional offices in Massachusetts, a 5-1 advantage over Republicans in the Legislature and all 10 of the state's seats in Congress, Bay State Governor Deval Patrick wants 50 commissioners and agency leaders appointed by Patrick's Republican predecessors to reapply for their jobs, according to today's Boston Globe.

"The governor has asked each secretariat to build a team that shares this administration's priorities and visions," Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan was quoted as saying.

Once the purge is complete -- by the end of the month, Sullivan told the Globe -- political diversity in Massachusetts will rival to that achieved by the late and unlamented (but not on Beacon Hill) Soviet Union.

Democrats retreat on war funding

Force of habit, you might say ... news today out of Washington - "Just hours after floating the idea of cutting $20 billion from President Bush's $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, Kent Conrad, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, was overruled by fellow Democrats yesterday," writes the AP's Andrew Taylor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is quoted as telling reporters, "It's nothing that any of us are considering."

Translation: It's nothing any of us are considering any longer after several nose counts found us short on votes.

Send lawyers, guns and money

Michigan Senator and armchair generalissimo Carl Levin describing his proposed Senate resolution on his appearance yesterday on "Meet the Press" --

The new resolution would "modify" the previous resolution in October 2002 that authorized the use of force against Iraq, Levin explained to MTP newsman Tim Russert, "so that we would be in a supporting role rather than a combat role."

A surge in grief counselors comes to mind ...

"Things have changed in Iraq," Levin stated further.

Yes, the Baathists are now slaughtering people right out in the open, instead of in dungeons like they used to ...

"We don't believe it would be possible to remove all our troops," Levin said ...

Such a strategy bearing an awkward resemblance to retreat ...

" ... but there is going to be a purpose that they are going to need to serve," Levin said, "included continued training of the Iraqi army, support for the logistics of the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose, or a mission ..."

Purpose, mission, whatever ...

" ... because there is 3,000 in al-Qaeda in Iraq ..."

Once again refuting the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda have nothing to do with each other ...

" ... so we want to modify, we want to transform ..."

Micromanage, tie the commander in chief's hands ...

" ... the earlier resolution to a more limited purpose."

Thereby limiting our nation's prospects for success but saddling a huge debacle around Bush's neck for eternity ...

Russert asked, why not just cut funding for the war?

Levin's response -- bad for the troops and would help Bush if rejected by Congress, a likely scenario - "So it's the wrong thing to do and it would also strengthen the president's hand and we don't want to do that, we want to change the president's course. He is on a course that is leading to defeat."

God forbid that Democrats do anything to "strengthen the president's hand" in time of war. This runs the risk of making them appear ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... patriotic?

Hardly a week passes that the Democratic Party does not confirm something I've suspected for years -- that defeating Bush is more important to them than destroying the threat from radical Islam.

The audience is far larger than that, Congressman

This from a statement made by Congressman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., about congressional debate on the war in Iraq, and posted on McGovern's website:

"Madame Speaker, the American people are watching. They want to know where each member stands on the issue of escalating the war in Iraq" -- as if there's the least doubt where any member of the Bay State's congressional delegation stands on this.

Hate to break it to you, Congressman, but it's not just the American people who are watching this debate in a world where C-SPAN coverage can be delivered live onto cell phones -- bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are watching too. As are the murderous Baathist thugs in Iraq slaughtering innocent people by the thousand. As are jihadists from Morocco to Indonesia. As are the Chinese and Russians while chortling at the prospect of a humiliated and defeated America.

God forbid we foster dependence on government

Another part of the Democrats' script on Iraq, as exemplified by Sen. John Edwards on "Meet the Press" last week: Edwards not only opposes President Bush's plan to reinforce US troops in Iraq, but wants an immediate withdrawal (or would that be "redeployment"?) of 40,000 troops.

Borrowing from the tough-love lexicon of the therapeutic culture, Edwards said of Bush's plan that "all this does is enable continued bad behavior, political bad behavior, that we've see over the last several years" (the flag went up for me with "enable").

"What we need to do instead, in my judgment, is to shift this responsibility to them," Edwards said, referring to Iraqis. "It is the most likely way to create this political reconciliation."

I'd have an easier time believing that Edwards and other Democrats are sincere in this claim if they'd show a semblance of willingness to extend this principle beyond Iraq -- seeing how the Democratic Party's primary basis for existence is to foster greater, and endless, dependence on government (let me amend that -- a twofold basis for existence - government dependency and thwarting Bush at every opportunity).

The correlation has been clear for decades -- less dependency on government, fewer Democrats. They need big government the way a vampire needs blood, and turn in horror when anyone casts sunlight on the correlation.

"Wasted" purged from Democratic script

Post-Obama's "wasted" gaffe, a new buzzword for Democrats to describe the deaths of American troops in Iraq -- they "sacrified" their lives in the war. Got that? "Wasted" is to be purged from the script. They say the war is a monumental failure built on lies without any chance of success, but the lives of our fallen troops weren't "wasted."

Another example of Democrats not daring to give voice to what they really believe, and when one does, as with Obama, a quick retreat to the sanctity of euphemism.

That's odd, usually he's so smarmy

John Edwards, responding to a question from Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday as to whether as president he would accept a nuclear-armed Iran:

"I -- there's no answer to that question at this time. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is ... I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

But as James Tarantino pointed out in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, less than two weeks before appearing on "Meet the Press," Edwards spoke by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference and stated the following: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."

Of course, to the McGovernite wing now controlling the Democratic Party, all options is translated thus: negotiate, negotiate more if this doesn't succeed, call for yet more negotiations (preferably multilateral at this point), and as a last resort -- negotiate really, really hard with a lot of emphasis in what you say, like you mean it and all. That'll show 'em!

Yes, but times were different then

Newly-christened US Senator James Webb, responding to President Bush's State of the Union Address, pointed out that this is the seventh time that Bush has mentioned "energy independence" in a SOTU speech, "but the first time to a Democratic Congress" -- in other words, now we'll finally get something done.

Kinda like Democrats did with health care reform in 1993-94 -- when they controlled both Congress and the White House?