THE POODLE'S OPINION ON MILITARY SERVICE

The Poodle recently told a group of college students the following: "You know, education...if you make the most of it...you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well...if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Well isn't that just so very special! Now we know what The Poodle things about all of your sons, daughters, fathers, brothers and sisters who are "stuck in Iraq."! They just couldn't cut it in school. They weren't smart enough. Now they have found themselves stuck in the military and in Iraq.

If this is the way John Kerry feels about the military, why doesn't he just throw away all those medals he has? Oh, wait. I forgot. Been there, done that.

The Poodle has about summed up his opinion on military service in that statement. In the coming days, he will do everything he can to backpedal. He'll tell us that's not what he meant...that he was really saying this or that. But the fact is, he said it. What about those who join the military so they can get money for college? It is an insult for somebody like John Kerry to sit in his cushy office and talk down to those who are risking their lives in Iraq.

The truth here is that this isn't just John Kerry speaking. This is pretty much the way many Democrats ...especially Hillary Clinton ... feel. Disdain for the military and for those who serve runs deep in the Democrat mind.

Oh, and John Kerry voted for the war that sent those troops to Iraq. But he's had amnesia about that for several years now. And I'm sure the 150,000 troops we have in Iraq are pleased to know that John Kerry thinks they are stuck there because they couldn't cut it in college.

ONE WEEK TO GO

One week to go until Election Day...and the outlook isn't any better for the GOP. The races may have tightened, but the outcome still stands to be the same: As things stand now, Nancy Pelosi is going to be your new speaker-elect, though it will be close.

This is not a victory the Democrats will have earned. It is a game the Republicans tried very hard to lose.

In the meantime, the anti-Bush, anti-Republican media campaign is in overdrive too....with the New York Times running stories about military funerals and CNN marking the 100th U.S. military death in Iraq this month. There is no doubt as to which party the media wants to run things inside the Beltway.

So what about the Republican base? Will they stay home in droves, as predicted, or are they going to wake up at the last minute and head to the polls? Are they going to vote for Democrats, just out of spite? Well, the truth...as usual...lies somewhere in the middle. Things will be tighter than predicted. If the election were held today, the consensus is that about 20 House races are in play, of which the Democrats need 15 to take over. They should get that easily.

Pay no attention to national polls about George Bush's approval rating or Republican vs. Democrat. All that matters is who registered, likely voters are going to vote for in those specific 20 districts. It's not about George Bush or Nancy Pelosi, but rather Joe Blow vs. Mary Smith. That's what it's all going to come down to.

As for the Senate? The Democrats are out of luck there. They don't seem likely to get the 6 seats they need to take over. The more plausible scenario there is 3 seats, giving the Republicans an even smaller majority...but still leave them in control. So now you're up to date.

HOLLYWEIRD ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

By Michelle Malkin

Michael J. Fox has gotten all of the attention, but the entertainment industry is trying to sway the elections in many other ways on the ground and on the airwaves.

Eco-activist Robert Redford is pushing Prop. 87 in California--a $4 billion oil tax increase in the name of environmental do-goodism. The initiative is funded by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and supported by Julia Roberts, Jamie Lee Curtis, James Caan and Ben Affleck.

On Thursday, HBO will air a documentary called "Hacking Democracy" that lionizes leading election conspiracy theorist Bev Harris of Black Box voting fame.

On Sunday, Fox is set to air an episode of "The Simpsons" sharply critical of the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the desperate Dixie Chicks are on the attack against conservative Internet users of the Free Republic.

Will Cameron Diaz do a repeat on Oprah this year about how, like, rape could be legalized if we don't make the right voting choices?

Stay tuned...

PELOSI'S PUPPET & SCHUMER'S SHILL

Those are my new ‘official’ nicknames for Patty Wetterling and Amy Klobuchar. The last I checked, neither had said anything that wasn’t straight from the Democratic policy handbook. You didn’t know that they had a policy handbook? I’d say shame on you if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s more like a policy sheet. Here’s the reported contents of that sheet:

• Bush should have held bilateral talks with Iran & North Korea, and multilateral talks with the rest of the world. Bush Bad.
• Bush didn’t talk with North Korea. That’s why they’ve got nukes now. Bush Bad.
• What terrorists in Iraq? There aren’t any terrorists in Iraq. If you don’t believe us, ask the Mainstream Media. Bush Bad.
• Bush hasn’t enforced the borders. Just say no to border fences. Vote for open borders. Bush Bad.
• Repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush Bad.

Last night, St. Patty tried getting creative on the taxes issue. She said “Let me reassure you. I DON’T WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. I’ll cut your taxes…unless you’re Paris Hilton.”

Later that night, Sen. Bachmann, Ms. Wetterling and John Binkowski appeared on the Steve Thompson radio program on KSTP-AM 1500. Here’s what an unscripted moment for Ms. Wetterling produced:

Wetterling: She voted to raise property taxes in the Senate. She did that.

Sen. Bachmann jumped all over that like Justin Morneau jumps all over a hanging slider in the middle of the plate. Here’s Sen. Bachmann’s response:

You cannot vote– Patty, I hate to burst your bubble, you can’t vote to raise property taxes.

This falls into the category of separation of powers, not a Democratic strength. Municipal and county governments set property tax rates. That’s beyond the state legislature’s reach.

If you think that separation of powers issues are a Democratic strength, check out this Amy Klobuchar answer about Iraq:

As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq. In fact, the leaders of Iraq’s otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so.

That’s what happens when Ms. Klobuchar doesn’t stick with her prepared script. She says that the Legislative branch should give orders to the Executive Branch in direct opposition to the Commander-in-Chief’s orders.

It’s obvious that, even though she’s a lawyer, Ms. Klobuchar either has little understanding of the Constitution or little respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Speaking of Ms. Klobuchar, she’s said that she wouldn’t have voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts or Associate Justice Alito to the Supreme Court; she’d increase taxes for the highest wage earners; she’d push for getting our troops out of Iraq “within a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks.” There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Ms. Klobuchar’s positions and DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer’s positions.

What Minnesotans have to decide this week is whether we want to elect thinking people like Michele Bachmann and Mark Kennedy to the U.S. House and Senate or if we want to elect Pelosi’s Puppet and Schumer’s Shill to those positions.

While that isn’t a difficult decision once you know the facts, it is vitally important that we get it right and elect Sen. Bachmann and Rep. Kennedy.

PENNSYLVANIA POLITICAL UPDATE

Things are heating up in Pennsylvania as Election Day nears. Here’s a look at what’s making news in Pennsylvania.

Small-business group backs Swann

“Lynn Swann has earned the respect of small-business owners and working families throughout Pennsylvania,” said Rich Gallo, vice chair of the NFIB Leadership Council for Pennsylvania. Mr. Gallo said the endorsement was based on Mr. Swann’s “strong support” on key small-business issues. He said nearly 90 percent of NFIB’s 20,000 members in Pennsylvania had recommended the backing of Mr. Swann. “He will work to create an environment in this state where small employers can grow and create jobs. Clearly, Lynn Swann understands that high taxes and overregulation have hamstrung Pennsylvania’s job creators,” he said.

Soon-to-be-former Gov. Ed Rendell’s got to see the handwriting on the proverbial wall when he sees 18,000 small businessmen voting against him.

Santorum: Casey lacking on security

In the first of a two-day series of speeches on national security, Mr. Santorum said Mr. Casey fails to recognize the danger of a threat that encompasses both “Islamic fascism” and leaders of countries who are “fully committed to our destruction. From everything I see, my opponent, Mr. Casey, is unready, unqualified for the office that he seeks at a very critical time in our nation’s future,” Mr. Santorum said in a speech at PRL Industries, a metal-castings supplier that counts the military among its customers.
In an interview with The AP, Mr. Casey called Mr. Santorum’s charge a “ridiculous assertion,” citing his current job as state treasurer and eight years as auditor general. “I’ve been a statewide public official in Pennsylvania for a decade,” Mr. Casey said.

Little Bobbie Casey’s response isn’t exactly reassuring. Citing his time as a number-cruncher isn’t the way to tell voters about his foreign policy bona fides. Only an idiot who can’t think on his feet would try telling voters he’s qualified to vote on foreign policy issues because he’s a numbers-cruncher. This is just more proof that Casey is an intellectual lightweight.

Philly leaders object to voting monitors

TRANSLATION: How can we commit enough voter fraud to push Corrupt Eddie over the top if you’re gonna be watching? That isn’t fair.

City officials and Hispanic community leaders objected Thursday to the federal government’s plans to put monitors at city polling places on Election Day, saying those efforts could discourage people from voting.

That’s utter nonsense. People in Iraq ignore terrorist attacks to vote but election fraud monitors will drive American voters away? “City officials and Hispanic community leaders” must think that minority voters are a bunch of whimps if they actually believe this. That said, I don’t think that they actually believe their quote. It’s pretty apparent that Philadelphia’s “city officials” are Rendell’s cronies who know that he’s in rough shape after two dismal debate performances who can’t win without significant voter fraud.

Add these stories up and it’s apparent that Swann and Santorum are applying the heat to their corrupt and incompetent opponents in the campaign’s final days. Don’t think that Pennsylvanians aren’t noticing.

MICHAEL J. FOX RESPONDS

Actor Michael J. Fox is responding to the allegation that he played up his Parkinson's disease for a Democratic political campaign commercial. In an interview with Katie Couric, Fox says that he wasn't off his medication when he shot the commercials. In fact he says he was too medicated. Fair enough, but that's not really the point.

Michael J. Fox is a talented actor with a terrible disease. People like the guy and if you took a poll, you'd probably find his approval rating close to 100 percent. But Michael J. Fox chose to step into the political arena. And when you do that in this country, you had better be prepared to be challenged. There is no pass.

It's the same thing with Cindy Sheehan. She's a sympathetic figure...her son was killed in Iraq. Hopefully, most of us will never know the pain of losing a child like that...it's terrible. But when she chose to step into politics...to start attacking the president politically in a public way, then all of that goes away. She's now entering the public debate.

By the way, did you know embryonic stem cell research isn't banned by the federal government? Just thought you should know.

OUR NEW 700 MILE FENCE

The president is all set to sign today the bill authorizing the construction of a 700-mile border fence with Mexico. This would be an absolutely fabulous idea....if our border with Mexico were 700 miles long. The only problem: it isn't. It's almost 2,000 miles long. Oops! Looks like somebody fell a bit short in the arithmetic department. The $1.2 billion bill is seen as a "down payment" on the fence. Great...a fence that's too short still isn't fully paid for....this gets better all the time.

Republicans could have not only retained their majorities in the House and Senate, but expanded them this year. All they had to do was come out months ago in favor of getting tough on the illegal alien invasion. Some of them have, but the stumbling block isn't in Congress, it's at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Bush simply supports amnesty for illegal aliens...the so-called guest worker program....and does not support doing anything at all with the 12 million illegals already here.

So this fence is just another do-nothing initiative that will not stop invasion from Mexico in the least. It's not enough. As long as there are places where illegals can just walk right on in, they will. As long as they know nothing will happen to them once they get here, they will continue to take the risk.

How about a fence along the entire border? And a real fence...a manned one with gun turrets and stuff. You could even mine it. Illegal immigration problem solved. North Korea and South Korea have had a pretty good border fence for 50 years.

By the way .. have you heard that China is busy laying down a barbed wire fence along its entire border with North Korea? Let's send some observers over there to see how they're doing it.

REPUBLICANS MIGHT GET A BREAK

Dick Morris has a new column out that might give some Republicans hope today. In it, he is predicting that the mid-term election is back to the toss-up stage and the GOP might actually have a chance. Morris was the one who was predicting George Bush would be re-elected in 2004 when everybody else called it for The Poodle, so people should listen.

It turns out the conservative base may have awakened from a nightmare where they see Nancy Pelosi pounding the Speaker's gavel. Not a pleasant thought. What is the evidence of this? Democrats have sputtered in several key states...particularly Senate races. It's now looking more and more like it will not be possible for Democrats to take control of the Senate from the GOP. If anything, they might be able to get it to 50-50, but even that is still a Republican edge with Cheney as the Senate president to do tie-breaker votes.

So could it happen? Could it be that the media has it all wrong.....the Democrats have it all wrong...and suddenly the Republican base will go vote in two weeks, just like they always have? Maybe. It's always been the case that no matter what the polls say, particularly national polls, it all comes down to 1.) who votes on Election Day and 2.) whether or not people take out the sins of Iraq on their local Congressman.

So Republicans might have an opening here. They'll probably screw it up somehow though. After all, there's still two weeks left. But if they hold on, Nancy Pelosi had better hope she saved her receipt from all those drapes she's been buying for the Speaker's office.

PAUL KRUGMAN: CONTRARY INDICATOR

By Michelle Malkin ·

Paul Greenberg has a hilarious syndicated column out today about Paul Krugman's ridiculous record of prognostication:

It started out as a gag here on the editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and soon became a superstition:

Every time the stock market took a little dip, we'd reprint one of Paul Krugman's dour columns from the New York Jaundiced Times about the imminent doom of the American economy.

Almost immediately the market would bounce back and then some. It worked every time.

But we may have overdone it of late. By now the Dow Jones has started to cross into 12,000 territory. A few more Krugman columns explaining how the economy has cooled off and the thing could overheat.

We reprinted one of his columns last Thursday morning and, sure enough, by the end of the day, the Dow ended the day over 12,000 for the first time. AN HISTORIC HIGH! and all that jazz.

Well, sure. The Krugman touch never fails.

The more Professor Eeyore says the economy is going to hell, the more heavenly it gets. Can it be just a coincidence? The Dow seems to surge whenever it sees "Paul Krugman" in a by-line. It must be a kind of Pavlovian reaction by now.

Can Krugman work his magic on the midterms? Greenberg wryly concludes:

If there's any hope at all for the once Grand Old Party in these midterm elections, and there may not be, it's that Paul Krugman can do for it what he's consistently done for the stock market.

Cross your fingers.

***

For what it's worth, Dick Morris at Vote.com says the election is back to a "toss-up:"

he latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

***

One last bit of news: Consumer confidence holds at '06 high...

Consumer confidence holds steady at its highest level of the year, staying well above its 2006 low reached less than two months ago.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post Consumer Comfort Index stands at -7 on its scale of +100 to -100, unchanged from last week to match its best of the year. The index is up eight points since mid-September, and 12 points since matching its worst level of the year on Aug. 27. Gas prices have dropped 64 cents in that time.

WORD ASSOCIATION: "I SAY 'DEMOCRAT.' YOU SAY...."

By Michelle Malkin

Here's a bit of a report by Candy Crowley at the Jihadist Sniper News Network putting people to a Democrat word association test (here's the link, but you don't need to click):

On the cusp of an election that could overturn the Republican majority on Capitol Hill, I jokingly asked a senior Democratic aide whether he had ordered new business cards to reflect majority status.

"Don't underestimate our ability to blow it," he said.

There is a reason Democrats are on edge. They have lost so many elections where it seemed they were running with the wind, the phenomenon is known in political circles as Democrats "embracing their inner-defeatest."

Herewith the proof: Democrats have been the minority on Capitol Hill for most of the past 12 years.

When George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, Democrats will have occupied the Oval Office just 12 of the previous 40 years.

In the past two election cycles, Al Gore and John Kerry lost the entire South and most of the Midwest and West.

As part of our election series "Broken Government," CNN asked self-identified Democrats around Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles how they view their party. It was word association, "I say Democrat, You say --." Not scientific, but instructive.

Here is some of what we heard:

• "Disorganized"
• "Afraid to take a stand"
• "Not giving us anything better to look at"
• "A little soft"

Wanna play? Feel free to chime in.

You already know what my word is.

BLEAK HOUSE

Republicans deserve to lose, but what happens if Democrats win?

BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Two weeks from tonight America is going to be different--first politically and then substantively--for Democrats will likely take control of the House, and move public policy in very liberal directions.

Major polling organizations--the Cook and Rothenberg Political Reports and Congressional Quarterly--have been estimating that the Democrats will make a 16- to 18-seat gain in the House, where they need just 15 to take control. But the number of projected Democratic victories may be climbing: Sunday's New York Times analysis--entitled "Hope on the Left"--projects a gain as large as 30 seats.

In the Senate the Democrats have a tougher task--they need to win six Republican seats to take control. A look at the eight closely contested races suggest that incumbent Republican George Allen in Virginia and Democrat Bob Menendez in New Jersey are likely to be re-elected, so the Democrats would have to win all six of the remaining seats. The polls show four likely gains--defeating Republicans Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, Conrad Burns in Montana, and Mike DeWine in Ohio. In the last two races Republican incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri seems likely to win a very close race and the open seat in Tennessee is too close to call.

If the Democrats do take the House, what changes might be made in America's public policies?

First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure "a rollback of the [Bush] tax cuts." Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would make sure no tax cut extension bill would ever get to the floor. He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the bill that later extended the tax cuts until 2010 (as did all but seven of the 205 Democratic House members). In September Mr. Rangel said that he "cannot think of one" Bush tax cut he would agree to renew.

Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates. "Taxing the rich" will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind will reach the floor.

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for "preventing the privatization of social security" is in the Democratic National Committee's "6-Point Plan for 2006." Democrats don't trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds--better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together." And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren't needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won't allow to happen.

"Reducing dependence on foreign oil" is a good Democratic goal, and there are a number of ways to accomplish it. Building more nuclear power plants is one. Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is another. Oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska could replace foreign oil imports for 25 years, and there is a known 19-year OCS supply of natural gas.

But liberal Democrats are opposed to all of these solutions. Hillary Clinton is opposed to the construction of nuclear plants and offshore drilling. Every Democratic senator on the Environment and Public Works Committee voted against allowing the building of new oil refineries on closed military bases. When the House voted 232-187 in June to allow and encourage OCS oil and natural-gas drilling, 155 of 195 Democrats voted to block it. The Democratic alternative is to eliminate the $18 billion the oil companies now get in various business tax deductions and thereby impose a higher income tax on them.

As for the war in Iraq, Mr. Rangel observed that "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" In other words, end it by simply defunding it. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania calls for "immediate redeployment of U.S. troops" and intends to run for majority leader if the Democrats take control of the House. Ninety percent of House Democrats opposed the terrorist surveillance program, and 80% voted against the recent terrorist interrogation legislation.

Finally, when we see what the new leaders of a Democratic House are likely to do, their views are--well--very different from most Americans. Rep Henry Waxman of California would become the Government Reform Committee chairman, and believes domestic terrorist surveillance is "illegal." He would use his subpoena power to launch investigations to try and limit the president's anti-terrorism powers.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has talked about subpoenaing "Bush administration officials to answer questions and face the consequences for their abuses of power." In other words, impeachment.

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated she would like to put Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida in charge of the House Intelligence Committee. As a federal judge, he was impeached in the House by a 413-3 vote, and removed from the bench by the Senate for bribery, corruption, and perjury. Rep. Hastings would lead the oversight of America's antiterrorism policies.

Most Americans have not yet thought much about this agenda, or the leaders who will set it. But they are tired of the Republican congressional performance. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows 16% of Americans approve of congressional performance while 75% disapprove.

No wonder: Republicans gave line-item veto power to the Democratic president in the 1990s, but refused to give it to the current Republican president. They haven't made the Bush tax cuts permanent. They wouldn't bring individual ownership of Social Security retirement accounts to a vote. They haven't done anything on health care. And they have raised federal spending by $750 billion since 2001 and for fiscal 2006 approved 10,000 earmarks costing $29 billion. Conservative principles seem to have faded away, and ethical principles have weakened--names like DeLay, Ney, and Foley make the point.

It is possible President Bush and Karl Rove can stem the anti-Republican political tide. But more likely on Nov. 7 American voters will send the Congress a strong disapproval message by voting out the current Republican majority. In politics as in other jobs, there is a price to pay for poor performance.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

ALL THAT EFFORT WASTED

That’s what I thought after seeing this 8-page Newsweek article on Harold Ford’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. After all the writing, after all the platitudes about Harold Ford being a new type of Democrat, he had a meltdown when he angrily confronted Bob Corker when Corker was about to hold a press conference on lobbying reform.

We’ve all seen the video by now. It isn’t pretty. I suspect that Corker will spend this week talking about what he’ll do when he’s elected as the next senator from Tennessee. I suspect that he’ll slip questions about what to make of Ford’s behavior. The longer he says nothing about Ford’s meltdown, the better off he’ll be. There’s no reason for him to say anything about it because that’ll only give Ford the opportunity to change the subject. That’s the last thing that Corker wants at this point. I’m betting that each day that meltdown image of Ford lingers in Tennessee voters’ minds, another point comes off of Ford’s already-shrinking popularity.

The article is mostly about how untraditional a Democrat Ford is, how he’s a man of faith, that he isn’t an extremist ideologue, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything about what a spoiled brat he is and how prone he is to temper tantrums. Thanks to the internet, though, we’ve seen his ’spoiled brat’ side, too.

When Corker described Ford’s stunt as the actions of a desparate man, Ford’s reply that “every poll in the nation shows me leading” rang hollow. If he wasn’t trailing, why pull such a stunt. There’s only two explanations: Either he’s just that much of a spoiled brat who can’t take the heat or he knows that his chance is slipping away and he had to do something. Neither presents a flattering image of Ford.

Barring Corker being caught in a major scandal, this race is essentially over.

DEM LEAK SUSPECT IDENTIFIED AND HARMAN'S IN HOT WATER

By Michelle Malkin

Fox News and the Los Angeles Times report on the identity of the Democrat leak suspect--a staffer in the office of House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). LA Times:

The aide was identified by other congressional officials as Larry Hanauer. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation into the leak, said Hanauer had held positions with the departments of Defense and Homeland Security before joining the professional staff of Democrats on the House intelligence panel about two years ago.

A spokesman for Harman said Hanauer was not available to comment. His attorney, Jonathan Turley, expressed anger that Hanauer was named in news reports Friday and said there was no evidence the aide leaked the intelligence report.

Turley wrote to committee leaders, "When a staffer can become fodder for politics in this way, it discourages qualified people from seeking to join public service."

Other Democratic aides said Hanauer was familiar with rules surrounding classified materials and said they were skeptical he would leak information.

The document he requested — on behalf of committee member John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), according to Turley — was a National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism trends that suggested the Iraq war had exacerbated terrorism. Disclosure of the analysis last month was a political embarrassment to the Bush administration.

Clarice Feldman's gathering info on Hanauer.

Wondering what the New York Times has to say? Here:

Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an interview that he requested a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate last month after The Times had called his office. When a committee security officer could not immediately locate it, Mr. Hanauer requested the document from the office of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, and a copy was delivered.

“I didn’t talk to The New York Times, and I don’t think he did either,” Mr. Tierney said of Mr. Hanauer. “I want the committee to clear his name as soon as possible.”

Mr. Hanauer’s lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said his client had nothing to do with any leak of the intelligence estimate and would offer a sworn statement to that effect. Mr. Turley said Mr. Hanauer was collateral damage in a pre-election squabble.

“He simply got the document and gave it to a member,” the lawyer said.

Mr. Hanauer, who joined the committee staff last year after working for the Defense Department and the Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, remains on the panel payroll and retains his security clearance.

The estimate on terrorism had a relatively low-level classification, “secret,” and was made available in May to hundreds of people in multiple agencies and Congressional committees. The Times has previously reported that its article about the estimate was based on interviews with more than 10 officials and outside experts.

As I wrote yesterday:

The Dem staffer's suspension doesn't preclude the possibility that the Times received the NIE summary findings from more than one source or the possibility that CIA insiders constituted some of those sources.

***

Looks like Harman may be in a lot of hot water. Via Dan Riehl and Bryan Preston, Time magazine exclusively reports that the Department of Justice is investigating whether she and AIPAC worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The reported probe is looking into whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf:

A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to comment. The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in turn are accused of passing it on to a journalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AIPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts of conspiring with government officials to receive classified information they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.

Around mid-2005, the investigation expanded to cover aspects of Harman's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post came amid media reports that Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, himself a major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman.

The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation. But the sources caution that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Harman and AIPAC acted on the idea.

As longtime readers of this blog now, I have wondered repeatedly why so many in Washington on both sides of the aisle kept quiet about the AIPAC illegal leak case. (See The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About, for example. More background below.)

Time's report helps shed some light on Democrat reticence.

Stay tuned.

***

Tom Maguire says "right now, this is not scoring that high on my Wilson-Fitzgerald Meter."

The Squiggler has a massive round-up of info.

***
Previous on NIE leak:

Democrat leak freak-out
Bombshell: Democratic staff dripper?
9/25/06 About that National Intelligence Estimate
9/26/06 The NIE
9/27/07 Who is Paul Pillar?

Previous on AIPAC/Franklin case:

1/20/06 Larry Franklin sentenced
10/6/06 Larry Franklin: guilty
8/5/05 Two former AIPAC officials indicted
5/24/05 Larry Franklin update
5/19/05 AIPAC update
5/18/05 A partial defense of the MSM's Larry Franklin coverage
5/14/05 FBI questions journalists about Franklin
5/11/05 Report: Former AIPAC official expects to be indicted
5/5/05 The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About
5/5/05 The Larry Franklin scandal continued
5/4/05 Charged: Larry Franklin
4/21/05 AIPAC fires two

DEMOCRAT LEAK FREAK-OUT

By Michelle Malkin ·

Well, well. The Dems are "appalled" and outraged. Not by the possibility that one of their own may have leaked classified info about the war to damage President Bush, of course. But by the suspension of an unnamed Dem staffer over concerns that he/she may have leaked National Intelligence Estimate summary findings to the NYTimes last month:

Democrats say the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee had no grounds to suspend a staff member who's come under scrutiny for the leak of a secret intelligence assessment.

The unidentified staff member, a Democrat, was suspended this week by Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and is being denied access to classified information pending the outcome of a review, Hoekstra's spokesman, Jamal Ware, said Thursday.

The Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman of California, wrote to Hoekstra that she was "appalled" by his action, which was "without basis."

... In her letter, Harman demanded that Hoekstra "immediately reinstate the staffer's access to classified information."

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

Here's a flashback to Harman's comments back in April in a debate with Rep. Hoekstra on Fox News Sunday regarding intelligence leaks (hat tip: reader Joe):

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, let's change subjects. I want to talk to you about leaks, because the CIA dismissed a senior officer this week, apparently reportedly a veteran named Mary McCarthy, for leaking classified information to reporters including material about secret U.S. prisons overseas for terror suspects.

Congresswoman, after it came out that the president had authorized the disclosure, partial disclosure, of the National Intelligence Estimate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you had the following to say, and let's put it up on the screen. "The president is revealed as the Leaker in Chief."

Congresswoman, do you really see any comparison between these two actions?

HARMAN: You bet I do. I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information. However, while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president, in secret, to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies.

That is wrong. That is unprecedented. I've never, ever heard about that happening in another administration, and it's a double standard.

WALLACE: But, Congresswoman Harman, isn't there a big difference? She was breaking the law. He wasn't.

HARMAN: Well, he wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has. And he should be reminded that the Constitution starts with Article I, not Article II.

The inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited. He's been ignoring Congress. He's been refusing to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the NSA program. I think that's a violation of law.

Presumably he's doing that because he's afraid we will leak, and yet he and his administration are the ones who leak selectively. And so I am not condoning what this woman allegedly did in the CIA. Of course, I'm not condoning that. But I think having a double standard is absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Congressman Hoekstra?

HOEKSTRA: Well, it's clearly not a double standard. The president, the executive branch, but especially the Office of the President — the courts have clearly said they have the responsibility and the authority to decide what is classified and what is not classified.

This person in the CIA thought that they were above the law. They thought that the law did not apply to them. They have put America at risk. They have put our troops on the front lines at risk because they broke the law.

That is exactly — you know, you're exactly right. They broke the law. They're above the law. It's wrong. You know, and the country and our troops are at greater risk because of the decisions that this person made.

Thorough background on the McCarthy leak from Allah here. Read/re-read the whole thing.

***

Previous:

Bombshell: Democratic staff dripper?
9/25/06 About that National Intelligence Estimate
9/26/06 The NIE
9/27/07 Who is Paul Pillar?

THE NORKS' MEA CULPA

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il now says he's sorry about his nation's first nuclear test. Why the sudden change of heart? Because North Korea's biggest neighbor, China, has turned up the heat. Essentially China sent a delegation to meet with The Gargoyle and told him to come back to the six-party talks and stop testing nuclear weapons. The result was Kim Jong-Il caved. China is his enabler. He had no real choice. So we probably won't see anymore nuclear tests north of the DMZ for awhile.

All of this proves one thing......the Bush administration's way of dealing with North Korea actually works, whereas the Clinton administration's policy of appeasement and bilateral negotiations does not. If Clinton had been in office --- or if the Democrat Appeasement Party had its way, we would have rushed in there with money and promises, and the Gargoyle would be sitting fat and happy, the toast of America-haters everywhere.

All The Gargoyle did with his agreement with the Clinton White House was violate it immediately. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Requiring Kim Jong-Il to negotiate with his neighbors in the six-party talks is proving much more effective. What's The Gargoyle going to say to China? No? I don't think so...especially since China could squash North Korea like a bug.

Of course, the mainstream media won't report the story this way. They'll project Kim Jong-Il in a positive light for his reversal, and never mention that it is the result of the Bush policy and Bush administration diplomatic efforts with China, South Korea and Japan. And they won't go solicit comment from people like The Poodle, who think we should be negotiating with North Korea directly.

DEMOCRAT'S GOAL: REVERSE BUSH'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

That’s the unmistakeable message that’s trumpeted in this Washington Times article. Here’s the opening paragraph:

The Democrats’ election-year agenda, which says what they will do if the voters put them back in charge of Congress, would seek to overturn or change just about everything President Bush and the Republicans have done since 2001. Key parts of their agenda call for repealing the bulk of the administration’s tax cuts, ending the ban on federal funding for new lines of stem-cell research and limiting some of the investigative, prosecutorial and surveillance methods in the counterterrorism USA Patriot Act.

Rush is calling conservatives who plan on sitting this election out to send a message to President Bush ‘Cut & Run Conservatives’. By not voting, Cut and Run Republicans are voting for the following agenda:

• economy-wrecking tax increases;
• weakened national and homeland security;
• endless investigations, including impeachment hearings, that ‘criminalize’ policy disagreements;
• gutting of the Patriot Act;
• elimination of the NSA intercept program; and finally
• the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, which also includes the codification and clarification of coerced interrogation techniques.

If the Senate flips, it’d eliminate any chance of a Justice Janice Rogers-Brown to replace John Paul Stevens. Instead, we’d have to accept some mushy watered-down justice in the mold of a Souter or O’Connor.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, who likely would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win the House back, has said that he could not think of a single Bush tax cut that he supported and suggested that all of them should be repealed. But Mrs. Pelosi, who would be in line to become speaker, said last week that the tax-cut rollback would only affect people earning $250,000 a year or more.

President Bush would veto that legislation in a heartbeat but I still tremble that we’d be wasting time on such crippling legislation when we should be attempting to find a solution to the impending crises to Social Security and Medicare.

One last thing for Cut and Run Conservatives to ponder: What’s the chances that Ted Kennedy and John McCain would write ‘immigration reform’ legislation that wouldn’t undo the work we’ve done in building the border wall?

If we’re gonna send a message, let’s send it AFTER this election by funding primary challengers to the RINO’s that are troubling us. Let’s not self destruct and ruin life for a decade.

BORDER FENCE MAY DISAPPEAR

The U.S. Senate is about to scrap the 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border and thumb its nose at the majority of Americans who are demanding border security?

That's the buzz in Washington, DC.

But hold on! Didn't Congress pass the Secure Fences Act of 2006 authorizing funds for that fence? And didn't the President sign it into law?

No... Not exactly.

Yes, Republican leaders passed the Secure Fences Act of 2006 almost three weeks ago, and went before television cameras, strutting and crowing... proclaiming that they had finally heard and heeded the demands of the American people!

And three weeks later, that fence bill -- which passed both houses of Congress -- is sitting in limbo... no one has bothered to put it on the President's desk!

But what about the bill the President signed? Wasn't that the Secure Fences Act of 2006?

The answer is NO.

The legislation the President signed was an appropriations bill that allocates $1.2 billion in funding to the Department of Homeland Security. And, you and your fellow Americans were led to believe that the $1.2 billion was earmarked for the construction of the fence!

But guess what! If you read that bill, you will find that the lion's share of the $1.2 billion in that appropriations bill DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPENT ON THE FENCE!

Just in case your head is spinning... Let's recap!

At the eleventh hour -- right before they recessed to campaign for your vote -- our elected leaders passed legislation to build a 700-mile fence. But they know full well that it cannot become law until someone actually puts it on the President's desk and he signs it.

They appropriated $1.2 billion in funds on a totally different bill, which you and I were told would go toward the building of the fence -- but in actuality doesn't have to be used to build that fence.

Then they went home to campaign hoping you didn't notice the shell game before going to the polls on Election Day!

Our next action as patriotic Americans is clear... we MUST make it abundantly clear that we have not been fooled and we must DEMAND that the Secure Fences Act of 2006 be sent to the President and be signed into law IMMEDIATELY.

The election is coming upon us quickly. Our elected leaders really don't have a second to lose... not if they know what's good for them!

Use the hyperlink below to send your time sensitive and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George Bush and the Republican leaders of the House and Senate.

Warn them that no trickery will be forgiven; no pocket vetoes will be tolerated. Demand that they put the Secure Fences Act of 2006 on the President's desk and demand that the President sign it into law IMMEDIATELY -- before Election Day -- or the American people will take appropriate action at the polls.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/amnestyxxivhe.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

THE PARTY OF COMPASSION, THE PARTY OF DIVERSITY

There is a particular strain of liberal viciousness that is reserved for one particular type of individual, that being any black American who runs for political office as a Republican. If there is "treason" to a liberal, this would be it. No holds are barred, no language is forbidden, when demonizing a black person who has strayed from the Democrat leftist straight-and-narrow.

As you may (or should) know, there's quite a race going on in Maryland for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes. Maryland's Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele is running for the seat, as is Congressman Ben Cardin. Steele is black. This hasn't made Democrats happy. This means he's as close to a traitor as one can get in the mind of a leftist.

So along comes Maryland Democrat Congressman, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is campaigning for Cardin, and since Cardin's opponent is a black Republican, all bets are off. Hoyer tells a campaign audience .. a largely black campaign audience .. that Michael Steel "slavishly" supports the Republican Party. This is pretty much par for the course for Hoyer. Four years ago he referred to Steele as a "token." Then we got one of those "out of context" excuses from Hoyer. This time we're getting an apology. Hoyer says "I should not have used those words." Yeah, right. But he did -- and the damage was done. A black campaign audience heard that the Republican candidate for Senate was acting pretty much like a slave .. and those words have grave impact in the black voting community.

If Steele is a slave, he is a runaway. He has committed the unpardonable sin .. .he has fled the Democrat plantation. Now he must be punished. Today's runaways are punished with scorn and words like "Uncle Tom," "Oreo" and others. This from the party that tells us how much it appreciates diversity. Diversity of color? Maybe. Diversity of thought? Not on your life.

WHY DID WE ELECT JIMMY CARTER ANYWAY?

That’s the question I’m asking after reading this article:

The former U.S. president said the late North Korean leader, Kim Il Sun, had agreed to every stipulation that Carter proposed, including a freeze of the weapons program, a halt to processing of nuclear fuel, a return of U.N. inspectors and bilateral talks with South Korea. Within weeks, Kim died, but his son and successor, Kim Jong Il, soon notified the Clinton administration that he would abide by the agreements, Carter said. In exchange, he said, there were no sanctions, and the U.S., Japan and other countries agreed to supply North Korea with enough oil to produce electricity to replace that generated by a nuclear plant shut down under the agreement. “All of that has been thrown in the wastebasket,” Carter said. He said that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea.” “Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil,” he said.

It’s scary thinking that this man once had his proverbial finger on the nuclear trigger. Then again, Carter’s such a pacifist that he didn’t even sufficiently fund the military with adequate supplies of spare parts. Carter’s belief that “Kim Jong Il…would abide by the agreements” is scary. It’s obvious that Carter thinks that anyone who gives their word is honest. Carter should know that certain people are dishonest to their core.

As for Carter saying that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea. Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil.” That’s true Mr. Carter. That “rapid change” is often refered to as 9/11, which might not have happened had President Carter (a) kept a real military together; (b) confronted Ayatollah Khomeini rather than welcoming him as a religious man and (c) taken Islamic extremism seriously after they took the US Embassy staff as hostage for 444 days.

Between October 1994 and December 2002, no plutonium was produced in North Korea, said Marion Creekmore, author of the new book “A Moment of Crisis,” about his 1994 trip with Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, to Pyongyang. “Most people believe that since 2002, North Korea has produced enough plutonium for six to 10 nuclear weapons,” said Creekmore.

Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea didn’t produce uranium between 1994 and 2002. Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea’s ‘nuclear history’ started in 2002. In fact, the North Koreans don’t even attempt to deny the steps they took in their march to acquiring nuclear weapons. That Mr. Creekmore would make such a statement is both insulting and delusional.

Laney said it appeared that war was certain before Carter’s trip, which demonstrated to him that every opportunity for peaceful resolution of a crisis must be used. “That is not appeasement. It’s not being a wimp,” Laney said.

Mr. Laney can say whatever he likes but it doesn’t mean that Carter’s advocacy isn’t appeasement or that his actions weren’t the actions of a wimp. One of the definitions of appeasement given at Dictionary.com is this:

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

If Mr. Carter’s actions weren’t conceding to Kim Jong Il’s demands, if Carter’s action weren’t a conciliatory effort that came at the expense of important principles, then I’d like to know what they were.

Thankfully, we don’t have a pack of appeasers in office now. Thankfully, we survived the Carter years. Unfortunately, we paid a price for Carter’s ‘dovishness at all cost’ policies.

PROBLEMS MOUNT FOR HARRY REID

Ask yourself this: Imagine right now, three weeks before the general election, that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was found to have been involved in a shady land deal....one in which he pocketed quite a hefty sum...despite not owning the land. Also imagine that Hastert was found to have paid for his personal condo staff out of his campaign funds, a violation of umpteen campaign finance laws. What do you think the media would be doing?

You just know it would be the top story...the calls for Hastert's resignation would be deafening. But the person being accused of all these things is a Democrat....and just not any Democrat. It's Harry Reid...the Senate Minority Leader. The organization making the accusations? Not some right-wing, politically motivated newspaper. Nope...it's the Associated Press. But aside from the AP and the story being linked on Drudge, you won't find the story covered much anywhere.

And why? Simple....Reid is a Democrat and the media isn't interested. They're too focused right now on dethroning the Republicans from the House and Senate. There simply isn't any desire to cover a story about Harry Reid's ethics problems. But if it was a Republican....he would have been run out of Washington D.C. by now.

Don't believe the media is biased? Watch this one unfold before your eyes and you'll change your mind.

BUSH AND ROVE UPBEAT ABOUT ELECTION

A news report over the weekend says that President Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove are upbeat over the GOP's prospect at the polls in three weeks. In fact, it is reported, they don't even have a contingency plan for a Republican defeat. Confidence or Bravado?

Rove only thinks the Democrats will gain 8 to 10 seats...short of the 15 they need to take over. As for the Mark Foley scandal, Rove said late last week: "The data we are seeing from individual races and the national polls would tend to indicate that people can divorce Foley's personal action from the party." So have the president and Rove lost their minds? Is their confidence warranted?

Maybe. The one thing the media focuses on is the so-called "generic ballot." This is the polling question where people are asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or the Democrat. But this is a somewhat useless measurement...because that's not how people vote anymore. They vote for the individual. Take Connecticut for example. Many Republicans will be voting for Joe Liebermann, a liberal Democrat running as an independent. Unless you ask people whether they intend to vote for Joe Blow or Mary Smith, you're never going to get accurate polling data. Just asking "Democrat or Republican?" has been shown not to get an accurate pool of polling data.

In the end, it's all going to come down to whether or not people think that Congressman or woman is doing a good job and warrants re-election. Will they take their frustration against the administration and its Iraq policy out on their member of congress? Maybe...but only if they go vote. There's 3 weeks and 1 day to go....an eternity in American politics. Stay tuned.

Now ... having said all of this, I'm still bothered by this show of confidence in the White House. It's as if they've done nothing wrong, and they don't really believe that the voters have a legitimate beef.

No .. I'm not talking about the war on Islamic fascism here. It's ugly. Mistakes have been made. Opportunities wasted. But it's a war we fight now or later ... and the cost later would surely be much higher.

I'm talking here at home. If Republicans maintain control of the House it will just be seen as a signal to them that the American voters aren't upset with they way they've handled their stewardship of the House. Just consider this short list:

Earmark (pork) spending truly out of control

Government growing bigger by the day

The hideously expensive prescription drug program for wizened citizens who spend an average of $1.70 a day for their prescription drugs.

No real move against eminent domain abuses

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform monstrosity.

Sarbanes-Oxley. (If you're not a part of the corporate world you don't realize how hideous this anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise bill is).

The truth is the Republicans have not come close to earning the control they seek. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the alternative is even more hideous. Isn't that a pathetic choice to have on election day?

A SPINE IS DETECTED?

Strange as it seems, it appears as though Republicans are growing a spine in light of this article:

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.
Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, (R-CA), and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate. They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.

Sandy ‘Burglar’ isn’t being held accountable for his actions. A $50,000 fine is a sizeable fine but he needs to answer about which documents he took from the Archives, what those documents pertained to, why he took them and a host of other questions.

Just because he’s paid his fine doesn’t mean that the American people have gotten all of the answers that they’re entitled to. Berger owes it to the American people to explain if he was helping Bill Clinton destroy important information that would ruin Clinton’s already-shrinking legacy. It isn’t unthinkable that Berger might’ve taken documents that had Clinton’s notes on them, notes that might’ve caused Clinton serious damage.

During Berger’s sentencing hearing, Breuer characterized Berger as eager to get the facts of the Sept. 11 attacks right when he took the material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.

That’s Clintonesque doublespeak if I’ve ever heard it. It’s as credible as hear OJ say that he’ll spend the rest of his life looking for his wife’s murderer. The words ring utterly hollow.

YOU'RE A GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTIC? THEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL!

I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.

That makes me a criminal. That means I should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."

This is the idea of David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist magazine. You may not have heard of Grist, but Al Gore has. Bill Moyers the hard-left so-called "newsman" from PBS has. They've granted interviews to Grist to push their global warming agendas. David Roberts is now calling for trials for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.

Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.

So ... this is the status of free speech in 21st Century America for anyone who disagrees with the thoughts put forth by the anti-capitalist environmental crowd.

Do I need a lawyer yet?

MCCAIN BLAMES CLINTON FOR NUKE TEST

It's still a bit up in the air as to whether or not the Norks actually set off a nuclear test the other day. The word now seems to be that The Gargoyle's minions attempted to set off a nuke, but that something went wrong and all they got out of it was a smaller blast. Or .. .they could have been bluffing. Word is they might try it again. With all of the hand-wringing they're causing around the world you could hardly blame them.

The Gargoyle just loves being the center of attention, doesn't he?

Democrats have come out and blamed all of this on George W. Bush, of course. This is what Democrats do. They blame. No solutions, just blame.

Example: An op-ed in the Washington Post by former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry blaming the current administration for not engaging North Korea more.

It now seems that Arizona Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain has had enough. Time to put the blame for the North Korea mess squarely where it belongs: the Clinton Administration.

Said McCain yesterday: "I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military."

Well said, Senator! You do get one right every once in a while, though this doesn't absolve you of your wrongdoings with that hideous anti-First Amendment campaign finance reform bill. But, McCain is right. That's exactly what happened....you can watch David Zucker's campaign commercial for a quick history lesson.

So out comes The Poodle to defend the Clinton Administration. He said "The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking." At least they were talking. Lot of good that did. Does sKerry really believe that had the Bush Administration been talking to North Korea that the Norks wouldn't have tried to set off their nukes?

Evidently in his fantasy world, he does.

TAKE THE FENCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS?

Are you believing this nonsense?

It's as if we're not even a sovereign country any more. The United States doesn't exist. There are no borders. The U.S. is nothing but a grandiose economic system providing jobs to Mexicans and shoring up the corrupt Mexican government in the process.

Why the outrage? Well, as you should know, Bush is saying he is going to sign a bill that calls for the construction of a fence along about 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico. That fence will be built on our side of the border. On U.S. territory --- if there is any such thing any more.

Well .... actually the Mexicans don't seem to think that there is any such thing as "U.S. territory." They're raising hell about the fence and -- now get this -- they want the United Nations to stop it. The message here is that we have no right to protect our border. We have no right to keep people from entering into this country illegally.

Vicente Fox only has about seven weeks left in his presidency, but he has dispatched his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, to Europe on a mission. Part of that mission is to complain about the border fence. So far Sr. Derbez has talked to the French foreign minister about the fence, and now he's on his way to complain to the governments of Spain and Italy. Derbez says he will continue his campaign against the border fence until Fox's last day in office.

What the hell? This payaso is traveling around Europe complaining that the United States is building a fence to keep his countrymen from crossing into our country illegally? This is absurd?

Well .. .maybe not so absurd if you look at it through the eyes of Derbez and his cronies in the Mexican government. First -- they truly feel that the border is illegitimate in the first place. That border runs along the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Those states, and the southern half of Colorado, are what many Mexicans refer to as the "Republica del Norte." The area used to be part of Mexico -- or whatever preceded Mexico -- and is now being "re-conquered." Go ahead. Google "Republica del Norte" and take a trip through the 12,000+ hits you'll get.

This stream of Mexicans across our border is an invasion, not a migration. They're invaders, not immigrants.

I don't give a flying leap how many bales of pine straw they spread, how many square miles of sheetrock they hang, how many homes they build, how many cars they buff up as they emerge from the car wash .... I don't care. It's an invasion just the same. No real attempt is being made to assimilate into American culture. No interest is shown in learning to speak anything past basic English. Why should they? The ultimate goal is their own country, or a brand new northern state to be part of Mexico. Instead of trying to become part of our society, they write magazine articles informing us that "Los Angeles is Ours."

So .. .along comes this idea for a border fence, and they react is if they are being fenced off from something that belongs to them! They react that way because they feel that way.

In case you are one of the few out there who are wondering how it is that the Republicans came to be in such trouble in this upcoming election .... look at the stream of Mexican invaders coming across our borders. What have the Republicans done to stop it? The border fence? Hey, it's about 1400 miles too short. Besides ... and here's the key ... it hasn't been funded yet, and there are some serious doubts as to whether or not the congress will fund that fence at all.

READ THE FINE PRINT: NO BORDER FENCE!!!!!

“No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.”

— Washington Post, October 6, 2006

Surprise, surprise. What Congress gives, Congress takes away. In the last days of the Congress, both the House and Senate passed bills that would allow the construction of a 700 mile fence–or so we thought. As Perot said, “the devil is in the details”. Looks like everyone in Congress winked and had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they passed the “Border Fence” bill.

It is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is the type of legislation that makes people feel sick about government and politics. They tell us one thing, send out press release busting their buttons. But the truth is just the opposite of what they are crowing about. This measure along with the Presidents call today for a “path to citizenship” for those that have violated our immigration laws, will cause some GOP’ers to lose — when their base realizes they had been had by the DC crowd.

“You can’t kick 12 million people out of your country,” President Bush said at the White House celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month. “We must figure out a way to say to those that if you’re lawful and if you’ve contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship.”

Does anybody buy this? He says, “if you’re lawful”. Well, they are illegal aliens, they broke the law — they are not lawful. They use phony ID’s, they are not lawful. They use phony Social Security numbers, they are not lawful. By definition, the 12 million are not, and can never be “lawful”.

Now, the Washington Post has exposed this canard on the honest citizens of the United States. With all the exceptions, permissions, regulations, individuals and agencies that must approve “every inch” of the fence–it will never be built. I wonder when they were going to tell us? This was to be a 700 mile fence, yet even Senator Gregg says we will only get 300-400 miles–he was being kind–if we get 100 miles we should be happy.

What do you think, is this the right way to treat the honest people in the U.S.? Should the President, Hasert or Frist mentioned that it will be impossible, with the bill they passed, to build a fence?

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin isn’t surprised.

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

Read more of his work here or at his blog.

WE ARE IN RANGE; ANOTHER TEST COMING?

By Michelle Malkin

A military reader sends an illustration of the various ranges of North Korea's missiles. He writes: "Looking at their Taepo Dong 2 (two stage) missile range, nearly half our country is in range."

Good morning to you, too.

***

Taken with a grain of salt, but Russia's defense minister sez:

North Korea's nuclear test was equivalent to 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT.

That would be far greater than the force given by South Korea's geological institute, which estimated it at just 550 tons of TNT.

By comparison the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima during World War II was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.

In 1996, France detonated a bomb beneath Fangataufa Atoll about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti that had a yield of about 120,000 tons of TNT.

The U.S. Geological Survey said it recorded a magnitude-4.2 seismic event in northeastern North Korea. Asian neighbors also said they registered a seismic event, but only Russia said its monitoring services had detected a nuclear explosion.

No one has reported detecting any radiation.

Pajamas Media editor Richard Fernandez interviews Dr. Robert Ayson of the Graduate Studies in Strategy and Defence at the Australian National University to gauge how Australia and Japan might react to the North Korean nuclear test.

Update: Via Reuters...

The chief of South Korea's intelligence agency told lawmakers on Monday it was possible North Korea would carry out a second nuclear test, Seoul's Yonhap news agency quoted one MP as saying.

The lawmaker also quoted Kim Seung-gyu, head of the National Intelligence Service, as telling a closed-door parliamentary committee meeting that unusual signs had been detected at a North Korean town in the afternoon.

SWANN RIDICULES RENDELL'S REFORM AGENDA

Just days after mopping the floor with Rendell’s quid pro quo agenda, Lynn Swann has positively put Rendell on the defensive. According to this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, the Swann campaign is keeping the pressure on Rendell. That pressure is starting to show up in the Rendell campaign’s not responding directly to the core issue:

“This is another reckless charge from Lynn Swann, the latest in a pattern of false and misleading charges he and his running mate have made,” said Dan Fee, Mr. Rendell’s campaign press secretary. “The fact is, as even Lynn Swann admits, Governor Rendell was not on the plane with any gaming lobbyist and the use of the plane is disclosed, which is how Swann even knew who was on it.”

Mr. Fee is attempting a little political slight-of-hand here because he knows that Rendell is married to the status quo. As I said here, Rendell comes across as disingenuous when he’s talking about specific reforms. Rendell isn’t serious about reforming the system. He’s worked hard to create the current system, starting in 197 as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, as Philadelphia’s mayor from 1991-1999 and now as Pennsylvania’s governor since 2002.

Rendell ran a Chicago-style political machine in Philadelphia, then brought that machine to Harrisburg. It’s noteworthy to notice that he didn’t start proposing reforms until Swann buried him on the issue.

I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Rendell’s ‘reform fever’ subsides a minute after winning re-election. What happened Wednesday night was that Lynn Swann exposed Rendell as a status quo politician. Now that Swann found a winning issue, expect him to exploit that issue from now until Election Day. Expect Pennsylvanians to positively respond to that message. Expect Pennsylvanians to elect Lynn Swann this November.

PELOSINOMICS

That’s the title for this IBD article, an article that takes a number of swipes at Pelosi’s rhetoric about the Bush economy. Make sure you read it all. Here’s my favorite section:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been all over the place talking about what Democrats will do after they win Nov. 7. But it’s hard to take her seriously when she promises to “jump-start our economy and reform our economic policy…to address the needs of working families.”
Huh?
“Jump-start the economy”? That’s what President Bush did in 2003, when he pushed through bold, broad tax cuts to end a slump that began in 2000 under a Democratic administration. Since the cuts took effect, the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs, while productivity has grown 10% and business investment 24%. Since 2000, total consumer spending has risen $1 trillion, nearly $8,000 per household, after adjusting for inflation. The Dow Jones industrial average is hitting new highs.
Then there’s the budget deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office reckons will come in around $250 billion. By our calculations, that’s about 1.9% of total output. In early 2004, when Bush vowed to halve the shortfall, it stood at 3.6% of GDP.

Ms. Pelosi has made disparaging statements on everything Bush part of her daily babblings, whether it’s on Iraq, the other fronts on the GWOT or the economy. Her incessant whining is annoying and dishonest at best. She’s ignoring the facts listed above. She’s praying that dishonest talk will persuade more voters than do the facts.

Hoping that the American people are ignorant is a routine practice with Democrats. As you’ve noticed, it isn’t a productive strategy.

VOTE GOP BECAUSE.....

While most of us who call ourselves conservatives struggle for an answer to that question, a look back as to why the question is posed at all might be helpful.

In 1994, the electorate sees a motivated and impassioned GOP come out of the political wilderness and take control of the House of Representatives from a thoroughly scandal-scarred and idea-bereft Democratic Party.

What follows is a slow but steady ideal and ethical erosion of policy that may finally have caught up with the Republican Party. In this, the two major parties in Washington claim a distinction, but may fundamentally lack a difference.

Once upon a time, Republicans had a field day pointing out the inability of one President Bill Clinton and by extension the Democratic Party from stumbling into one scandal after another.

So now, the present-day GOP, led by President George W. Bush, have lately been rocked by illegality, scandal, charges of racism, and anything else that the Democrats and their happy helpers, the mainstream media, can pin on them.

Witness the bizarre yet mammoth troubles of House member Mark Foley, (R-Fla.) who, besides resigning his seat last week immediately after reports that he sent sexually inappropriate e-mails to underage male congressional interns, may now possibly face criminal charges, maybe even a charge of pedophilia.

Preceding Foley’s complete lack of moral judgment and his “thinking with my–ahem–little head” behavior were the over-publicized yet real troubles of former House majority Leader Tom DeLay and his dealings with K-Street’s top super lobbyist and now convicted felon, Jack Abramoff.

Though DeLay was essentially found innocent of any wrong doing in relation to Abramoff, just the association with him was enough to end his political career. But then, the facts never got in the way of a good story when it came to election politics.

Like grass within the cracks of concrete, other political scandals started cropping up. In March of this year, California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham gets eight-plus years in prison for taking bribes from defense contractors.

Ohio Representative and GOP leader Bob Ney pleads guilty to corruption charges in connection with Jack Abramoff and withdraws from his reelection campaign, and further resigns from the House of Representatives.

Even tenuous circumstances–and outright fabrications–like the troubles that now dog Senator George Allen, (R-Va.) over the supposed use of racial epithet to describe blacks seem to take on a new meaning when lumped together with all else that ails the GOP.

And the record for the GOP to run on? Well, it can’t be all terrorism, all the time, can it? If your President Bush, the obvious answer is a resounding “Heck yes, it’s all we got!” Four weeks out from Election Day, it certainly seems as much.

Though the economy is the best that it’s been since the late nineties, it still remains the most underreported story of the last five years. Low unemployment (4.7%)? Budget deficit lower than expected (111 billion less)? Non-threatening core inflation rates?

Who cares? We have the GOP congressman possibly engaged in serious “criminal behavior” with minors. Gas prices plunging nationwide (down 17%)? Hah!

Democrats and the media are too busy happily proclaiming that they were right all along last year when the designated the GOP as being wed to a “Culture of Corruption.”

And right now, as disgraced Congressman Mark Foley packs up the contents of his House office, who can, with unvarnished conviction, argue with them?

During the last two election cycles, Republicans bucked the odds and added seats to both houses of Congress. Thanks largely to the commitment of President Bush to fight terrorism at home and abroad and keep America safe, the GOP managed to stay out of trouble just long enough to get past those elections.

But what will stop a complete slide into minority-status for the GOP now? Don’t count too largely upon Bush, whose popularity and poll numbers resemble college football scores than anything worth shouting about. If the Democrats can manage to actually use these GOP missteps smartly, a change in majority may come to pass next month.

However, that’s a very big “if” when one considers just who comprises the Democratic Party. It is the party that has consistently overplayed its hate against the Republican Party. From the theatrics at the Paul Wellstone memorial, the outspokenness of former Presidents Carter and Clinton, to the made-for-TV assassination of President Bush, the party of FDR can’t seem to roll a rock downhill.

For the GOP though, the nightmare will continue, at least for a few more weeks, anyway. Expect Democrats and the media to sensationalize everything from Mark Foley’s incredible lack of judgment, to Vice President Dick Cheney “menacing scowl” at a New York Times reporter.

But in the end, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. As this campaign season now goes from bad to worse, the GOP might soon be running campaign ads that will basically say:

“Vote GOP, because the alternative is even worse than we are.”

—

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. His work can be seen throughout the Internet, including the American Conservative Union, GOPUSA, Human Events, and theconservativevoice. Vincent is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance and a contributing writer for NewsBusters.org.