Eleanor Clift hits a new low

Earlier this week, I blogged about former President George H.W. Bush having tearful moments while giving a speech about one of his sons – Florida Governor Jeb Bush. This is Governor Bush’s last term in Florida, and his dad was speaking at Jeb’s last governer’s leadership forum in FL.

In that same post, I pointed out that the “jerk of the week” award went to Thomas de Zengotita at the Huffington Post, who snobbishly wrote that he ‘knew’ why GHWB was really crying, and it was because Jeb was supposed to be The One (aka the next Bush president, rather than W) and that W was a hopeless failure and GHWB supposedly ‘knew’ that.

Well today, Eleanor Clift has picked up on that theme and has therefore earned the distinction as ST’s jerk of the week for next week. Clift, as de Zengotita did, snootily wrote about the former president’s tears (emphasis added):

Dec. 8, 2006 – On the eve of a report that repudiates his son’s leadership, former president George H.W. Bush broke down crying when he recalled how his other son, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, lost an election a dozen years ago and then came back to serve two successful terms. The elder Bush has always been a softie, but this display of emotion was so over the top that it had to be about something other than Jeb’s long-ago loss.

The setting was a leadership summit Monday in Tallahassee, where the elder Bush had come to lecture and to pay homage to Jeb, who is leaving office with a 53 percent approval rating, putting him ninth among the 50 governors in popularity. The former president was reflecting on how well Jeb handled defeat in 1994 when he lost his composure. “He didn’t whine about it” he said, putting a handkerchief to his face in an effort to stifle his sobbing.

That election turned out to be pivotal because it disrupted the plan Papa Bush had for his sons, which may be why he was crying, and why the country cries with him. The family’s grand design had the No. 2 son, Jeb, by far the brighter and more responsible, ascend to the presidency while George, the partying frat-boy type, settled for second best in Texas. The plan went awry when Jeb, contrary to conventional wisdom, lost in Florida, and George unexpectedly defeated Ann Richards in Texas. With the favored heir on the sidelines, the family calculus shifted. They’d go for the presidency with the son that won and not the one they wished had won.

The son who was wrongly launched has made such a mess of things that he has ruined the family franchise.

Can you believe the sheer arrogance, not to mention insensitivity, of these people? I swear if it were Jeb’s funeral, they’d be writing that GHWB was crying because he wished it was George W. Bush in the casket. It’s as if they believe they can crawl into the the elder Bush’s mind and read what he’s thinking – as if they’re 100% sure that his every waking moment revolves around dreaming up wasys to continue the Bush political legacy.

For crying out loud, these far left jerks should let the man CRY without trying to analyze his every freaking teardrop! Instead of speculating as to why he was crying (even though it was obvious to anyone who isn’t a Bush-hater), they should have done what reporters are paid to do: ASK HIM.

Louisiana’s 2nd district runoff election: Will Rep. William Jefferson be able to retain his seat? (UPDATE-JEFFERSON WINS)

We shall soon find out:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Voters trickled into the polls on a chilly Saturday morning for a runoff to determine the fate of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, whose long tenure was threatened by a federal bribery investigation.

Jefferson’s seat is one of the nation’s last unresolved midterm races, and the eight-term congressman was in danger of becoming the only Democratic incumbent to lose.

There were more poll workers than voters when Jefferson, Louisiana’s only black congressman since Reconstruction, arrived at his polling place with his wife and two daughters.

Jefferson said he had been worried that overnight temperatures close to freezing might diminish enthusiasm for voting in this normally warm climate. However, temperatures rose into the mid 40s as the sun rose.

Too warm to freeze cash bribes, eh? ;)

Sun PM Update: Jefferson won.

Holiday mall terror plot foiled

Score another one for the feds. Whew.

Plenty more links and reporting via Michelle Malkin.

I’m skimming the blogs for more reactions on this, and I feel confident that I’ll come across a few liberal ones who will say this foiled plot is “no big deal” since it’s being reported that the guy planning the attack had the will but didn’t have the necessary ‘tools’ needed to carry through with it. Hey, why wouldn’t they? Such far left accusations have happened before. Remember their reaction to the Miami 7? How about the MSM’s reaction?

Bush’s reaction to the ISG’s report concerns Dems

Good news: Bush isn’t too keen on some of the recommendations of the ISG’s report, released earlier this week, and it’s worrisome to Democrats:

WASHINGTON – Top Democrats in Congress left a White House meeting with President Bush on Friday frustrated over what they perceived as his reluctance to embrace major recommendations from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Democrats stressed to Bush in separate meetings the dire need for the administration to revamp its Iraq policy, but they don’t expect him to embrace all 79 recommendations made this week by the panel, which was chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind.

As a side note, have you noticed the tone the media almost always takes when talking about a ‘bi-partisan’ commission? It’s almost one of the Absolute Moral Authority flavor, implying strongly that this group – being ‘bi-partisan’ – is free from bias in its findings because both Democrats and Republicans who are part of the group came to an agreement as to the recommendations. Bleh. But I digress.

Anyway, the fact that Dems are not happy over the strong possibly that the President won’t implement all of the recommendations made by the ISG is not only much-welcomed news for us, but more importantly, for the mission in Iraq. As Stop The ACLU noted in its blogger-reax roundup to the release of the ISG’s report, the consensus amongst conservatives is that the report equates to cut-and-run advocacy on the part of the ISG, and as I pointed out in my brief post on the report, the fact that Dems said after the report’s release that the ISG’s findings are “consistent” with their proposals told me that there would be very little in that report that I could be on board with.

In the meantime, the Washington Post reports this morning that the administration is focusing on “three main options” for strategies regarding how to move forward in Iraq:

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

Reactions from the lefty blogosphere on these options are decidedly negative as well. Another good sign.

Hat tip: Tom Maguire, who provides his own analysis on the three options mentioned in the WaPo piece.

Related: Make sure to check out Mr. Jules Crittenden’s latest blogpost masterpiece: Chickenus Dovus Asniniensis

Related II: Jeff Stein at Congressional Quarterly has an eye-popping report, the headline of which says it all: Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda


The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct verdict on how Foleygate was handled: GOP should have done more, and the Dems knew, too

In the interest of time and catching up, I’m linking up to Allah’s post at Hot Air on the news yesterday that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct’s official report on Foleygate stated that there was negligence on the part of the GOP leadership in the handling of the complaints about Foley – and that Dems knew about Foley’s conduct, too.

Read the report here. Think it was a whitewash? The liberal CREW thinks so.

Read more via Gateway Pundit, who thinks the report proves that Dems purposely waited until close to election time to leak the rumors-turned-true story about Foley. And before anyone jumps on me and says “Why should it matter about when the story was leaked, ST? We needed to know” – rest assured it’s not my point that reports about Foley should have been made until after the election, but instead that this should have been headlines when both Republicans and Dems first found out about it, which was way before the end of September 2006.

Hat tip: Iowa Voice

Read more via MKH, Blue Crab Boulevard, Tom Maguire

How the far left symbolically spits in the faces of our military

First, an incident of literally spitting in the face of a US soldier. Via Dread Pundit Bluto I read about this disturbing news involving a woman who has been accused of spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier:

A Syracuse woman was charged after a Fort Drum soldier accused her of spitting on him without provocation at Hancock International Airport, Syracuse police said.

Lauren Maggi, 35, of 256 Thurber St., was charged with second-degree harassment after the Nov. 22 incident, according to a police report.

Jason Jones, 21, told police a woman he did not know walked up to him near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum solider and, when he responded that he was, spat in his face.

A second soldier on the scene supported Jones’ accusation, police said. Maggi offered no explanation for her conduct, police said. She could not be reached for comment tonight.

Some might say “well, at least the number of spitting incidents these days pales in comparison to what routinely happened to our soldiers returning home from Vietnam.” To that I answer “not so.”

Why? Simply put, today’s far left spits on our soldiers in symbolic ways that – in my opinion – are just as bad as literally spitting on them. Like Senator Dick Durbin, who last year compared our troops serving at Gitmo to the Nazis, Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot’s murderous regime – all based on the uncorroborated statements of one FBI agent. Like Senator Ted Kennedy, who shamefully attempted to tarnish the good name of the US military by attributing the actions of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib with ALL our men and women in uniform when he stated back in 2004: “Shamefully we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.” Like Rep. Charlie Rangel, now chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, who is notorious for symbolically spitting on our men and women in uniform despite the fact the he himself is a war veteran (Korea). You can find examples of Rangel’s disgusting statments about the military here and here. He voted against a House resolution stating Congressional support for our troops – one week into the war in Iraq and hinted before this year’s elections that he might seek to defund the war in Iraq should Democrats take control of Congress. Like “comedian” Bill Maher, who pulled a Rep. Rangel when he strongly implied that our troops were stupid and uneducated and ‘easy pickings’ for military recruiters: “We’ve done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England (search) fruit, and now we need warm bodies.” Like Senator John Kerry who also insulted the intelligence of our troops – and last year claimed they were terrorizing Iraqi women and children (scroll). Like far left students at UC Santa Cruz, who made clear in near-violent terms how they didn’t want military recruiters on their campus. Like military-haters in San Francisco, who have made it clear that they don’t want anything related to the military in their city – whether it be recruiters, the JROTC, inviting anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan to speak to schoolkids, soon to be-comissioned battleships, or retired battleships.

The list goes on and on.

These people don’t literally spit on our troops because they know they’d rightfully catch hell over it. Instead, they symbolically do so, sometimes with little to no fanfare whatsoever, and it makes them no better than those who literrally do so, like war protesters did during Vietnam and like Lauren Maggi is accused of doing today.

Different wars, different spitting tactics, but the same message: we do not support you.