Iran: Stop the Slaughter of Innocents

 

Iran is now such a strategic threat that it made confrontation unavoidable. By the time of the current conflict, Iran was widely understood to possess the technical capability to produce multiple nuclear weapons on relatively short notice. Even short of full nuclear deployment, it could assemble radiological “dirty bombs,” which—while less destructive—would still have severe economic and psychological impacts if used.

At the same time, Iran made substantial advances in intermediate-range ballistic missile technology, enabling it to project power across the Middle East and beyond. This capability, paired with a potential nuclear or radiological payload, represents a major shift in regional deterrence dynamics.

Equally important is Iran’s network of proxy forces, including Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups already demonstrated their ability to launch large-scale missile attacks and maintain persistent threats against Israel and neighboring states. Given time to rearm and reorganize, they would again become destabilizing forces capable of triggering broader regional conflict.

Iran also holds a powerful economic lever: the Strait of Hormuz. With fortified positions and asymmetric naval capabilities, Iran has the means to disrupt global energy supplies. Any future attempt to halt its nuclear or missile programs could be met with actions capable of severely damaging the world economy.

Taken together, these elements demonstrate that delaying confrontation increases the risks rather than reducing them. As Iran approaches a threshold where its military and strategic capabilities can no longer be effectively countered, the ability of Israel and other states to defend themselves is eliminated.

America and Israel acting before these capabilities were fully realized was the only way to prevent a more dangerous and uncontrollable situation later. So far Iran, Syria, and Lebanon have killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. The United States and Israel are stopping this slaughter of innocents.

 

 

Republicans are like Forty Niners

The state of the Republican Party right now reminds me of the 49ers in the Super Bowl: a great team victimized by their own choices. I’m sure most of you (except Alice) suffered agony as I did, particularly during the last two minutes of the game. The Niners had the ball first and goal on Baltimore’s seven-yard line. In the 49er backfield were two of the best ball carriers in the National Football League, Frank Gore and Colin Kaepernick, facing the mediocre Baltimore run defense (ranked 19^th of 32 teams). The 49ers were 4^th in the NFL running the ball, 23^rd in passing. Gore had already run the ball 19 times for 110 yards, an average of almost six yards per carry, and Kaepernick had seven carries for 62 yards, almost nine yards per carry. The first 49er play was a run by LaMichael James, who is fast but not a power runner, which gained two yards to the five-yard line. Simple math shows us that if you run three more times, and only gain two yards per run, on the fourth down you score the Super Bowl winning touchdown.

That’s not what the 49ers did. They tried three short passes to the right, each time to Michael Crabtree, the receiver the Ravens knew would be the target for over half of 49er short-yardage passes near the goal line. This neatly fit Einstein’s definition of insanity: keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome each time. When the fourth-down pass fell incomplete, the camera switched to Jim Harbaugh on the sideline, screaming for a holding call or pass interference.

Jim, never let someone else decide your fate.

What has this to do with the Republican Party? A lot.

The strength of Republicanism is our opposition to wasteful government. In the recent past that has gained us the support of a majority of American voters and given us the political power we need to change things. Unfortunately, instead of change in keeping with our conservative ideals, power went to our leaders’ heads and Republicans became almost as bad as Democrats. Like the 49ers, we “stopped dancing with who brung us.” This led many voters to ponder the reason for voting for a Republican who was just like the Democrat. You might as well vote for the real thing instead of a pseudo-Republican. This created a conservative backlash against Republican leadership, spawning the Tea Party more as a threat to Republicans than Democrats. As a result, several candidates won Republican primaries who had no chance of winning the general election. It didn’t help that several of these candidates seemed to go out of their way to make really stupid remarks about issues that were certain to alienate women, minorities, and moderates.

“Well, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to vote for me.” And they didn’t. We lost four or five Senate seats that should have been easy wins. And good Republican that I have been from my first vote in 1964, I would have had a hard time holding my nose and voting for Republicans who were prone to making really dumb remarks. “Let them think you’re a fool; don’t open your mouth and prove it.”

Instead of taking charge, Republicans have been like Harbaugh, desperate for the officials to throw a flag. Or in Obamacare, for a Supreme Court “Hail Mary”. If Republicans had taken care of business, growing and strengthening the economy, we would not have fallen into such dire circumstances. We would have come off a strong George Bush presidency resembling his first six years, not his last two. We would have had a strong, principled candidate instead of John McCain’s wishy, washy positions, too conservative for some, not conservative enough for others, not understandable by anyone. An incumbent Republican who took on the tough issues in immigration, Social Security, health care, and income taxation instead of avoiding them would have won reelection in a landslide, and brought even more Republicans into the House and Senate, and eventually have more conservatives in the Supreme Court.

Republicans have won solidly at the state level, with 30 Republican governors and 23 states where Republicans also control the legislatures. Republicans have a sound foundation for future success. They just have to learn to call better plays when it counts.

Obama - Thanks for Sharing with Rush Limbaugh

President Obama has a strangle hold on the "bully pulpit." As our first almost-black, almost-native-born American president, every word he stumbles to read from a teleprompter is trumpeted to the four corners of our Al Gore-doomed planet. No utterance or action of The Obama is deemed too banal or ordinary for breathless Chris Matthewsian-type coverage.

It is in this light of the total domination Obama has over news coverage that I must note and applaud his magnanimity, his unselfish sharing of the spotlight with his most articulate opponent, Rush Limbaugh.

The Democrats got what they asked for, and now sound like they bit off more than they can chew (At a White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted that the White House Rush Limbaugh strategy is counterproductive).

Plus The Obama now has a direct challenge from Rush to debate him (a highly publicized challenge at that, thanks to a Drudge link)

Rush couldn't be happier, since he's accustomed to paying his own way, including such things as advertising his own show and website. In just a three-day period, Rush has had banner-headline links on Drudge, and daily questions about him at Obama's Press Secretary's press briefings. Who needs to pay for advertising when your opponents are so generous?

Rush also was vilified by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, then almost immediately received an abject apology from Steele. More Drudge headlines, more involvement of Democrats such as their Congressional Campaign Committee (Rush immediately published the link to their "ImSorryRush.com" website), and speculation by Bill O'Reilly that Rush may be, probably is, more powerful than Steele.

All of this is helping publicize Rush and his message. After all, if the Democrats have organized a group headed by Rahm Emanuel, featuring James Carville and Paul Begala, to attack Rush, doesn't that demonstrate they think Rush is at a level with President The Obama? And Michael Steele clearly demonstrated where he, as the head of the Republican National Party, stands in relation to Rush.

Unfortunately The Obama will never give us the satisfaction of debating Rush, and with good reason: The Obama wouldn't stand a chance, even with half of Rush's brain tied behind his back.

Rush continues to rack up headlines:

The Christian Science Monitor says that until someone else steps up, Rush is the head of the Republican Party, and mentioned his challenge to debate The Obama.
Ditto The Financial Times.
Another day, another Drudge item about the Democrat "brain trust" focusing on Rush.

Still Waiting for Liberals to Leave

Last night at our Gualala Lions Club dinner meeting, a fellow Lion came over to me and smirked, “It looks like your party is going to lose.” I smirked back, “It’s a good thing. Everyone has forgotten what messes Democrats make, so it’ll be good to have a four-year reminder.”

Of course, not for even one moment did I believe that having the Democrats back in power was good for anything in any way. In the immortal words of the dwindling numbers of young Americans, “It sucks!”

However, if another Dark Night of Democrat Rule descends once again upon this proud nation, I will continue to do what I did during previous Dark Nights: love my country, work hard, and try to get sensible government back in office.

I won't act like a Liberal and promise to leave the United States if my party doesn't win [link here].

I can’t blame Democrats for Republican failures. Republicans had Golden Opportunities going back to the Reagan Years to do the “government thing” right, and let them slip right through their fingers. President Reagan showed how direct appeals to the American public could overcome arrogant and ingrained Democrat leadership of Congress. President Clinton then demonstrated how his first two years dedicated to the socialized medicine philosophies of “Hillarycare” could deliver Congress to Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich rallying Americans around the Contract with America.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress became what Democrats had been: arrogant and imperious. The American people had elected Republicans to “throw the bums out,” not to be replacement bums. Instead of bringing new ideas, Republicans contented themselves with just tinkering with the old ideas.

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the most important thing to fix was Social Security.

It wasn’t fixed.

Today it’s still the most important government program that needs fixing, but while Democrats run the government, that’s not going to happen.

And as time goes by, it will just get worse.

Maybe in four years we’ll get another chance to do the thing right.

I'll still be here.

John McCain was Right - Social Security is a Disgrace

I have been drawing Social Security for two months now, and John McCain was right: “It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed!” Social Security is a horrible investment using the very simple yardstick of what you pay in compared to what you get out.

I am receiving $1,874 per month, or $22,488 per year. I’ve paid into Social Security for 48 years, and in many of those years I paid at or near the maximum annual contribution. During my real estate career of the past eight years, I paid both sides – the employee and the so-called employer contributions – into Social Security. That made obvious what I already knew: the “employer” contribution has always been paid by me, even when I worked for someone else. If the employer did not have to contribute to my Social Security, he would have had to pay me more, and I would have had to contribute more.

Therefore, all the money contributed in my name to Social Security over the years was paid from my earnings.

Many years ago I offered to take what I and my employer had contributed towards my Social Security (forget even getting interest on total contributions going back to 1958) and invest it myself, and in return I would never ever ask the government for a thing from Social Security.

Think about it. The government would have received a “no interest” loan from me, and all they would need to do to drop me forever as a liability is just give me a few of the Special Treasury Bonds they hold in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Of course they can’t do that. The money I contributed has been spent, used to pay other Social Security recipients and any excess used to pay other government operating expenses, like the Medicare cost overrun. The Special Treasury Bonds are worthless. If they were sold to pay current Social Security obligations, more Treasury bonds would have to be sold immediately to replace the cash needed to pay for other government expenses.

Many Americans, including innumerable PhD’s, can’t understand this, so do this simple test: put $10 in a jar labeled “Dining Out Fund.” Now take the $10 out and pay your phone bill, and in its place write an IOU for $10 to the “Dining Out Fund.” Now go out for dinner (at a real cheap place), and when the bill arrives pull out the IOU as payment.

At this point, even a Democrat would refuse the IOU and demand real money, even as you protest that you already spent it on your phone bill. So you reach into your wallet and pull out the $10 you planned to use to fill your empty gas tank. Then you tell your date, “If you don’t want to walk home, you’ll have to loan me $10.”

Our government has done the same thing, and now each and every American has a $455,000 share of the unfunded long-term liability for future Social Security and Medicare expenditures for which we through our government are obligated to pay.

This situation was brought into clear focus by the mortgage banking crisis, with calls for the government to bail out huge mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. With what?

"People seem to think the government has money," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "The government doesn't have any money."

Simply put, the government does what is doesn’t allow businesses to do: it doesn’t put its long-term unfunded liabilities on its books, and the total now for Social Security and Medicare is a whopping $53 trillion, or $455,000 per person.

"Health care costs are just amazing," said John Shoven, director of Stanford University's Institute for Economic Policy Research. Total health care costs now consume 16 percent of the economy and are headed quickly toward 30 percent, Shoven said. "Social Security is a big problem, but it's dwarfed by health care. Even the housing problem is dwarfed by health care."

Just the built-in rise in spending on programs for the elderly will cost about 25 percent of workers' payrolls over the next generation, said Richard Jackson, director of the Global Aging Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

When I was in the Air Force I griped about having to contribute to Medicare, because at the time military members had “guaranteed” life-time medical coverage in military hospitals. Many military retired near military hospitals. Trust the government to mess things up. Congress passed a law that once a retiree became 65 years old, they had to join Medicare and not be treated in military hospitals.

How about those retirees living near military bases far away from civilian hospitals?

Retirees raised a stink, and for once were listened to. The military retiree program for under-65’s, Tricare Prime, was expanded to Tricare for Life, the secondary insurer to Medicare. So the military retiree gained a little, but basically still came up a loser: the retiree could now use both Medicare facilities without prior approval (which was almost always granted) and military hospitals, but instead of a $460 annual fee covering both retiree and spouse, the annual Medicare fee for a typical retiree and spouse is now $2,360, or roughly one month’s Social Security payment more expensive.

Now I’m having second thoughts about all this, and I realize that John McCain was wrong when he said that Social Security is an absolute disgrace. He should have said that both Social Security and Medicare are absolute disgraces!

Elitist John McCain

On a radio talk show this morning I overheard remarks that Hillary, Obama, and McCain are all members of the “elite.” Hillary, undergrad at Wellesley, then Yale Law School – yep, she qualifies as an elite. Obama, prep school at prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii, graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law – no question, an elite. John McCain, Episcopal High School, Naval Academy, and over five years of postgraduate training at the prestigious Hanoi Hilton Academy – you can’t get more elite than that.

The talk show presenters never mentioned the part about the Hanoi Hilton, and apparently considered John McCain’s time at the Naval Academy the same as being at Harvard or Yale.

I’m not a military academy graduate, so my knowledge of the Naval Academy is limited. I was commissioned after three months of Air Force Officers Training School, so I could be considered a “Ninety-day Wonder” (although with six years enlisted service before commissioning, I wasn’t exactly “Lt. Fuzz”). But my limited knowledge of Harvard, Yale, and the Naval Academy leads me to believe that Hillary and Obama are elites in a way different from John McCain.

Among many differentiating items, there’s the matter of volunteering to fly in combat, being shot down over Hanoi on his 23rd mission, breaking two legs and one arm, having a shoulder crushed with a rifle butt and being bayoneted, being left to die with no medical care, surviving to spend two years in solitary confinement, and finally being released after over five years of confinement.

I’m sure Hillary will remember something similar happened to her, and Obama will feel that the Hanoi Hilton experience was like an exceptionally long summer camp, but I don’t think that John McCain deserves being place in the elite and privileged class of Hillary and Obama.

I have to laugh when Hillary says Obama is out of touch with the common man. She’s right, of course, but she’s even further out of touch.

John McCain has been, and remains, in touch with a man who is not one of the pampered elite, but is never common, the American military man. In that proud company, he was required to endure far more than most of the rest of us veterans.

He may be living the good life now, but he hasn’t forgotten.

Apparently at least two radio talk show hosts have, and I wonder how they continue to be employed while displaying such ignorance. I guess they say what their employer and audience want to hear, the truth be damned.

I feel pity for them and their audience.

Hillary Hopes You've Forgotten - Have You?

A friend emailed me the following. I followed my usual procedure and Googled it to check it at FactCheck.org and other sites for truth and accuracy, although I can personally vouch for almost every point from my own memories of events. It passed with flying colors.

If anything, it omits or glosses over significant Hillary messes, such as her missing Rose Law Firm billing records which showed up in her White House library without explanation two years after they were subpoenaed and the investigation closed. Or her financial killing in "Cattlegate" futures.

For these and many other reasons I'm looking forward to Hillary salvaging her campaign through "superdelegate" skullduggery, making Obama's supporters "mad as Hell and not taking it anymore," then going down in flames before John McCain's withering criticism of Hillary's "accomplishments."

Hillary Hopes You've Forgotten - Have You?
From Diane Rigali 2-6-8

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

HILLARY, As First Lady, assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynahan, key votes were needed to pass her legislation, that she would "demonize "anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)


HILLARY assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."

HILLARY recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

HILLARY recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

HILLARY also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.)

HILLARY, in order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired. They were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.


HILLARY also assumed the duty of directing the "bimbo eruption squad" and scandal defense:


...She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.


...She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.


...Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.


...And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.


...And Bill was impeached by the House.


...And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).


HILLARY accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, The First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was Decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

HILLARY wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her socialist viewpoint.

HILLARY decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

HILLARY then left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

HILLARY played the "woman card" in the campaign for the Senate, by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.


HILLARY'S husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)

HILLARY, as the junior Senator from New York , passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.


Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family.

From Fat Congressional Earmarks, to Pork in Berkeley

Few things illustrate the difference between liberals and conservatives like the spending of taxpayers’ money. The recent stupidity in Berkeley, where their witless City Council tried to expel a Marine recruitment office, has resulted in another case study of spending philosophies.

On the one hand we have the Republicans, who note that: “…the city of Berkeley insulted our troops and their constitutional mission to defend our country, while still coming to the federal government asking for special taxpayer-funded handouts.”

The total of $2,145,000 in special handouts to Berkeley, also known as congressional earmarks, include $87,000 for a school garden, $750,000 for ferry service between Berkeley and Albany, $94,000 for an emergency communications system, $975,000 for the Robert T. Matsui Foundation for Public Service at UC Berkeley, and $239,000 for the Ed Roberts Campus.

Before I go any farther, there are obviously going to be many proponents and defenders of federal government funding for each of these programs, and a lot more. Gardening is good, ferries are good, emergency communications are essential, public service is mother’s milk for Democrats (since their strongest support comes from public service unions), and the Ed Roberts Campus serves disabled adults and children.

So why should federal funds be taken from these programs?

That’s not the question.

Why were federal funds given these programs in the first place? Better yet, how were federal funds given these programs?

The answer to the second question first. The funds were given via congressional earmarks, also know as “pork-barrel spending,” or “pork” for short. Each item was approved as a part of a process that enables a congressperson to show their constituents that they can “bring home the bacon.”

The primary reason that the Berkeley earmarks won’t be eliminated by congressional action is simple: congresspersons don’t want to invite retaliation to remove their own earmarks. The earmark process is based on the old adage, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours,” but what perpetuates the system is the clear threat, “You gore my ox, and I’ll barbeque yours.”

To answer the first question of why these particular items were chosen for federal funding is to delve deeply into the confused psyche of political perceptions. The first step is to consider the nature of resources. They are finite and limited, whereas the need for resources verges on the infinite and unlimited.

Therefore, since unlimited needs are pursuing limited resources, who gets what becomes a reflection of who has the power.

For example, why does a Berkeley school get funds for a school garden when an Oakland school can’t provide enough textbooks for its classes?

Because Congresswoman Barbara Lee wants to show Berkeley voters she can bring home the bacon for them. She knows that Oakland voters will vote for her up to the point her vital signs are flat lines, and probably even after that, so she doesn’t have to prove anything to them.

Senator Barbara Boxer, of course was apoplectic about punishing Berkeley by having earmarks withdrawn and given to the Marines. “Why on Earth would we punish decent citizens because some members of their local government…say something that’s highly offensive?”

Why indeed?

One reason is that the decent citizens of Berkeley chose their members of local government, and can choose to remove them if they don’t agree with what they did.

A better reason would be that the programs funded by the earmarks are not the urgent and valid responsibilities of our federal government anyway, whereas funding the Marine Corps is. Doubters of this point should read the Constitution of the United States of America.

Another point would be that Berkeley aided and abetted activities that interfere with the lawful functioning of an agency of the federal government.

What does Barbara Boxer have to add to defend Berkeley’s right to retain federally earmarked funds? Does she think Berkeley has a right to them, regardless of what is said or done? Does she think there is no better use for the funds, such as in the defense of our borders?

I wonder if she is aware that defending our borders is a federal government responsibility under our Constitution, whereas school gardens, ferry services, etc., are not?

I bet she thinks it’s the other way around.

Even if Berkeley apologized to the Marines and rescinded Code Pink’s parking space, the correct action would still be to take away Berkeley’s earmarks and put them to better use.

In fact, all earmarks should be rescinded and the funds put to better use.

If that were to happen, I would consider the “Battle of Berkeley” one of the most significant of all Marine victories, one that should be proudly added to the “Marine’s Hymn.”

From fat congressional earmarks, to Pork in Berkeley
We shot down constitutional abuses, while setting the budget free
If the Senators and Congressmen, ever look at their responsibilities
They would find they include Marine recruiting
And not the school gardens of Berkeley.

(With humble apologies to the Marine Corps. I'm saluting them at the same time I'm ridiculing Democrats and Berkeley. Some of my best friends, and a few relatives, are or were proud Marines.

Alice and I just returned from Peleliu, where 1,500 Marines and 300 GIs gave their lives, and so did 11,000 Japanese, to ensure that Democrats and Berkeley residents are free to disrespect our soldiers and to praise our enemies. However, the hard-won American freedoms that so many bought so dearly don't included a right to pork-barrel funding.)

Semper Fi

Four Little Words to Energize Republicans

Once again the media is beating the drums that Republicans are dispirited and lack energy.

Sort of like Hillary Clinton supporters without the sour look.

Well I know the magic that will immediately energize Republicans, and it is just four simple words. You don’t need toe of newt or eye of bat, or a virgin’s kiss or a sorcerer’s hat.

At second thought, a virgin’s kiss never hurts, but it’s not essential.

Good thing it's not essential, given its short supply.

Just four little words:

Aging Supreme Court Justices.

There are five of them over 70, and a couple of them look like they are already on life support.

If one or more of them start to fail before President Bush completes his term in office, it’ll be Terri Schiavo all over again, only this time the Democrats won’t pull the plug.


Post Script:

Rush just came up with three little words that will unify and energize Republicans even more than "Aging Supreme Court Justices":

"Democrats Nominate Hillary."

California 2008 Primary Election - My Vote is In

I completed my absentee ballot and mailed it today. I voted for John McCain, and against all seven of the ballot propositions.

Although even the organizations who placed Proposition 91 on the ballot recommended voting against it because it was no longer needed, it was even easier to vote “No!” on several other propositions than on 91.

Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 (allowing four southern California tribes to greatly increase their slot machines in exchange for tax revenue contributions totaling less than one percent of our state budget) were the easiest to vote against on many grounds. Primarily, they would expand gambling, which I wish was still confined to Nevada (including getting rid of state lotteries). Gambling promotes wasteful and irresponsible behavior, and the gambling businesses are guaranteed profits while the gambling public is guaranteed losses. Indian gambling has been and will be a constant source of problems for the Indians and for society. While some tribes have become extremely wealthy, most tribes haven’t, but the dream of casino riches has stifled efforts of many “poor” tribes and individuals to improve because they are waiting for their casino “ship” to come in.

Our local Pomo tribe on the Garcia River is one of many whose casino ship will never dock, but many lives are being wasted while waiting.

It was also a pleasure to vote against Proposition 92, which foolishly cuts junior college student fees while creating another bloated state agency. It also commits what I consider the cardinal sin of budgeting by instituting a funding mechanism that removes control from elected government officials. This creates another sacred budget cow, one that doesn’t even need to ask to be fed according to its formula, regardless of the condition of other government programs and funding considerations.

Proposition 93 was the toughest for me to put the “No” to because I’m not a believer in term limits. I think the historic election of 1994, when the Republican tsunami powered by Hillarycare swept the arrogant Democrats out after forty years in power, or the milder rebuke of Republicans in 2006 to remind them of the consequences of acting like the Democrats prior to 1994, demonstrated that we already have term limits - it's called a ballot box. I voted "no" because Proposition 93 struck me as a dishonest attempt to fool Californians into thinking they were supporting term limits, when they would really be extending the terms of many powerful Democrats.

I voted for John McCain even though I've disagreed with him on many issues.

McCain-Feingold for starters. Man-caused global warming and the need for governments to get involved, for another.

But of all the candidates of either party, he's the most genuine and honest by far. He never told us that he was once for something before he was against it, or that he voted for something because the President or someone else fooled him.

When all the other candidates forgot they knew and said that Saddam had WMD while Bill Clinton was president, John McCain has stood by his guns. The current trend in Iraq bears out the wisdom of his position, and rewards him for standing up and being counted the whole time.

Finally, I look up to John McCain for spending 5 and a half years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, enduring treatment and conditions that violated the Geneva Convention every day, and coming out strong and ready to continue serving his country. The worst day John Kerry experienced in his four months of duty in the rivers of South Vietnam was infinitely better than the best day John McCain spent in North Vietnam.

The Democrats went for John Kerry as a war hero, and denigrated the proud and demanding service of George W. Bush flying dangerous fighter jets. Previously Democrats backed a draft dodger over two genuine heroes of World War II, George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

I hope that they get another chance to cast a vote to honor a brave American, John McCain, and that this time they do it. I've just done my own small part. I look forward to doing much more later.

I don't have to agree with every thing John McCain does to know he's still the best person for the job.

Abolish the Electoral College

It would be great to have California divide its electoral votes on the basis of the ratio of votes for president.

The reason I applaud this proposed change is simple, and selfish.

A Republican would be elected president in 2008.

Probably in 2012 too, even if Democrats caught on and by some miracle were able to get all states to change to proportional division of electors by popular vote.

The reason the Republicans would continue winning is simple: the power of incumbency.

I have another “selfish” reason for wanting the change besides future Republican victories. I’m a Republican in the Northern California Democrat fiefdom. It would be nice to have my vote for president mean something. In my district, instead of “one man, one vote,” it’s “Republican? Why vote?”

The Electoral College got us a win in 2000. Without the Electoral College we might have won anyway, because without it voting patterns would change, and the changes might have brought out more Republicans in places, like Northern California, where voting in presidential elections seems futile.

Some say that doing away with the Electoral College, and going to direct popular voting for president would favor the big states.

Why?

Because that’s where most of the people live.

OK.

One man…excuse me, one person, one vote.

What’s wrong with that?

2008 Republican Straw Poll

Please Try To Impeach President Bush

Courtesy John Montgomery/Beach Impact Project
1,200 Leftists demonstrate their education was not a total waste - at least one of them could spell IMPEACH!

The Nancy Pelosi Chronicle (formerly known as the San Francisco Chronicle), whose motto was and is “All Nancy Pelosi, All the Time,” featured this picture made up of 1,200 San Francisco Leftists (please excuse the redundancy) lying (a natural state of Liberals) or laying (another natural state of Liberals) on the sand at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.

It is heartening that someone finally found a use for them, although they reverted to their natural useless state as soon as their photo was taken.

The Liberals and I finally have found common cause. They want the Democrats in Congress to impeach President Bush, and I want them to try to impeach President Bush. I can’t think of anything the Liberals could do that would motivate the American people more to put Republicans back in charge than having the radical Left seize total control of the Democrats and bring impeachment charges against President Bush.

One charge, of course, would be that President Bush, like President Clinton before him, and Tony Blair, Chirac, the United Nations, and many other nations, believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I guess the question they would ask is, “Why would you, President Bush, agree with all these other nations and the UN and with UN approval try to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq’s suspected WMD?”

After months of testimony from world leaders and heads of their intelligence services, President Bush would finally be able to answer the question by saying, “I believed it because Saddam had demonstrated he had WMD and had already used it against Iran and his own people, and the UN had passed resolutions against Saddam based on accepted intelligence.

“I would like to now read you statements made by President Clinton, Senators Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, and a whole bunch more that Saddam had WMD (Click here for their words, courtesy of Truth or Fiction.com)

“Each of them was briefed on the same intelligence information as I.

“You say that won’t be necessary?

“Then what’s the next question?”

The Liberals, being a very inventive and impassioned group, would surely have a litany of questions, each more ridiculous than the previous, that would quickly bring every Democrat but the most committed Leftists into a state of embarrassment wishing they had never started.

At that point, the Blue Dog Democrats, their only sensible group, will be reminding their Leftist colleagues that an election is coming soon, and that Democrats had done a great job of not accomplishing anything except looking ever more ridiculous while wasting a year on a failed impeachment exercise.

Democrats with presidential aspirations will realize that their Party had become an instrument of their far Left special interest groups, and that the only way back to the middle ground would be to disavow impeachment and take up a moderate Republican agenda.

All I want for Christmas 2007 is the Democrats to try to impeach President Bush.

If they will only do that, I know I’ll get what I want for Christmas 2008.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Index of Political Posts

(Please mouse click on the red, underlined link titles to be magically transported to the articles described. I'll be glad you did. How you will feel about the process may be something else entirely, but go ahead, take a chance!)

Liberal Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy of New York Times and Liberals - The left is selective about outrage over loss of freedoms.
California Global Warming Carmaker Lawsuit is Specious - No harm to Californians, no legal standing to sue, right?
US Freedom of the Press Rated Low in World Opinion - Especially by those who have little or no freedom.
Affirmative Action Defeat Met With Deafening Silence - The liberal main stream media thinks affirmative action is still alive if they don't run its obituary.
Niggardly Liberals vs. Compassionate Conservatives - Liberals are generous with other people's money.
Asian And Black Racial Disparity In America - Liberals don't like minorities that don't need help.

Dimocrats

The Accountability Congress - Mission Impossible, Democrats hanging on to power in 2008.
Pelosi Sabotages Her Own Big Day - This should also be filed under Just Plain Dumb Democrats.
No Surprises In Democrat Agenda - It's as incoherent as we thought it would be.
Political Football - Democrats can win as long as Republicans are determined to beat themselves.

Taxation

Our Income Taxes are not Progressive - and never will be, but a national sales tax can be.
Replace the IRS with a National Sales Tax - An idea whose time has come.
Keep It Simple, Simplifiers - Tax to raise revenue, not to do social engineering.

Republican Issues

Republican Straw Poll For 2008 - Times a'wastin'!

Illegal Immigration

Property Rights? We Don't Need No Stinking Property Rights -

Just Plain Dumb Liberals

Lawrence Ferlinghetti - Fool or Fraud? - Both?

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Affirmative Action Defeat Met With Deafening Silence

The deafening sounds of silence that announced the landslide passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 2) in Michigan indicate how the main stream media put their imprint on “news.” Each day I searched the San Francisco Chronicle for news of Ward Connerly’s attack on affirmative action in Michigan. Each day there was nothing. In fact, the latest interest the Chronicle appeared to have in the matter was October 30, a week before the election, when it reported a Michigan poll showed Proposition 2 was in a dead heat for passage.

Not surprisingly, the dead heat turned out to be a sixteen-point victory for Proposition 2, 58 percent for, 42 percent against. Mr. Connerly has already succeeded in having similar propositions passed in California and Washington.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative makes it unlawful for all public employers and public contractors, as well as public schools, to discriminate or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, skin color, gender or national origin.

I don’t think the point has ever registered in the minds of Liberals that, in order to grant favors to one group, you have to discriminate against another. For those that think such discrimination is necessary for Blacks and Hispanics to progress, I would like to call their attention to the successes that Asian immigrants have had in America.

Naturally, Liberals are blind to minorities that don’t need their help, like the Asians. In fact, in California, Asians have done so well that they are now one of the groups that Liberals want to take from to give preferences to Blacks and Hispanics. To a Liberal, success means that you’re a target for discrimination.

Proposition 2 was opposed by Democrats, some Republican leaders, labor unions, the Catholic Church, major media outlets, the University of Michigan, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Against this formidable opposition, Ward Connelly only had the support of reason and fair treatment. It was no contest.

When a “blue” state like Michigan joins blue states like California and Washington, and gives an overwhelming defeat to affirmative action, Ward Connerly can proudly say that “affirmative action is dead.” The United States is well on its way to becoming the color-blind nation of Reverend King’s dreams.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Republican Straw Poll For 2008

As frequent readers of this blog, and both of you know who you are, you know it is my firm conviction that we should have started the 2008 presidential campaign the day after President Bush was reelected in November 2004.

Hillary started running for 2008 while the chads were still hanging in 2001.

John Kerry was the sacrificial lamb in 2004 for Hillary, then recently opened his voluminous mouth and thoughtfully erased himself from competing against her in 2008. I wonder what she will say in her Thank You note to him. It should start out: "Dear John."

One good thing to come out of the 2006 election. Republicans have weeded out the "bad idea" candidates and "no chancers."

Still, we are getting off to a late start for 2008.

But better late than never, and this survey is a good way to start.



And leave comments, please.

Republicans Can Learn, I Hope

Defeat can be good if you learn from it. Republicans just learned that you can lose if you give voters less reason to vote for you than Democrats, or give them more reasons to vote against you. The Republicans committed both sins, and all the Democrats did was let voters know they weren’t Republicans.

The sin of not being a Republican. Republicans support strong national defense, a healthy economy, and individual freedoms.

The sin of being like a Democrat. Republicans lose support when they forget about fiscal responsibility and personal integrity.

One thing that usually comes from defeat that is totally useless and unproductive is finger pointing. Republicans can blame the war in Iraq, but look about, and they will see a lot of politicians elected and reelected who did not campaign to cut-and-run in Iraq. We can start the list with Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and most of the soon-to-be Freshmen Democrats in Congress. Nancy Pelosi is going to have a lot of fun trying to build a coalition between her old gang of raw-meat leftists and the new crop of “Republican Lite” Democrats.

It’s no sin for a Democrat to act like a Republican. Look what Bill Clinton did after his “Hillary Care” disaster.

Republicans could have impressed voters by championing fiscal responsibility. However, as with Democrats before them, Republicans soon were using taxpayers’ money to buy their love. As it often ends when love is for sale, Republicans found their lovers were only rented, and were still available for sale to the next highest bidder.

Republican profligacy got so bad that right-wing bloggers created Pork Busters to try to stem the tide. However, the only way to curb a politician’s pork addiction is to vote them out of the Tribe, and the Tribe has spoken. I hope Republican Survivors heard.

Republicans campaign on platforms of personal integrity, Democrats campaign on platforms of accusing Republicans of a lack of integrity. When Democrats violate standards of integrity, Democrats forgive them. When Republicans violate the same standards, no one forgives them. Knowing these facts of life, instead of whining and moaning about the double standards, Republicans should hold themselves and all other party members to the highest standards. Dennis Hastert might still have his job if he hadn’t tried to just wish the Mark Foley problem away.

The Republicans already have a Hall of Heads, displaying their colleagues who lost theirs because they thought they could behave like Democrats. The recent list includes luminaries such as Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Tom DeLay, and each accusation dominated the news and diverted Republicans from serious legislative accomplishments. With all the Democrats shooting at them, Republicans decided to see what all the fun was about, and shoot themselves in the foot.

The most painful wounds are self-inflicted.

So are the most painful losses.

UPDATE: Republicans show few signs of learning anything, if Trent Lott is the evidence.

Mourning In America

I started a one-minute mourning period when I awoke to the news, but stopped after twenty seconds.

My mourning the Republican loss is over.

Now it's time to get to work.

Betrayed by Republican Leaders

Updated Update: Upon further investigation and sober reflection, it's obvious that the Democrats sat on this scandal for almost a year, waiting until just before the elections to spring an "October surprise." As this article shows, the Democrats are true hypocrites on many levels.

First there is their feigned outrage; this from the party of Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

Second, their calls for investigations of Republican leadership, when their leadership sat on the story for a year and didn't call for any investigations themselves.

Finally, there is the matter of equating Foley's inappropriate phone sex banter with the physical acts performed by and on Gerry Studds and Bill Clinton, and the involvement with and the promotion of prostitution by Barney Frank.

Did I mention the Democrats are hypocrites? And is it going to be noticed that Democrats are complicit in Foley's transgressions? If they acted on the information they had a year ago, Foley would not have committed many of the dastardly deeds of the past year, and the Democrats would have accomplished what they say is driving them now, preventing young boys from inappropriate sexual attention.


UPDATE: The disgust I express below is tempered by the greater disgust I have for the hypocritical Democratic leadership. Foley sent suggestive e-mails and text messages to a page. Gerry Studds, former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, admitted to "consensual" sexual relations with a 17-year old page. For Democrats, who have a way of glossing over essential points, Gerry Studds admitted to having sex with a 17-year old, not to sending him suggestive messages, although he probably did that too.

To spell things out a bit more, Gerry Studds used a superior to subordinate relationship to get to have sex with a young government employee. Gerry Studds did not resign in disgrace. He had a press conference featuring the young page agreeing with him that the sex was consensual, and that it was nobody's business but their own. Gerry Studds turned his back and ignored the House when his censure was read, then proceeded to be reelected five more terms after the censure.

I think even a Democrat is smart enough to understand this. Today's Democratic House leaders are making a big issue of the fact that Republican leaders didn't cashier Foley for making suggestive remarks, yet Democratic leaders continued to work with and accept Gerry Studds in their caucus after they found he had sexual relations with an underage government employee - do you understand the difference between a sex act and a suggestion? - I typed this slow to help Democrats understand - and Gerry Studds was unrepentant. He never admitted he had done anything wrong.

In typical Democratic fashion, he claimed victim status for himself. He said that it was really tough to be both an elected official and gay. Obviously he felt that it was unreasonable to give up being a pedophile just because he was an elected official. It seems that if he was a pedophile in a private rather than a public position, his pedophilia would be OK. Democratic leaders soon agreed that it was OK in a public position too, as long as you are a Democrat.

So I take back a lot of what I wrote below. I really don't know how much the Republican leaders knew, and I judged them hastily. But the test of time has rendered a verdict on the Democratic leaders, and history has rightly concluded that they are congenital hypocrites.

I just did a post based on the saying, “those who don’t know history are bound to repeat its mistakes.” Then tonight Alice and I discussed our disgust with Republican congressional leadership because they covered up the Foley mess until it blew up in their faces a month before the biggest congressional election since 1994. There it was, history repeating itself.

A lesson we thought had been learned once and for all time when President Nixon resigned because he tried to cover up a “third-rate” burglary seems never to have sunken in. I though the Republican leadership would surely be taking notes when the Catholic Church in America suffered almost terminal embarrassment and financial ruin when it tried to finesse priests’ sexual exploitation of boys and young men.

Why does “if I ignore it, it will go away,” still have such a strong following among our so-called leaders? Don’t they realize that if they ignore it, it will come out at the worst possible time and cause the most damage imaginable?

Two thousand years ago the Greeks knew of the human failings that caused great men to pretend away the inevitable. Greek tragedies are still cautionary lessons for us today. The actors we watch could be Republican leaders, thinking that if they just tell the guy to get his act together, he’ll see the light and they won’t have to deal with a bunch of unpleasantries. At the time they are thinking, “We have to protect our majority at all costs.”

Maybe Republican leaders think they can be like the Democrats. Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, Sandy Berger, Thomas Dodd, Hazel O’Leary, Gerry Studds, Maxine Waters, and many other Democrats have been caught in significant ethical and even criminal violations, and have survived politically.

Unfortunately those Republican leaders have forgotten the lessons of Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and other Republicans who were disgraced and dumped for doing things that would be a ho-hum if done by a Democrat.

As an example, Trent Lott said words of praise for Strom Thurmond, a colleague celebrating his 100th birthday, about an event in 1948, which were deemed racially insensitive and caused Lott to resign his Senate Majority Leader position.

In 2001 Robert Byrd, former “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops” of the Klu Klux Klan, and opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, remarked about “white niggers” twice on Fox News Sunday.

Robert Byrd is still an exalted leader of the Democratic Party; Trent Lott is no longer a leader of the Republican Party.

Of course there’s a double standard, but Republican leaders like Dennis Hastert are too dumb to deal with it. If what I have read is true, that Speaker of the House Hastert was told about Foley a year ago and didn’t do anything about it, Hastert should resign immediately.

Alice and I feel like we have been kicked in the stomach, that our ideals and trust in Republican leadership have been betrayed.

Now we know how American Catholics feel.

Bush Lied, People Died

It fits on a bumper sticker, and is easy to chant – a Liberal dream.

It’s also not true, but truth has never been a Liberal necessity.

The “lie” appears to be that President Bush said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. That, of course, was true. It is almost indisputable (I write almost, because there are some fanatics that are armed with their own “facts,” such as that 9/11 was an inside job), that Saddam had WMD and used it in the Iraq-Iran War, and on the Kurds before Gulf War I. Critics of President Bush say that he was determined to attack Iraq, although they often don’t mention that for over a year President Bush through the United Nations tried to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions.

Further, these same critics don’t bother to explain that President Bush’s Democratic predecessors were all on record stating that Saddam had WMD, and so were the governments and intelligence organizations of the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, etc. In fact, there was no credible opposition or proof before the invasion of Iraq from any nation stating that Saddam did not have WMD.

Democratic leaders – President Clinton, VP Al Gore, Senator Kerry, Senator Feinstein – were also on record stating that Saddam was a threat to world peace. (As presented on TruthorFiction.com) It was only after the invasion of Iraq that Democrats began their revision of history, and found that, even though they all had privy to the same raw intelligence that President Bush saw, he somehow had been able to mislead them.

This ability to mislead is very interesting, since apparently they feel he was able to do it to them even before he became president, since they now give him sole credit for branding Saddam as a threat. Therefore, President Bush must have been spinning his lies about Saddam at least as early as 1998, over two years before he became president.

In the beginning, Liberals needed to brand President Bush a liar, because Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and later John Kerry were repeatedly exposed as liars. The best way to fight is to use an opponent’s strength against him, to “fight fire with fire.” In this case, Republicans having a field day calling Democrats liars had to be quieted.

Bill Clinton was full of lies, and it took a scribe with a water-cooled word processor to keep up. Clinton earned his reputation long before Monica “I did not have sex with that woman” Lewinsky. The most trivial things were invitations to deception. When black churches were being burned in the South, Clinton famously said: "I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child." However, even blacks and Arkansas Democrats were incensed by this lie, and Clinton’s “vivid” memories soon morphed into more vague recollections.

At Rosa Parks’ funeral, Clinton produced another vivid memory: "I remember as if it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago. I was a 9-year-old southern white boy who rode on a segregated bus every single day of my life." He goes on to say that it was after Parks refused to give up her seat that he and two friends decided they wouldn't sit in the front anymore.

Great story! Clinton describes how Rosa Parks’ courage moved him to take a principled stand. He let some of her glory rub off on him.

Except it wasn’t true. Neither of his boyhood home towns, Hope or Hot Springs, had public transportation at the time. Since the schools were segregated, if it was a school bus he was thinking about, there weren’t any blacks on it either.

Clinton became the “first black president,” but was a Democrat when Democratic governors and politicians in the South were all segregationists, and Republicans like President Eisenhower were the champions of civil rights for blacks. I wonder what vivid memories he has of his racist mentor, Senator William Fulbright, condemning integration, and of another Arkansas Democrat, Governor Orval Faubus, calling out the Arkansas National Guard to block integration in Little Rock?

Not to be outdone, Hillary demonstrated that the “smartest woman in America” had one of the most selective memories in America, and probably set records by stating “I don’t remember” or similar words over 250 times in answer to judicial and congressional investigators’ questions.

In Blizzard of Lies, William Safire notes: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.”

Maybe he was thinking how, upon meeting Sir Edmund Hillary, she told him how her mother named her “Hillary” in his honor, ever though Sir Edmund didn’t become famous until five years after her birth.

In a report released October 18, 2000, independent counsel Robert Ray determined Hillary had given false testimony when questioned about White House travel office firings, a crime that Ray declined to prosecute. Ditto for her recollections of how she made a 10,000 percent profit in a year on cattle futures by studying the Wall Street Journal.

Did Al Gore lie? Is the Pope a Catholic?

Al told a Teamster’s meeting that one of the lullabies he remembered from his youth was “look for the union label,” which came out in 1975, when he was 27.

Then he told Florida senior citizens that his mother-in-law paid $108 a month for the same arthritis medicine he gave his dog for $37.80 a month. A great story, except the figures he used were taken from a House Democratic study and did not reflect his family's own costs. Moreover, the study's figures referred to wholesale prices, not prices paid by the consumer.

But why let the truth get in the way of making political points?

And then along came John Kerry. Who but Democratic faithful can forget the following, try as they might?

On the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry issued this statement: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

Seared memories, vivid memories, memories just like yesterday – somehow such clear memories don’t stand up when tested against facts.

For instance, John Kerry attributed the statement that “the troops were not in Cambodia” to President Nixon, who wouldn’t take office for another month. But Nixon’s presidency fit Kerry’s 1968 memory much better than the Khmer Rouge did, which wasn’t active before 1970. Both Kerry and Douglas Brinkley, an author who wrote of Kerry’s exploits in Viet Nam, also provided other versions of the “Christmas in Cambodia” story, as the need for new explanations arose over the years since.

Their versions fit in with the time-honored Democratic tradition of using false stories to illustrate greater truths. “Everyone knows that Richard Nixon would have lied to the American people about not having troops in Cambodia if he did have them there. The fact he didn’t at the time – maybe because he wasn’t president yet – doesn’t change the fact that he would have lied about it if given the chance.”

(The above is a made-up quote that illustrates a greater truth that Democrats would like you to know about Richard Nixon.)

In summary, it also illustrates why the Democrat’s mantra is “Bush lied.” They think that focusing on “lying” will make the Republicans avoid the subject of Democratic liars.

Sorry, “Democratic liars” is a too “target rich” environment.