REPUBLICAN DEBATE SPUN BY LIBERAL

by Michelle Oddis

Ten Republican presidential hopefuls stepped up to bat Thursday night during the first of several scheduled pre-convention debates, but with Chris Matthews on the mound Republicans wasted their swings on spit balls.

The agenda of MSNBC -- personified by Chris Matthews -- tainted the debate by working hard to demean the candidates. Republican contenders were on the defensive with Matthews telling them to “look into my eyes” while answering questions. The role of moderator is to keep order in a debate and maintain a friendly discourse. Matthews (a political commentator who has previously worked for four Democratic politicians) was no impartial ump.

Core issues like immigration, education, Israel, the Palestinians, and social security were not addressed. This debate’s sponsors presented questions that were design to reflect negatively on conservatives and the current administration.

Even questions from online users at Politico.com seemed irrelevant and at times unfair. Lined up execution style Republican candidates took these shots from Matthews and the others:

"What do you dislike the most about America?"

"Should Bill Clinton be back in the White House?"

“Do you believe in evolution?”

“Has the increased influence of Christian Conservatives in your party been good for it?”

“Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes, just last month FBI raids of two Republican members of congress – what’s with your party and all this corruption?”

“Using a letter grade, how would you rate the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War A-F?”

“Did you watch Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth?”

“Would you hire Karl Rove?”

Despite the media’s efforts to damage Republicans, the candidate’s stats remain mostly unchanged. Mitt Romney and John McCain will stay star players, although Rudy Giuliani may have to backtrack a-bit. Giuliani failed to appease anti-abortion voters when Matthews asked each runner this question:

“Would the day that Roe vs. Wade is appealed be a good day for Americans?”

Nine candidates chimed in with responses like “a great day,” “a glorious day of human liberty,” and “most certainly.”

Giuliani said “It would be OK.” “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.” This answer distinguished his performance as problematic for staunch social conservatives.

Giuliani’s response makes it easy to see why Romney has become so adamantly pro-life. Romney used this opportunity to set straight some of the criticism of his flip flops on abortion rights.

“I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude on that decision…”

Romney said that two years ago when he was studying cloning in Massachusetts he changed his mind “I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took and I said I was wrong, and changed my mind and said I am pro-life, and I am proud of that and I don’t want to apologize to anyone for becoming pro-life.”

The War in Iraq -- predictably -- was another dominating issue, one that fired up Sen. John McCain more than other candidates. McCain from start to finish spoke with conviction, but did he go overboard?

McCain at times seemed over prepared -- as if several of his lines had been planned. He delivered these lines whether or not they pertained to the questions being asked.

McCain lectured about recent statements made by Sen. Harry Reid; “when the Majority Leader of the United States Senate says we have lost the war -- the men and women serving in Iraq reject that notion… when on the floor of the House of Representatives they cheer when they pass a withdraw motion for a certain date for surrender -- what were they cheering for, surrender, defeat?” While discussing Osama bin Laden McCain told Americans that he will “track him [bin Laden] down and follow him to the gates of hell!”

Although former Gov. Tommy Thompson’s answers were calculated and presented a plan, his lack of personality and stage presence left him without star status. With candidates as passionate as John McCain, or as suave as Romney and Giuliani -- Thompson needs a make over.

Sam Brownback scored points with his sense of humor. When asked if he would support changing the Constitution to allow Austrian-born California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president Brownback said "I love the Governator, but no."

Anti-war candidate Ron Paul didn’t get very much face time, all though Pat Buchanan named Paul the most conservative candidate during Keith Olbermann's pre-debate coverage.

Ronald Reagan’s “trademarks,” “principals” and “visions” were frequently tacked on to each response, while the current administration’s principals and techniques were carefully sidelined.

Long-shot candidate, former Gov. of Arknasas Mike Huckabee was in tune, and articulate. "Clearly there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots" said Huckabee when asked about the current administrations handling of the War in Iraq. This response had the “heart” other lower tier candidates like Tommy Thompson lacked. Huckabee came out on top of the lesser known candidates.

Who is the winner? There are no winners in a glorified press conference -- especially when you’re a Republican candidate at a liberal themed debate. But if anyone had the most opportunity to backtrack and re-issue their platform it was Romney by getting the chance to address his faith and his flip flop.

TIME MAGAZINE....IS THERE ANY MORE DOUBT?

100 most influential people. Bush ignored. Kate Moss is there. Barack Obama is there. Rosie O'Donnell is there. George Bush is not. This is an intentional slap in the face of George Bush .. and the U.S. Presidency. I don't care who is in the Oval Office, by default U.S. presidents are influential .. wielding vast influence around the world. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush. Here's we're talking about leaving or staying in Iraq ... and Time Magazine is telling us that the person who can influence this decision is less influential than Sasha Baron Cohen?

Actually ... this might be a blessing. Every once in a while we need a stark reminder of the bias of the mainstream media. I think this pretty much does it.

THE SILENCE OF GEORGE TENET

By Scot Lehigh

WHEN RICHARD NIXON ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, Richardson didn't do the dirty deed.

Rather, he resigned in protest.

And when the same command came to Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, Ruckelshaus didn't go dutifully along.

He, too, refused the odious order, resigning even as the White House fired him.

"There wasn't any question in his mind or mine," Ruckelshaus said, recalling the decisions he and Richardson made back in October of 1973 to defy the president.

"What I was being asked to do by the president was fundamentally wrong," he told me. "I just couldn't do it."

When Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to sign a welfare-reform bill because he felt it would hurt poor people, Edelman didn't put career ahead of conscience.

Instead, he resigned in protest.

"I just found in my gut that I couldn't stay there and be involved with the implementation of that policy," Edelman says. "It was as simple as that."

There's something deeply admirable about people high up in the pantheon of power and prestige willing to put principle ahead of position.

Now comes the sorry example of George Tenet, former director of Central Intelligence, who helped the Bush administration make and market its argument for war with Iraq.

A man who left office meekly, long after the war was a fait accompli, Tenet now tells us -- in a book that has earned him a multi million-dollar advance -- that privately he had qualms about the Bush administration's conduct, including its manipulation and misrepresentation of intelligence.

Having given Bush and Cheney cover as they built a fraudulent case for an ill-conceived invasion -- and then having accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom in what looked for all the world like a reward for his loyalty -- Tenet portrays himself as a man who struggled inside the government to counsel caution to ideologues intent on war.

Certainly the former CIA director doesn't bear primary responsibility for this foreign-policy fiasco. That distinction lies with Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz & Co.

Yet if the careerist Tenet had had courage and convictions, he might well have slowed, and perhaps even changed, the march to war.

Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty" and "The One Percent Doctrine," has offered some of the most perceptive accounts of the way this administration has operated, particularly post-9/11.

"If Tenet had stood up and said there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that when it comes to WMD, what we are relying on is supposition and not real evidence as traditionally defined, it would have made it extremely difficult for this administration to go forward based on the way American history had been written up to that point," Suskind said in an interview.

That, however, is not what Tenet did. Instead, by his own admission, he kept quiet, issuing no public alarms as the truth was twisted to build the case for war.

"No one had elected me to go out and make speeches about how and where I disagreed on thorny issues," he writes.

When a CIA analyst expressed concerns about working on the October 2002 intelligence estimate that would obviously be used to marshal support for war, Tenet told him: "Look, we don't make policy. Our job is to tell the people who do what we know and what we think. It's up to them to decide what to do about it."

But Tenet's many rationalizations notwithstanding, "If the Bush administration was misrepresenting the intelligence the CIA was expressing, he had an obligation to let us know that," says US Senator John Kerry.

That's exactly right.

And despite Tenet's anger at having Bush's team of world-class buck-passers point to his now-infamous "slam dunk" comment about WMD, his own account -- that his remark wasn't about the certainty that Iraq had WMD but rather about strengthening the marketing of that claim -- is long leagues short of exculpatory.

Pressed Wednesday on CNN about whether he should have spoken out or resigned before the war began, Tenet replied: "I know that we acquitted our responsibilities consistent with our values."

That statement, pregnant with unintended irony, is all too obviously accurate.

It is both the truth and the tragedy of George Tenet.

WHAT PART OF 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION' IS CONFUSING?

by Brian Bilbray

“Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”

-- Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

Around the world, an unacceptable number of families and children live in the most abject and hopeless poverty any of us could imagine. No one can fault any of these people from trying to escape these gut-wrenching conditions and pursuing a better way of life. Certainly we can all agree that more must be done to lift-up countries that are drowning in a sea of their own population unable to attain economic stability. As Congress looks to adopt a new illegal immigration policy, we must not forget that the root of the problem lays within countries that lack the economic and political resources needed to support a fully developed nation.

Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters marched the streets of major cities throughout the country demanding rights such as citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. The illegal immigration issue has always elicited strong emotions from many people but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of rewarding those who have broken our laws with something as precious as citizenship.

The outrage and indignation displayed by yesterday’s marchers would be justified if it were directed at the right government. The United States is not responsible for the conditions millions of would-be immigrants are fleeing from -- yet many activist groups expect us to be held accountable for a third-world environment overrun with corruption and poverty we did not create. We could grant a mass amnesty right now and it still would not change any of the social, political and economic conditions that are driving people away from their home countries.

When examining illegal immigration reform in America, I have said numerous times that the key to addressing illegal immigration is removing the economic incentive that attracts so many people to our country. Fundamentally, the reason why the United States is such an attractive destination for immigrants is because of the jobs that we have to offer. Combine that with an illegal immigration enforcement policy that has never been truly enforced and it is easy to see why we have more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country hoping to fill the jobs that supposedly Americans won’t do. Or, is it that they won’t do these jobs for what employers are willing to pay illegal immigrants?

Candidly, the 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions more looking to come to America are not at fault for the issues we face with illegal immigration. For far too long businesses in this country have been willing participants in an effort to import cheap labor to fill low-skill jobs. The result has been a depressed market for American low-skill workers and a significant financial burden being placed on the backs of middle-class Americans who must now pay for the health care, education and social costs of this new class of illegal workers.

The Federal Government can no longer be a willing accomplice to the circumvention of our federal immigration laws. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to enforce the law and the only way we can address illegal immigration in America is to hold employers and big business accountable as well. This requires the implementation of a employer verification program so we can distinguish between employers who hire illegal immigrants because they don’t know the difference and those who hire illegal immigrants because they want cheap labor. Once an employer verification system is in place, we can crackdown on the employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Solving illegal immigration begins with giving employers the tools they need to verify employment eligibility. This has become increasingly difficult for employers as document fraud has become a widespread problem as employers are ill-equipped to detect and authenticate workers’ identification documents. A universal, non-discriminatory and tamper-resistant Social Security card would be a practical solution to this growing problem. Currently, there are more than 30 types of identification employers can use to verify employment eligibility. By limiting the burden of documentation to just one, uniform card, employers will finally have the tools they need to comply with the law. We need to separate those who are egregiously violating the law and those who do not have the means to enforce and comply with the law.

Once the employment incentive is eliminated, immigrants worldwide will have to look elsewhere for job opportunities and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into our country will subside. Now there is chorus of people in Washington D.C. who do not believe enforcement first will work, but considering that the federal government has never enforced our laws, it is impossible to know what effect real enforcement will have on stemming the illegal immigration tide.

The only thing Congress could do to make the problem worse is offer another incentive for people to leave their home countries and come to the United States. Call it a comprehensive plan, call it a temporary worker program or a pathway to citizenship, call it amnesty -- the results will still be the same. You cannot address our failures in illegal immigration policy by repeating the failed policies of the past. Amnesty hasn’t worked. Neither has ignoring the problem. Why not try the one thing we haven’t done yet? By enforcing our laws, securing our borders and holding employers accountable, we can avoid repeating our mistakes and live up to our country’s promise of being a nation governed by the rule of law.

THE CNN EXPERTS HAVE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT

So now that CNN "experts" say that pulling out of Iraq is a bad idea. I wonder what their first clue was.

Sorry about the sarcasm ... but why does it take so long for some people to realize the obvious? For years the Commander in Chief of our armed forces has been telling us that pulling out of Iraq would invite disaster; bloodshed on an unimaginable scale. Now it takes a panel of CNN "experts" repeating what George Bush has been saying all along to make it a fact.

Here's a paragraph from the story:

"Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict."

Now what part of that scenario sounds good to you Democrats? Remember .. this is the course of action preferred by your party! Your heroes, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha and the rest of the Defeatocrat caucus have been working for just this scenario! What is it about sectarian violence on a massive scale, an Al Qaeda base for terror in oil-rich Iraq and a broader Middle East conflict that makes them so happy?

It's clear: Iraqis still need our help to build the country they have been denied for so long. Pulling out now would undermine the legacy of every soldier and civilian life lost in Iraq. Defeatocrats are basically saying that those who died serving in Iraq did it for nothing, there will be no resolution worth dedicating to their sacrifice. Nice, real nice. Let's just spit in the eye of every person serving in Iraq. Liberals love this stuff. Me? Not so much.

We can all admit that this could have been handled better, but what's done is done. Can we put aside the partisan bullshit (I won't be able to say that on the air ... sad) and just come together to get the job done over there? Pulling out --- surrendering, if you like -- is the path to disaster. Accomplishing our stated goals can lead to huge dividends for peace.

DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS BECOMING A RELIGION?

If there is one thing that is consistent in every hotel room (well, at least in America) it is that you can get your hands on a Holy Bible, typically in the nightstand drawer. Well, one hotel in California has replaced Jesus for Gore...Al Gore that is. You might remember him from such things as serving as the Vice President to the United States, failing to win the bid for presidency in 2000 (ouch) and, oh, leading his latest world-wide campaign against "global warming."

Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" must be pretty inconvenient for Jesus who got the boot! The Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa will provide its guests with copies of "An Inconvenient Truth." This is fanaticism at its best. First it was a slide show, then a book, then a movie about the slide show, then instant Hollywood fame. Now he even gets a hotel. Well isn't that special.

Maybe I should work with hotels to start replacing their Bibles with The FairTax Book! After all, the vice president of Marriott says, "We have a social responsibility." If he wants to be responsible, how about saving his company, and his guests, millions of dollars by implementing the FairTax plan. Talk about responsibility.

What's even more amusing about Al Gore and his global warming campaign is that "going green" is very hip and trendy, particularly among Hollywood celebrities. I know I'm no spring chicken, but Al Gore isn't what I would consider the beacon of cool and hip either. How did he land such a gig? Maybe it's the extra 40 lbs and the fake tan...

And hey, I'm not the first to suggest the global warming movement is actually a religion.