Turns out that Her Royal Pantsuit is not so much bothered when the person throwing around the comments about "nappy-headed hos" is a fundraiser.
Mrs. Clinton, you may recall, took umbrage at Imus's remarks, branding them "small-minded bigotry and coarse sexism." His words, she said in an e-mail to supporters, "showed a disregard for basic decency and were disrespectful and degrading to African Americans and women everywhere."
Good for her, I say, except it must be asked why she was down in Florida making nice to -- and pocketing big bucks from -- a rapper whose obscenity-laced lyrics praise violence, perpetuate racist stereotypes and demean black women.
Some (redacted) examples of the obscenity-laced lyrics at the site. I suspect that if Hillary decides not to accept contributions from hip-hop artists whose lyrics perpetuate racist stereotypies and demean black women, she's not going to be taking in much money from the recording industry.
Our longtime blog-buddy Pam Meister will be on Neil Cavuto this afternoon at 4:00 Eastern to discuss school security and how it should be funded. Kudos to Pam; I've been on the radio many times but haven't yet made the jump to TV. Of course, everybody tells me I've got a face made for radio (and a voice made for mime). ;)
I had heard about the John Edwards $400 haircut (jeez, Clinton's $200 cut looks like a bargain), but I didn't realize that he had the gall to have his campaign pay!
His campaign spending reports, required by the Federal Election Commission, revealed that he has been paying $400 for haircuts by a Beverly Hills cutter named Joseph Torrenueva. The guy must be good, because Edwards' hair sure looks good. So does the rest of him, helped along by a $250 shaping at the Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 at the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, N.H.
The best way to reduce drunk driving would be to have more people live in high-density areas well-served by taxis and mass transit, though we're presumably not going to implement such a scheme in the short-term.
Why do I get the feeling that Matt thinks the solution to all of life's woes is more mass transit?
GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion.
GIULIANI: Yes, well, if it doesn't have a provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it.
TIM RUSSERT (host): A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions -- you're against that?
GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York --
RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president?
GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very -- it's one in which people of conscience have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else.
The only problem here? The bill that was proposed in 2000, specifically contained a provision allowing the procedure for the life of the woman:
Clinton has vetoed similar proposals twice. The bill allows for the procedure only if a woman's life is endangered.
This is hilarious. Eric Boehlert tries one last time to resuscitate the "discredited Swift Boat Vets" claim. But in doing so, Boehlert makes two fatal mistakes: He ignores the places where the Swiftees were right and Kerry was plainly wrong, and he attributes any conflict between stories to the Swiftees lying.
Here's an example of the second:
The fourth person to appear in the first Swift Boat ad, Letson announced, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart, because I treated him for that injury." In another affidavit, Letson claimed Kerry's wound was too small to justify a medal.
First, Navy guidelines during the Vietnam War for Purple Hearts did not take into account the size of the wound when awarding the honor, which meant Letson's claim was irrelevant. Second, Kerry's medical records indicate Letson did not sign off as the "person administering treatment" on December 3, 1968, which raised doubts about whether Letson ever even treated Kerry. (Why, if Kerry's wounds were so minor, was Letson able to recall the incident so vividly 35 years later?)
First, regardless of whether the size of the wound matters technically, I am sure that no grunt who scratched himself while crawling through the underbrush would claim this entitled him to a Purple Heart. And second, Letson explained that the orderly signed the treatment form. The bottom line is that we don't know what happened; there is a conflict between stories. Maybe we say that given there's a conflict we'll give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. But to jump from that to saying that Letson's discredited is ridiculous.
But the major point here is that Boehlert completely ignores the places where Kerry was found to have lied, or where his supporters among the Swiftees were found to have lied, and there are several instances of this:
Christmas in Cambodia. Kerry reportedly told this story on many, many occasions, including on the floor of the Senate. But his own biographer, faced with conclusive evidence that Kerry did not spend Christmas (actually Christmas Eve) 1968 in Cambodia, did not include this story in an otherwise fairly exhaustive account of Kerry's second tour of duty in Vietnam. The Swiftees highlighted this:
Somehow Boehlert completely forgets about this story. Wonder why? Maybe because it discredits John Kerry and shows that the Swiftees hit their target?
Third, we come to David Alston, a crewmember briefly on Kerry's second Swift Boat. Alston famously mentioned two incidents where John Kerry showed heroism under fire:
"Manning the deck guns, most of us got wounded sooner or later, including Lieutenant Kerry. It would have been easiest, in an ambush, to simply rake the shore with return fire and roar on down the river to safety. But Lieutenant Kerry was known for taking the fight straight to the enemy. I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos.
Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle. In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment, loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool."
Now the funny thing about those two events is that Kerry was not present at the first, and Alston was not present at the second. Kerry claimed the first incident as his own in 2002, but the actual man in the door of the pilothouse was Tedd Peck, as even Brinkley admitted (Page 264-265):
... suddenly there was a booming explosion that literally lifted PCF-94 right out of the water. Peck was standing in the pilothouse doorway with an M-16 at the ready to start strafing the jungle. Just as he pulled the trigger he was hit by two machine-gun bullets, one in his arm and one in his chest... [a]lthough bleeding profusely, Peck managed to continue firing back...
Alston himself was wounded in that engagement, and was not present for Kerry's beach the boat incident.
Another Kerry supporter among the Swift Boat vets was also found to have lied. From a Washington Post account of the Bay Hap River incident:
In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.
So maybe that's what Boehlert means by "discredited Swift Boat vets"?
An inconsistency in campaign-finance rules places former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) in an advantageous position should he decide to subsidize his White House run with his own fortune.
Romney’s personal assets reportedly exceed $500 million, and he has shown willingness to self-finance. He already has loaned himself more than $2 million to help kick-start his campaign. His top opponents for the GOP nomination, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, are not nearly as wealthy.
It's not a loophole. It's a constitutional right for people to spend their wealth. It does reveal the foolishness of much of the rest of campaign finance reform. Remember, the independently wealthy candidates who have self-financed a presidential run in the recent past have not fared all that well; Ross Perot's millions got him exactly zero electoral college votes; Steve Forbes won 2 primaries in 1996 as I recall (Delaware and Arizona) and none in 2000.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.
There is some real world analysis:
But Kucinich shouldn't hold his breath on getting anywhere with his impeachment plan. "We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment," quipped one Democratic aide.
Our longtime blog-buddy Lorie Byrd has a superb article on the Bush-Haters:
Another criticism from Democrats involves troop levels in Iraq. We learned how to pronounce Shinseki when the Army chief of staff became the member of the military most often quoted by Democrats who charged the president did not send enough troops to Iraq. Later, when Bush proposed sending additional troops, the Democrats decided less troops were needed and that it was time to pull the plug on the mission in Iraq altogether.
For several years, most Democrats’ “policy” on Iraq consisted of hatred for whatever policy George Bush supported. Over the past couple of years, though, that “policy” has evolved from hatred of Bush and any policy he suggested to a call for withdrawal before the mission is complete. Most recently, Democrats passed a bill that would only fund the troops if a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq was included.
Is this the McCain Moment? Ramesh Ponnuru predicted this in a cover story in National Review, and now we're seeing a sudden flood of pro-McCain stories:
A lesser man than John McCain might be backing away from his previous support for the war-gone-bad in Iraq. What we're seeing instead is the very opposite of political expediency -- a Churchillian call to endure and prevail in an admittedly unpopular war but still a fight that McCain believes America cannot afford to lose.
McCain's Virginia Military Institute speech April 11 stands as his most compelling case yet for persevering in Iraq. Moreover, McCain's steadfast demonstration of principle over polls shows more courage and character than any other presidential aspirant in either party.
Giuliani, the former New York mayor, had a healthy 16-point lead over the Arizona senator last month, but that has dwindled to six points -- that is, if either Thompson or Gingrich enters the race.
Should they both toss their hats in the ring, Giuliani's lead over McCain drops to three points, 27 percent to 24 percent.
The odd thing is that I suspect McCain will do best in a head-to-head matchup with Giuliani long term. Mitt Romney continues to slide:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who led Republican hopefuls in first-quarter fundraising with $23 million, slid into the No. 4 spot -- between Thompson and Gingrich -- with 10 percent of the vote.
Teams must first make their way to Hong Kong. I checked the starting times, and the Beauty Queens were almost an hour ahead of everybody starting this race. Of course, since they start at 12:30 AM, that doesn't do much good. All the teams arrive at the airport. The first counter to open will be Malaysia Air, but they have the second flight. Young Gay manages to find the Malaysia Air office and get the first standby slot while the Beauty Queens are waiting up by the counter. Then Young Gay and One and a Half Women get the first two slots on Hong Kong Air, which leaves earlier. As it works out, only the one team can get on the first flight. The BQs make a stink about having been first on the standby list for the second flight, which actually was not right. But it doesn't matter as they and One and a Half Women get on the plane, leaving Eric and Dannielle to catch a (much) later flight.
Teams must make their way to a dry cleaners where there is a Fast Forward. Young Gay grab it. They participate in a car doing a stunt routine for a movie. I'm thinking that's a pretty easy bit for the Fast Forward. Then the car launches, falls onto its side, skids about 20 feet and ends up back on its wheels again. Pretty cool! They head to the Pit Stop, which is at the Jockey Club.
The other teams are faced with a Detour: Kung Fu or Sign Fu. In Kung Fu, teams must climb a ladder up an 11-story building while fending off Kung Fu fighters. In Sign Fu, teams must find a particular sign at a crowded intersection. Everybody takes Kung Fu, and I'm a little concerned about Charla, but she handles it like a champ. And Mirna actually shows some humor for a change.
Next task: Take a ferry to Hong Kong Island. Amazingly, Charla and Mirna's cab driver drives them to Hong Kong Island, where they board the ferry heading back to the mainland. Doh! Fortunately they can just take the turnaround trip, but Eric and Danielle are catching up (apparently). The next task is to bust down doors like a cop and find the room with the clue. Charla surprises again for the second time tonight, doing a credible job of kicking open doors. But the Beauty Queens are well ahead by this point, so it looks like the order of finish for the evening is pretty easy.
Teams now head to a park, where they have to ferry a roaming gnome across a pond. The key here is to do it slowly so the gnome does not fall off the boat; nobody has that problem. By this point I'm thinking there's not much drama tonight. Eric and Danielle get lost on the way to the Jockey Club, and Eric refuses to follow a cab. So we don't get the usual, "Which team is it?", which makes me very suspicious. Sure enough, it turns out tonight is a non-elimination leg, so we're stuck with Colege Boy for another evening.
I suspect this advice wasn't necessary back in the days of the Soviet Union, but perhaps we need to remind folks that things have not improved. The Jawa Report:
Oh. My. God. I hope this is a joke, but a Whois search does put the website in MoscowOh. My. God. I hope this is a joke, but a Whois search does put the website in Moscow....
Read the whole article....it's the Pravda we all knew and loved back in the day
They're talking about this article, in which it is claimed that Don Imus was fired not for denigrating the Rutger's women's basketball team, but because he was about to blow the whistle on 9-11:
According to European reports of the events surrounding Don Imus that have gripped the United States this past week, it was during an interview with another American media personality, Tim Russert, who is the host of a television programme frequently used by US War Leaders, wherein while decrying the state of care being given to American War wounded stated, "So those bastards want to keep these boys [in reference to US Soldiers] secret? Let's see how they like it if I start talking about their [in reference to US War Leaders] secrets, starting with 9/11."
In the span of less than 3 months: Gasoline prices will rise 500%. The prices of both food and shelter rise over 300%. Unemployment levels reach over 30% and are still climbing. The savings of millions evaporate overnight due to currency devaluation and bank failures. Unrest will begin in the larger cities first, then spreading out into the countryside. Strong and repressive laws are newly enacted as Police and Military forces spread throughout the country to counter all signs of growing rebellion.
If you are an American reading these words you must understand two things: 1.) This is what is soon to happen to you, and 2.) The description written above applies equally to the United States of 2005, The United States of 1929, The former Soviet Union of 1989, The German Republic of 1924, The Cuba of 1960, Argentina of 1986, Iran of 1979 and the Czarist Russian Empire of 1917, to just name a few.
Of course, this gloom-mongering tone (written in 2005, so the apocalyptic scenario seems a little tardy) is in support of an effort to sell a book:
This book begins with the most basic rule of survival, LEAVE before it gets worse. Prior knowledge about events soon to occur have saved millions over the past Century allowing them to flee the most dangerous areas ahead of time, and when they still could.
What countries are available to Americans now to immigrate to should they choose to flee? What are the ramifications in becoming an International refugee? How can ones property and wealth be converted into allowing them leave their countries of origin? These are important questions, this book provides those answers.
And the inevitable, "Act now, before it's too late!"
Do not believe foolishly either that your governments will allow much longer this book, or those by other groups seeking to assist Americans, to be available much longer into the future.
