Tammy Bruce’s Blog

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

As I have written before in the posts I’ve noted at the end of this one, I am a big fan of author/columnist/talk show host Tammy Bruce.  Her books are eye openers, especially in terms of the culture wars.   I wrote this about her about a month ago:

I’m a big fan of her writing.  The first book by her that I read – The Death of Right and Wrong – was incredibly eye opening and is a must-read those of you interested in reading up on how and why our culture is being eroded by those who want to blur or erase the distinction between good and evil & right and wrong.  I’m not kidding you when I say your eyes will be opened wider then they ever have been when you read about some of the issues she brings up we face today with respect to the culture war.  Hint: it’s worse than we think it is.

I’m happy to see that she now has a blog :) Check it out here

Related Toldjah So posts:

Howard Dean: Weapon of Self Destruction V3.0

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s slips of the tongue in the past have been well documented here.  A few examples before I proceed to the latest are:

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization,” the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman. –January 30, 2005
——————————————-

“We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on … This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008 because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, ‘Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?’ ” –April 15, 2005 at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood.
———————————-

But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. “I’m not very dignified,” he said. “But I’m not running for president anymore.” In fact, as part of his commitment to lead the party for the next four years, he has sworn not to seek any office until after 2008. I’m not running for president anymore.” –April 20, 2005 (Star Tribune link no longer works, so I’m providing an alternate source) at a benefit for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota
——————————————

Dean’s 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future annual gathering was interrupted frequently by applause, but his line about Republican work habits also produced an undertow of ‘’oohs’’ and ‘’aahs.’’ Asserting that some Florida voters stood in line for eight hours in November, Dean said that was a hardship for people who ‘’work all day and then pick up their kids at child care.’’ But, he said, Republicans could stand in eight-hour lines ‘’because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.’’ –June 2, 2005, in a 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future in Washington, DC

Well, the Dean of Disology is at it again. This time, in comments about Bill Bennett:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Former Republican Secretary of Education William Bennett remarked yesterday on his radio show that, "I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

"Bill Bennett’s hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable. They are particularly unacceptable from a leader in the conservative movement and former Secretary of Education, once charged with the well being of every American school child. He should apologize immediately. This kind of statement is hardly compassionate conservatism; rather, Bennett’s comments demonstrate a reprehensible racial insensitivity and ignorance. Are these the values of the Republican Party and its conservative allies? If not, President Bush, Ken Mehlman and the Republican Leadership should denounce them immediately as hateful, divisive and worthy only of scorn.

"As Americans, we should focus on the virtues that bring us together, not hatred that tears us apart and unjustly scapegoats fellow Americans."

But what did Bennett actually SAY? Read on:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well —

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

As John Cole – who has made clear in the past and in this post what he thinks of Bennett – points out (emphasis his):

There is nothing for him to apologize for regarding this statement. It is a statement of fact, he was not advocating it, and, in fact, he noted that it would be an “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.”

Yep.

Howard Dean is being a demagogue.  As usual.  Will the media call him on this? I won’t hold my breath.

UPDATE: The WH has officially condemned Bennett’s remarks.  Sigh.  Jeff Goldstein writes:

And the White House, increasingly incapable of taking a principled stand, provides these disingenuous race baiters with cover—presumably still realing from the last round of disingenuous race baiting, which came in guise of Hurricane outrage.

I don’t disagree with that at all.

(Cross-posted at California Conservative)

UPDATE 2: The Washington Post has linked to ST. Heh!  Welcome, WaPo readers :)

Troubles for Harry Reid?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

WASHINGTON — The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.

"The money was administered by the Department of Justice, and it went to the agency in Nevada (Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada)," Hafen said.

The Rev. Willie Davis, the longtime pastor of Second Baptist Church, and his wife, Emma, were indicted Tuesday on fraud charges with an associate minister, the Rev. McTheron Jones.

They are accused of spending $330,000 from federal grants on themselves although the money was intended for halfway houses for prison inmates in Southern Nevada.

The indictment identifies Willie Davis as president of the Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada board of directors.

In late 2002, Emma Davis became executive director, and Jones was assistant director.

According to the indictment, a grant of $423,000 was approved for the alliance in September 2002.

The indictment charges the defendants of using the grant money to benefit themselves.

A Reid relationship with the Second Baptist Church surfaced in 1997, when the senator donated $250 to the church where Davis was and still is pastor.

The money came from John Huang, who was convicted of making illegal contributions to the 1996 re-election campaign of President Clinton.

Stay tuned ….

(Hat tip: ST reader Fat Tone)

More: Michelle Malkin says "Give Harry Hell."

Heh.

Mark Noonan – Supahstah!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Mark Noonan over at Blogs For Bush wrote a post at B4B asking the question: "Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?"  In it, he said:

I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge – you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received. If you can’t defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives – and you’d better start accepting political reality before things get really bad.

Apparently that post hit a little too close to home for folks at the Daily Kos as Mark’s follow up post notes. Yikes!

File this under "you know you’ve made it big when …." emoticon

PM UPDATE: Air America host Mike Malloy has advocated physical violence against Mark Noonan as a result of his post.  Pathetic!  Matt Margolis has the audio here.

Earle on film

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Byron York from NRO reports:

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday’s indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a ‘bloodless coup with corporate cash,’" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum’s website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle’s investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We’ve been shooting for about two years."

Birnbaum and Schermbeck showed a work-in-progress version of The Big Buy last month at the Dallas Video Festival. At the moment, they do not have a deal for the film to be shown anywhere else. Their last film, Larry v. Lockney, was shown on PBS, and they hope that perhaps a similar arrangement might be made for the new picture. Whoever ends up showing it, the film has so far been funded entirely by its makers. "We tried really hard to get it funded," Birnbaum says, "but we didn’t get any takers."

Schermbeck told National Review Online that the film was an irresistible Texas story. "I’ve been pretty interested in watching Tom DeLay work," Schermbeck says. "I thought he was a fascinating guy, certainly the most powerful Texan to emerge on the national scene in some time, a kind of Republican Sam Rayburn type, with that kind of mastery of the machinery and the will to do it."

Does Ronnie Earle have some chutzpah or what?

The next USSC nomination

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The President isn’t expected to announce his nominee choice for the second Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor until next week.  In the meantime, John Hawkins over at Right Wing News asked some questions to select bloggers (including yours truly) about who they thought Bush would pick, who they hoped he would pick, and who they hoped he didn’t pick.  John posted the answers here.

Miller out of jail, Libby was her source

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The NYT reports:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 – Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released from a Virginia detention center this afternoon after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter, the paper’s publisher and executive editor said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the criminal inquiry. Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.

The Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller’s decision to testify, just as it backed her earlier refusal to cooperate. "Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

Mr. Fitzgerald has for more than a year sought testimony from Ms. Miller about conversations she had with Mr. Libby. Her willingness to testify was based in part on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby earlier this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

So Libby wants her to talk.  Hmmm ….  oh wait, I know what this is! Rove wants Tom Delay’s name off the front pages.  THAT’s it. emoticon

How many liberals out there do you think are disappointed that her source wasn’t Rove himself?

More: Tom Maguire dissects the Times piece.

Related Toldjah So posts: The ST Plamegate/JoeWilson section

Blacklist filter woes

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Hi all,

FYI, I have just changed the settings on my WordPress blacklist because it has come to my attention that some legit comments have gone straight to the blacklist :( I apologize if you have posted a legit comment here (and that apology does not extend to trolls and spammers) that has not been posted.  Chances are, part of a word got caught in the WordPress blacklist and was auto-deleted without me seeing it.  If you ever have a problem commenting (i.e. posted something and it didn’t get posted after a few hours) please don’t hesistate to email me.  I think I’ve got the problem fixed this morning.

Apologies again to anyone this has happened to!

Food for thought re: Delay

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Bryan at Junkyard Blog points out a piece by the editors at NRO that discusses the charges against Tom Delay and is making me rethink about this issue.   I’ve been a skeptic of Delay’s innocence on this because of the trouble he’s gotten himself into in the past in the House.  But the NRO editors have a different take and point out that even though they have criticized Delay in the past, these particular charges in their opinion are baseless.  They conclude by saying:

One needn’t be a DeLay flack to see this. We have had criticisms of DeLay ourselves — his support of the Medicare-drug benefit, his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his recent comments about the “pared down” budget all come to mind. But this indictment is outrageous and should not be allowed to succeed as a tactic. While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.

If you read the entire piece, they make a pretty convincing case for the baselessness of the charges. 

Bryan notes this in his post:

Republicans who have been quick to throw DeLay to the Democrats should note, the indictment against him is weak, the evidence against him is nonexistent, and he maintains his innocence. His accuser is a known partisan with a track record of abusing his powers. If we allow the Democrats to force us to jettison DeLay on the basis of this case, we are setting up a big trap for ourselves. In the same way that throwing Michael Brown under all those flooded New Orleans buses didn’t blunt the Dems’ unfair criticism of Bush’s response to FEMA, tossing out DeLay won’t stop the Democrats from going after other elected conservatives. You can’t count on the Democrats to approach DeLay or disasters or the war or anything else in good faith anymore. They will circle around their own and they will lash out at the rest of us, even if it means people in Iraq or New Orleans die. Giving them DeLay will just increase their lust for more Republican blood. It will do nothing to placate them.

Excellent point.  I think there is (subconsciously) a fair amount of "let’s placate the Dems" mentality as it relates to Delay coming from some on the Republican side and I think the Republicans who are operating on that basis should reassess.  I’m reassessing because the more information I read, the more this seems like a trumped up charge – just like Plamegate.  Instead of believing in Delay’s guilt because of things he’s done in the past, I should have done a better job of examining the nature of this charge on its own merits.

John Roberts confirmation vote

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Matt Margolis is liveblogging it. 11:51 AM EDT Update:  Roberts has been confirmed in a 78-22 vote.

In the meantime, the speculation on who Bush’s next nominee for the USSC is at a fever pitch, with the NYTimes reporting the following today:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 – President Bush is close to naming a successor to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and could announce his choice this week, Republicans close to the White House said Wednesday.

One name that was the source of enormous speculation in Washington legal and political circles was Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, who is a leader in the search for Justice O’Connor’s successor. Ms. Miers, 60, was the first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm and the first woman to be president of the State Bar of Texas. At one point, Ms. Miers was Mr. Bush’s personal lawyer.

In 1995, Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, named her chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and gave her the task of cleaning up that scandal-plagued agency. Ms. Miers has never been a judge, although that is not a requirement for a Supreme Court justice.

Ms. Miers was also a leader in the search that led Mr. Bush to Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who is widely expected to be confirmed by the Senate as chief justice on Thursday.

Republicans cautioned that Ms. Miers was just one in a swirling mix of perhaps 12 possibilities and that she could be the subject of the same kind of assumptions that led much of Washington to conclude in July that Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was Mr. Bush’s choice for the court only hours before he named Judge Roberts.

Influential Republicans said there was a serious possibility that Mr. Bush would name a woman or a minority candidate to succeed Justice O’Connor, particularly after the president said Monday, in response to a question about how close he was to choosing a successor, that "diversity is one of the strengths of the country."

Update: Judge Roberts is now officially Chief Justice Roberts :)