Count Me In...

To think, I was never a big fan of ol' Dubya, but I'd be one of the 44% that would prefer him to Obama right now.

In Honor of our Veterans and Soon-To-Be Vets...

...donate to Operation Gratitude.

No matter your political leaning, you should ALWAYS provide support for our troops.

Proof That We're Almost Out of Iraq the Right Way

The Iraqi army may be able to take control of all 18 provinces by the end of the year.

Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.

He said that a joint operation under way led by Iraqi troops and supported by U.S. troops against al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul was a model for the future.

The Iraqi army is already controlling security in 9 provinces, and this spells good news as President Bush is looking to withdraw 20,000 troops permanently sometime this summer. As we see, the surge is working and things are finally going the way they should be. Now, the only real hurdle to complete success is getting the Iraqi government on task.

Snow Falls in Baghdad

For the first time that anyone can remember, snow is falling on the streets of Baghdad. This seems to be causing a serious lift in spirits amongst the citizens within the city.

"It is the first time we've seen snow in Baghdad," said 60-year-old Hassan Zahar. "We've seen sleet before, but never snow. I looked at the faces of all the people, they were astonished," he said.

"A few minutes ago, I was covered with snowflakes. In my hair, on my shoulders. I invite all the people to enjoy peace, because the snow means peace," he said.

Traffic policeman Murtadha Fadhil, huddling under a balcony to keep dry, declared the snow "a new sign of the new Iraq."

It's a sign of hope. We hope Iraqis will purify their hearts and politicians will work for the prosperity of all Iraqis."

That seems to be the general feeling, that snow is an omen of peace. Maybe this omen will mean that the Iraqi government will finally start to get itself straightened out, and we can finally end the rebuilding process and our soldiers can come back home, proud of the work they've accomplished.

Also...anyone else find it odd that, during this period of supposed global warming, it's snowing in Baghdad...

London Telegraph: Petraeus is "Person of the Year"

Time Magazine may have thought Vladimir Putin was the Person of the Year in 2007. However, the London Telegraph took a different route.

They named Gen. David Petraeus as their "2007 Person of the Year".

To quote the paper's article, "The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq."

The article continued, "The reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West's biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, General Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives."

Indeed it has. Good common sense from across the pond.

(h/t The Political Grapevine)

Kudlow: "President Bush had a very good year"

In a Washington Times column today, Lawrence Kudlow noted that, despite all of the negativity and criticism of his campaign, President Bush has had a good year.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

True enough, especially when you look at these numbers...which come despite the subprime crisis and overall housing market downturn.

- Headline inflation - 2.5%
- Core inflation - 2%
- Real GDP growth - 3%
- Consumer spending - 3%
- Jobs increasing at rate of 100,000/month
- Stock market continues to go up despite obstacles

Kudlow also notes Bush's legislative victories, economic optimism, and his crusade against wasteful spending and pork-barrel earmarks.

Mr. Bush's optimism is well-earned, in Congress too. He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the alternative minimum tax. He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates.

And he is not yet finished. In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Mr. Bush said he will not stand for continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks.

"Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill," said Mr. Bush. "The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year's campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers it again can be trusted on key issues of limited government and lower taxes.

In these matters, Republicans must be holier than the pope. And while President Bush has been doing the Lord's work with his newfound veto pen, he must continue to wage war on earmarks if the GOP is to cleanse the political memory of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

This behemoth spending-bill was porked-up with such essential items as rodent control in Alaska ($113,000); olive fruit-fly research in France ($213,000); a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000); a bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000); a post office museum in Las Vegas ($200,000); and a $2 million monument to Rep. Charlie Rangel in New York.

Will Rangel's monument be inscribed with his quote that "Dick Cheney is a real son of a bitch"? Just wondering, since my federal tax dollars are going to support a project like this.

Kudlow finishes with some optimism and advice for how the GOP should go forward in making the economy even better.

Republicans also can take credit for outmaneuvering the Democrats on a patch for the AMT. The Democrats were made to waive the pay-as-you-go budget rule that might have forced tax increases on businesses and investment pools. Stopping this tax hike is a singular Republican achievement, while the AMT will now be indexed for inflation, thereby sparing more than 20 million taxpayers.

Looking ahead, the economy also would benefit from a corporate tax cut for both large and small businesses, including corporate capital-gains. The U.S. dollar would reap the rewards as new investment flowed in from the world. Several recent studies also show businesses would pass on tax-cost savings to the work force, thereby bolstering wages and ultimately creating new jobs.

Hokey ideas for temporary tax rebates? They should be ignored. But if the president and Republicans wipe out earmarks, hold down spending, and pass a bold corporate tax cut, Goldilocks will be nourished and sustained. Come November 2008, Republicans might be back in the driver's seat.

TIME's "Person Of The Year" is...Vladimir Putin

Actually, I found this to be a bit of a surprise. I expected Putin to be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Runner-up...but the actual "Person Of The Year", quite a surprise. The Russian President is, however, a very noteworthy individual on the world stage, even though he does butt heads with the American government on several issues.

TIME did explain their reasoning for choosing Putin rather well, especially in these two paragraphs.

When this intense and brooding KGB agent took over as President of Russia in 2000, he found a country on the verge of becoming a failed state. With dauntless persistence, a sharp vision of what Russia should become and a sense that he embodied the spirit of Mother Russia, Putin has put his country back on the map. And he intends to redraw it himself. Though he will step down as Russia's President in March, he will continue to lead his country as its Prime Minister and attempt to transform it into a new kind of nation, beholden to neither East nor West.

TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like the man for whom his grandfather prepared blinis—who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression—this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year.

The runner-ups were interesting, if not slightly predictable.

1st Runner-Up - An Inconvenient Former VP, Al Gore (if anyone saw this as a surprise, they should be smacked for false ignorance, I'm just glad he didn't win).

2nd Runner-Up - Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, whose fame is pretty much up now that the Potter series is over and done with.

3rd Runner-Up - Chinese President Hu Jintao

4th Runner-Up - General David Petraeus, who should honestly be flipped with Gore, because Petraeus managed to forge success when the new Congressional majority (Democrats) tried to give him every conceivable path to failure.

UPDATE: Henry Ryto brings up an EXCELLENT point in the comments below...where is Nicolas Sarkozy on this list??? That man may single-handedly change European-American relations, and actually has been a catalyst for the rapid improvement of Franco-American relations. Good call, Henry.

Dems Abandon SCHIP

Now, they're going along with the GOP's plan and will keep SCHIP as it is until March 2009, when the new form of SCHIP that will be debated in the beginning of the 2009 Congressional session will take effect.

That actually dampens the ability of Dems to use SCHIP as a campaign issue, as well as keeps SCHIP expansion from being used as the "knife to the throat" of military funding for operations in Iraq.

Haven't I said multiple times before that Congressional Republicans have traditionally done well when they don't have full majorities in Congress?

Rasmussen: Good News for Bush, Common Sense, War, and Society

- Bush's approval rating for the overall month of November was 37%, which is not great but is an improvement from the low-30's he was pulling several months ago. It's been a slow climb upward for the President.

- 54% of Americans believe that the individuals who borrowed more than they could afford are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis...only 25% blame Wall Street investors. This 54% includes 42% of Democrats (surprisingly, only 37% of Dems blame Wall Street), 52% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans. Interesting, since the mainstream news tends to place blame on Wall Street for this problem.

- 47% of Americans believe we are winning the War on Terror, the highest level of support in 35 months on Rasmussen and 4 points higher than a month ago. This is also up 13 points since early January.

- Here's an interesting one...62% of Americans would prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes, only 25% say the opposite.

Slick Willie Caught in a Lie (Surprise?)

Bill Clinton told CNN today that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. Nothing much I can really say in response to that except that Clinton's statement is total BS. We all know it. He had made threats of military action against Iraq while he was President. Hell, even Raising Kaine knows Clinton is full of it!

You know it's bad when Raising Kaine pulls out the BS detector on Clinton.

Krauthammer: No Reason to Abandon Iraq Yet

Charles Krauthammer's article , "Benching Benchmarks", at National Review Online speaks volumes about how we have been achieving success in Iraq, and that we should not give up yet. He opens up with this statement.

It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. ... We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

Very, very true. All of our military's work, and the efforts of the surge, are showing more and more signs of success. We're on the cusp of really breaking through and ending this occupation in a favorable, victorious manner...and these anti-war Dems still can't accept that.

Their excuse is found in the statement "Iraq has not achieved the political benchmarks set". Krauthammer acknowledges that having all of these benchmarks achieved is a good thing, and would make for a faster end to all of this...but it's not quite necessary at this point. Read on...

But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.

So, while the legislative benchmarks have not been reached from the top down...success is being reached from the ground up. Krauthammer continues...

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam’s totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment — tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus’s genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders — without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Good question. The answer is simple...there is no reason to do so. Our troops are playing a big part in helping Iraqis build stability in their own nation from the ground up. Soon enough, the central government in Baghdad will be stabilized, and we'll begin to see that despite all of the violence, bloodshed, and lives lost...it was not in vain, but for a more secure world for everyone, including you and I, to live in.

Music Supporting The Troops

This is a nice change from the usual anti-military entertainment industry crap.

John Ondrasik (Five for Fighting) has been put together a compilation album that will be a musical "Thanks" for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CD is entitled, simply "CD For The Troops".

The artists on this album are some pretty big names in their genres: Billy Joel, Brooks and Dunn, Goo Goo Dolls, Jewel, Josh Groban, Los Lonely Boys, Melissa Ethridge, the Neville Brothers, Sarah McLachlan, the Lt. Dan Band, Montgomery Gentry, The Fray, and of course Five for Fighting.

While I have to admit that there are some names on that list that aren't really my cup of tea in terms of music (I'm not a huge Josh Groban or Five for Fighting fan, same goes for the Neville Brothers), but I think I will at least make a few trips to iTunes this weekend and show a little extra support for the ones I do like and purchase a few more songs. It's my way of saying "thank you" to these artists who decided to say "thank you" to our brave men and women of the military.

Sedition in Olympia, Washington

It's one thing to protest the war, it's another thing to stop military shipments from reaching our troops in Iraq so they can be well-equipped to defend themselves and survive in harsh conditions! So much for these anti-war protestors claiming to be "for the troops", they won't even allow the troops to get the equipment they need!!! Blocking convoys, pouring cement over railroad tracks, doing everything they can from stopping these shipments from heading to our troops...and the police are doing NOTHING!

This is beyond protesting, this could be very easily considered to be treason...and the cops are letting these people go without charges!?!?

THESE PROTESTORS ARE PUTTING AMERICAN LIVES EVEN MORE AT RISK! Yet, the liberal media and blogosphere PRAISE these people as being heroes and patriots???

I have my issues with the what's going on in Iraq, but for the love of God...the troops in Iraq have done nothing to have these sniveling little opportunists cut off their supply line!

Michelle Malkin reports on this treasonous activity.

Bono Shows A Bit of Sense

And he does it in the face of a Rolling Stone reporter trying to make him do otherwise.

Bono: When I'm arguing for increased aid to Africa, I always say, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"

Reporter: We seem to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe it was possible to think that way right after 9/11, but that opportunity was squandered.

Bono: When the French have you on the cover of their most treasured newspaper with the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, something has been stirred! [Laughs]

Reporter: But this administration destroyed that. I know that you have to deal with a lot of these people. . .

Bono: There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

Remember, Bono is revered by most for his music, and by the left for his political activism. After discussing his disagreement with the Iraq War, he says the following...

Bono: I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

He is right...national socialism was a serious threat, and it is becoming one here in America. Hence the reason why conservatives like me are against some of the socialist ideals put forth by many politicians, pundits, and college professors.

Read the full interview here.

(h/t blonde sagacity)

Definition of "Dumb"

15 anti-Bush protesters rallied in favor of impeachment of the President...in front of the Richmond Times-Dispatch offices...?

This makes no sense. Why would you protest outside of the Times Dispatch? What do they have to do with Bush? I mean, you could at least protest outside of the Capitol in Richmond...that I could possibly see as making sense. This is just plain "dumb", or "nuts", or both. There's only 15 of you! First of all, that's a pretty embarrassingly small amount...why not just make the drive to D.C. and protest there???

The left's crazy antics know no bounds.

Taking A Break From Election Day News...

Dennis Kucinich (D-Insane Tree Huggers) attempted to pass the kind of fantasy resolution that could only be dreamed up in the minds of leftist bloggers.

He tried to begin impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, on the grounds that he intentionally led us into Iraq (as if we have ever been led into a war "by accident"). Nonetheless, Steny Hoyer attempted to table the vote, votes switched all over the place because of swift manuvering by the GOP to make the Dems look bad, and eventually they settled on sending the matter to the Judiciary Committee, which stops any possible floor debates on impeachment and (for all intents and purposes) kills the bill.

Michelle Malkin is live-blogging today's events.

Doug Mataconis at Below The Beltway discusses the legal cloudiness surrounding the impeachment of a Vice President.

Trying to do the Right Thing

When it comes to the Middle East in general, America has done a lot to attempt to bring order and some amount of social freedom not granted to the people by the governments of that region. True, we always had our interests in mind to varying extents, but I believe that our attempts to simply democratize the region for the sake of providing freedom to those who never had it before have been genuine to at least some degree.


I've come to believe that true stability may never be reached in the Middle East...but you can't fault the U.S. for at least trying. The problem is, you have the roots of almost half of the world's religious beliefs set in this general region. You also have some of the most extreme tribalistic societies in this region. Combine that with a willingness to die for your beliefs because the man next to you does not believe what you believe...and by killing them and yourself, you get 72 virgins and an eternity in paradise...well, I guess personal freedom and democracy now can't compare with those kinds of promises that can be achieved by simply killing "infidels" in the name of Allah.

The worst part of it all is that most Muslims do not believe in these acts. However, their religion has been so hijacked by these extremists that they feel powerless to stop them. The other roadblock is the different sects of Islam refuse to coexist, much like the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, even though they read from the same book of beliefs.

However, I've read a few reports that state that Al Qaeda has lost a lot of influence in Iraq in recent months. Most of this loss of influence is due to these non-extremist Muslims standing up and refusing to give shelter to Al Qaeda terrorists, and not just U.S. military force alone.

Maybe we can end this occupation on a positive note, after all.

John Warner: "Bring them home by Christmas"

This is what I heard on WJLA News at 6.

Apparently Warner came to the conclusion, as he toured Iraq, that the situation was too bleak to "continue the bloodshed". Apparently, Warner wants President Bush to start bringing the troops home next month, and put an end to the occupation of Iraq by Christmas.

While I'm still waiting to see exactly what this "surge report" says...if President Bush follows through on Warner's advice, it means two things. 1) Iraq is "off the table" in terms of an issue for the 2008 presidential candidates and the 2008 election...which means that the GOP could be free of it's biggest anchor. Also, 2) we can begin focusing on diverting funds from an overseas occupation to actually defending the homeland.

I will say this, the unwillingness and/or simply inability of the Iraqi government to come to terms on how to govern their own country has probably been the biggest roadblock to getting ourselves out of Iraq in a positive situation.

As much as I think a positive end to this occupation would do wonders bringing stability to the Middle East, who knows how this report by Petraeus next month will look. That's going to be the make-or-break moment for me in terms of this whole military operation.

Weekly Podium - "No Mo' Rove"

(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)

On August 31st, one of the most prevalent and controversial figures of the past 7 years will leave the White House and the side of President Bush.

There you have it, the understatement of the year.

Karl Rove has been many things while working for the Bush Administration. He's been a political genius, a master of backroom politics, controversial, confrontational, and highly influential.

His influence in getting George W. Bush elected in 2000 was notable; his work on Bush's reelection in 2004 was near-historic. Despite doubts and struggles in Iraq, and a rabid anti-conservative sentiment amongst liberals, he managed to guide Bush to an indisputable victory over John Kerry despite having greater obstacles standing in Bush's path to victory.

His influence has earned him nicknames like "Boy Genius" (for his fair-haired, round-faced appearance), "Evil Genius" (mostly by Democrats), and other "genius"-related titles. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that the man was smart when it came to pulling strings and making power moves.

The question that remains, though, is if Rove has had any kind of a long-term positive impact on the national GOP, or will his efforts prove to be detrimental to the future of the Republican Party.

Rove did do our whole nation a big favor, in my personal opinion, by keeping us from a minimum of 4 years under John Kerry. I know that many Republicans (and a few Democrats who didn't care for Kerry) that would agree with that sentiment. Rove also knew how to motivate certain sectors of the GOP to gain support when needed, especially the hawkish conservatives for war issues and evangelicals on social issues.

In a recent interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Rove stated that he believes that President Bush (and himself, of course) have done a lot to keep the GOP alive nationally, and that a positive legacy for the Republican Party will endure from this presidency.

To an extent, Rove is right. A focus on preventing terrorism within our borders and within the borders of our allies has become of higher importance and will be so for a long time. It was the 2004 Bush reelection that allowed for the nomination of conservative judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, which is a lifetime position.

However, Rove has been a big part of some of the Republican Party's biggest disappointments and embarrassing fiascoes.

He was a big part of the Valerie Plame debacle (although, let's be honest, Richard Armitage was the man that should have been targeted first, foremost, and above all...and he wasn't). His name is popping up as part of the Alberto Gonzales witch hunt. It has been noted that one of those who were poorly advising President Bush on Iraq was Rove himself. Rove was a proponent of the Amnesty Bill, and was part of the Harriet Miers quagmire.

In his Wall Street Journal interview, Rove opines that his greatest error was not acting quickly to replace scandal-tainted Republicans in Congress, and that was a key factor in the GOP's loss of congressional power in 2006. This admission does highlight a great error of Rove's (and other GOP leaders) that could have long-lasting effects on the party.

However, in that same interview, Rove makes an observation that puts the 2006 election results into a true perspective about how leftward the nation really leans. He points out that the 15 House seats that swung control to the Democrats were decided by a combined 85,000 votes, as well as the close defeat in Montana (let's not forget the Virginia loss, which was very close, too).

Many people state that Karl Rove's campaign tactics were simply a tweaked version of what Democrats have been doing for years, and that Rove brought these tactics to the GOP. To a certain degree, I am inclined to agree...but I believe the GOP, as a whole, will eventually reject these tactics.

Rumor mills have been abound with talk that Rove may join the campaign of one of the GOP frontrunners, but Rove has dismissed these rumors. At least one campaign, Fred Thompson's, has also dismissed these statements as rumors and nothing more.

How history judges George W. Bush will have an obvious effect on how history judges Karl Rove. If Bush, long after his term is up, is seen in a more positive light in the memories of America, Rove will most likely be championed for the GOP victories from 2000 to 2004. However, should this presidency be frowned upon when America reflects, Rove's involvement in the many negative aspects of the Bush presidency will overshadow his accomplishments.

Towards the end of Rove's interview with Paul Gigot, he makes a statement that is very true, if not contradictory to some of the Bush Administration's management of the nation. Rove states that, in regards to 2008, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win."

That is a statement that I've been trying to make for a while now, and I find it somewhat amusing that, as he walks out the doors of the White House, Rove believes the same thing...even though one would agree that the Bush presidency has been a bit more focused on the "small things" than most Republicans and conservatives would have preferred.

In reference to Rove's statement that he first floated the idea of resigning from his post a year ago, Michelle Malkin quipped, "Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago."

Given the lack of success over the past year from Rove's tactics, I can't say that I disagree with Malkin's statement...and history might also agree with that, as well. One thing we cannot deny is that Karl Rove has had a lot of influence on our nation, what is debatable is how much of that influence was positive, and how much is negative.

Code Pinko Starving Themselves...Again

So now we've got another "Code Pink Hunger Strike" going on. They're starting at Dianne Feinstein's home, then moving on to Nancy Pelosi's office. The point of these hunger strikes is to end the war.

Personally, I think it's a good thing. Our food would be better spent nourishing our soldiers than a bunch of aimless protesters who think not eating will accomplish anything. In fact, can anyone thing of a hunger strike that has accomplished anything of significance since Gandhi?

They're so excited to have 8 people who will starve themselves for this hunger strike. 8 people? This is supposed to be a "big" event for Code Pink...and the got all of 8 people to go through with this?

Those will be the same 8 people that actually vote for Cindy Sheehan over Nancy Pelosi next year.