YearlyKos: Opposition Will Be Silenced!

Further proof that orange is the new red...

From The American Prospect, which describes itself as "Liberal Intelligence"...

"As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they "stand down." He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage,

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you're not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn't, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can't speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice."

Shout down those with opposing voices, that's real "open and honest" discourse.

A lot of mixed reactions at the site the above was posted, too. One reply from someone named Jon Burack summed it up well...

"If you want to know why most people roll their eyes when the Left says it does too support the troops this is the place to start. The Left's love affair with generals who criticize President Bush has been palpable in recent years. But just let a grunt in a uniform speak up in favor of the President's policies and, holy cow, run for the hills because fascist militarism is on the march. What a bunch of Harper Valley Hypocrites."

Well said, in my opinion. It's moments like these where any credibility to the claim of "we're liberals, we're against this whole war, and we're true patriots!" wanes considerably.

Video of the incident at Little Green Footballs.

As for the rule of the soldier not being able to speak in uniform, or even attend such a conference in uniform...this is actually true. However, this is the type of question/comment that this panel that had been assembled was supposed to address. Instead, this soldier was the only one who brought up an opposing view, and when the panel did their job and attempted to address the issue, the moderator freaks out and shouts him down instead.

As many people speculate, if that same uniformed soldier had spoken out against the war, he would have been cheered, saluted, and held up as "the true voice of the American soldier." I would be inclined to agree with this.

House Dems: "Oops, Our Bad"

House Democrats apologized for the screwing happenings of Thursday night's vote on the motion to keep illegal aliens from receiving federal funds for the disadvantaged (I blogged about this yesterday).

However, the Democrats aren't about to concede to the original vote. Steny Hoyer and company are still standing by the changed (and, as it stands, illegitimate) vote. However, Hoyer promises to work with John Boehner to create some sort of "compromise".

Riiiiight, the Dems change a vote after it is gaveled, erase the record of the original vote, and they think that the solution is some kind of compromise??? Talk about your "culture of corruption", it's staring us all RIGHT IN THE FACE, and it looks like a donkey.

Dead Heat Continues at the Top

I forgot to do the weekly Rasmussen Reports update for the 2008 GOP nomination. As of 07/30, Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani are tied at 25%. On the daily poll, today Guiliani holds a 26% to 22% lead over Thompson. Mitt Romney has held steady in 3rd place, while McCain (in the daily poll) slipped to 9%.

I sense a feeling of anxiousness and impatience from many conservatives over Fred Thompson's non-announcement of an official candidacy. Being a Fred-head, I can't say I totally blame them. I do believe that the Labor Day weekend may very well be Fred's last chance to capitalize on the momentum he has built. Once he makes an official announcement, speculation suggests that many of those donors who have withheld their fundraising dollars will open up their wallets.

However, I do maintain that there is nothing wrong with Rudy Guiliani, either...so there won't be sour grapes from me if he wins the nomination.

House Dems Playing Those Shady Games

A vote is a vote, no matter how you slice it.

However, for the first time ever, a Congressional vote has been reversed after it was gaveled to a close.

Why? Well, let's set stage for last night's shenanigans...courtesy of The Politico (h/t to Virginia Virtucon, bold emphasis is mine).

"The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call - a strange development in itself.

. . .

The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result."

Now, Dems claim they beat the vote, 216-212, and that is what the new official tally says. The defeat of this now allows illegal immigrants to receive federal funds (like housing assistance and food stamps) under the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Basically, the House Dems cheated to take money away from poor American citizens to poor illegal aliens!

Rule .303, a Democrat, isn't happy about this at all, and says that even though he fought for a Dem Congress for 6 years, stunts like this will definite drive him to fight against the Dems.

That's two unprecedented acts of power-grabbing, GOP-shafting, and generally shady activity in the House by the Democrats within the past couple of months. Where's this honest, open, corruption-free majority we heard so much about last year?

Some People Just Shoot Themselves in the Foot

Here's a good example of this.

Ol' STD bashes Arin Sime for being "wrong on same-sex marriage" and provides a link that supposedly proves this...only, there is nothing on that link that discusses same-sex marriage. Being an endorser of Sime's, I check his site often. I can tell you that there has never been anything on that website that discusses Sime's opinion on same-sex marriage.

STD claims to have "screen shots" that prove otherwise, but I sincerely doubt that he possess anything that hasn't already been run through Photoshop at least once. STD is attempting to take the stance that many libertarians have, and pin it on Sime before Sime has a chance to voice his own opinion on the matter...if he even has one.

He's supporting Hanger for party loyalty's sake...but he seems to support every stance that Sime has laid out so far (read them here).

Any Reason...Any Reason At All

(h/t UCV)

So now "activists" are claiming that somehow the Geico Cavemen are racist against black people. All the commercials do is lampoon "moral outrage" over stereotypes (and promote supposedly cheaper auto insurance rates).

Looks like some people can't take the joke.

AG McDonnell's Live Blog at Daily Whackjob

I must say that, despite the 1 hour time constraint that McDonnell had, he answered a good number of questions with solid answers. I liked his answer to my "cross-aisle" appeal question should he run for Governor in 2009, and the allusion to his "very civil relationship" with Governor Tim Kaine, even though they publicly disagree on issues (as he puts it, they disagree "amicably, because that's what Virginians expect and deserve from their statewide leaders").

His stance on the smoking ban is the same as mine (and many others, like phriendlyjaime).

Eileen's question on DGIF (which I felt she was trying to get the AG to say something she could jump on) was handled very well by the AG, when he replied with one sentence..."The long-standing, bipartisan, policy of this office is we do not comment on ongoing investigations."

So McDonnell doesn't have The Podium or Daily Whackjob as a favorite blog...boo! He does read some excellent blogs, such as Mason Conservative, Bearing Drift, and Sic Semper Tyrannis. I do like that he does have his staff keep an eye on the blogs, McDonnell knows the value of blogs in measuring the public mood.

Read all of McDonnell's answers here.

What Social Security Really Is...

A few days ago, on hburgnews, there was a post where questions can be submitted to the many candidates for Rockingham Clerk of Court. Myron Rhodes, aka Republitarian, is one of the candidates.

One question was directed towards Myron from a "Mrs. Roadcap", who is a widow. The question went as follows...

"A few months ago Mr. Rhodes was very vocal on WSVA’s candid comment about his opinion that people who received social security benefits were “moochers”.

I would like Mr. Rhodes to explain why he feels that way.

I have retirement savings and a meager pension and Lord knows that I wouldn’t make ends meet without my social security benefits. And I know that I am not alone."

Now, I would have answered on the blog comments section, but it was not the proper forum to do so...the forum was "questions for the candidates". The person taking the comments also alluded to the fact that Clerk of Court has nothing to do with Social Security, but that it would make an interesting discussion for another thread.

Now, I don't know how Myron feels, but this is my response...

Social Security was, and always has been, a supplement to any pensions and savings you receive in retirement. To be honest, Mrs. Roadcap, you're an example of the purpose of Social Security. It is a supplement to your pension and retirement savings.

There are those, however, that feel that their entire retirement should be their Social Security pay, and that they are "owed" this by the government. That would not be the case, and it is not what the whole program was originally intended to be.