Saturday, 17 November 2007
AN APOLOGY: I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE CNN DEBATE
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I try to be a big enough man to admit
being wrong when it happens.
With this in mind, I admit to being wrong about the CNN debate on Tuesday,
when I said that two of the four "from the audience" questioners were hand
picked. It turns out that this was incorrect.
In actuality, all four were hand picked. Not just two.
There wasn't an honest to goodness audience questioner in the bunch.
Here, from www.directorblue.blogspot.com
are the facts. As before, I urge you to click on every link and see the
CNN plants questions to protect Hillary
Word on the street says that Hillary's campaign is
extremely pleased with CNN's Wolf Blitzer for his softball questioning of Sen. Clinton during Thursday's Las Vegas debate. Blitzer "was outstanding, and did
not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks,
remained professional and ran the best debate so far."
Who were the
questioners upon whom Blitzer called? According to CNN,
they were "ordinary people, undecided voters. Like these
Plant #1: LaShannon
Spencer, whom Blitzer introduced as an "undecided voter", was tagged by
Dan Riehl: in truth,
she served as the political director of the Democratic Party of
Plant #2: Khalid Kahn, who expressed concern about
profiling and the Patriot Act, asked "[m]y question is that -- our civil
liberties have been taken away from us. What are you going to do to protect
Americans from this kind of harassment?" Classical Values notes that Mr. Kahn is the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, who
has hosted conferences like this one (with guest speakers like Muzzamil Siddiqi). In fact, Kahn in
no stranger to CNN, appearing on a show called Keeping the
Faith in Sin City.
Plant #3: Suzanne
Jackson -- mother of a three-term Iraq war veteran -- is aso a well-known
antiwar activist. She appeared in the Las
Vegas Review Journal protesting -- with a
poor monkey, no less -- outside of Harry Reid's office in May.
Plant #4: Maria
Luisa -- the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred
"diamonds or pearls" -- wrote that CNN forced her to ask the "frilly"
question instead of a
pre-approved query regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
Update: Andy writes
to point out the eerie similarities between Maria L. Parra-Sandoval and "Maria Luisa." Regarding Ms. Parra-Sandoval, the UNLV website
This spring she will serve as the
political communications intern for Senator Harry Reid in Washington,
D.C. Currently a junior at UNLV, Maria is... is an immigrant on a quest
to become a United States citizen.In other words, she's not even eligible to vote, unless the
Democrats changed the rules when I wasn't looking.
* * *Dan Riehl also notes that of 1,000 tickets given to UNLV, a measly one hundred made
it to students.
I'm glad CNN
randomly selected ordinary people like you and me. I wouldn't want anyone to
think that Hillary was shielded from all of the tough, grueling questions that
Tim Russert asked.
Let me again apologize to every reader. I thought just
the audience selection and a couple of the questioners
were fraudulent? It was far more than that.
This "debate" was a complete
fraud. In its entirety. 100%. There wasn't a thing about it that was
legitimate, right down to the fact that two members of the three-member
analytical "panel" afterwards were Clinton operatives.
CNN likes to tell us it is "the most trusted name in Cable
news". The question is, trusted to do what? Fix debates for
Democrats in general and hillary clinton in particular?
When do the mainstream media start talking about this?
They better do it fast, or they will look just as inept and biased as they did
when bloggers exposed the Dan Rather scandal days before they even knew it
Or is it too late already/
THE CNN SETUP: WAS IT MORE THAN THE AUDIENCE AND THE QUESTIONS?
You better be sittind down for this one.
It wasn't bad enough that CNN ran its Democratic "debate" with an obviously
stacked audience, with pre-arranged scripted questions and with two of the
three "political analysts discussing it afterwards straight from the
Clinton camp (James Carville and David Gergen).
Now, it turns out that, in at least one case that we know about so far,
they stacked the people asking the questions too.
If that is hard for you to believe, then read this, from www.riehlworld.com. Be sure to click
on the links so that you'll see there is no doubt:.
Also another update, Allah is on this topic, as well. Developing ... as they say.
Also this update from comments -
was the pearls or diamonds questioner a former
Reid Intern and, um, if I read the large
UNLV link available at link above correctly, is an illegal immigrant? And is
that equivalent to your average voter, which, it is increasingly apparent, there
were few if any in attendance thanks to CNN.
Okay, forgive me if there are two
LaShannon Spencers here. But ... from last night:
who was identified as a member of the First African Methodist Church, asked
the question near the top of the 10 pm Eastern hour. She highlighted how
health care and the Iraq war had, in her view, dominated the questions during
Would that be the same
LaShannon Spencer who is, or at least was the political director of the Democrat Party of
Arkansas? She certainly didn't
sound too undecided back in 2003 - though
I suppose she could be an undecided voter as billed by CNN.
Lashannon Spencer, political director for the
Arkansas Democratic Party, commented on her favorite part of Clinton's
"How she describes actually meeting Bill
... I enjoyed how they were both willing to put their lives on hold so each
one of them fulfilled their dreams," Spencer said.
I grant you that it is hard to believe CNN would be
so incredibly biased and unprofessional. Even for CNN, this is beyond the
pale and then some. But go to those links and check it out, Things
are as they are.
Now, how hard is it to believe that, so far, the
only place you can find any news about what a complete and utter fraud the
"debate" was, right down to the hand-picked questioners, is the
Sadly, this is not hard
to believe at all.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you
call them biased.
THE CLINTON STYLE
I wonder how many people remember that, during the Bill Clinton
presidency, every one of his enemies somehow had major skeletons in
his/her closet that somehow the Clintons knew about and somehow became public
Remember the 900 or so FBI files on their real and potential political
enemies? "Oh, WE don't know how we got those, the stork must have
delivered them..." Remember the "nuts and sluts" defense against every
woman who came forth and talked about Clinton either raping or molesting
them? (Parenthetically, do you also remember that almost every one was a
DEMOCRAT who was WORKING for Clinton in some capacity? They couldn't
attack them as Republicans so they went after them personally).
During the Clinton presidency I often speculated on how many people didn't
come forth with information about Bill and/or Hillary because they knew that
every mistake they ever made in their lives would be exposed to the
Well, here we go again. Read this piece by Bob Novak and see that, for
Bill and Hill, The Clinton Style is never out of style:.
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are
spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information
about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen.
Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal
was not disclosed.
This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look
vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running
Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now
discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of
2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and
Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry's
Translation: They scoured everything they could
find to dig up dirt on Obama. And, like all mortal human beings,
there was dirt on him to be found. But they are not making it public -
yet. They are hoping that between Hillary's lead and the damage done by
spreading it quietly among Democratic operatives, it will do him in.
But these are the Clintons. Never forget that. If
Obama should surge and become a real threat to Queen Hillary, this information
will be out there for you to see. That's an ironclad guarantee.
Do you want four, maybe eight, more years of The Clinton
Style? Speaking for myself, I want it about as much as an advanced bowel
REVERSING THE TIDAL WAVE OF ILLEGALS: A START
Here's a riddle for you: How do you stop the tidal wave of illegal
aliens crossing our southern border and streaming into the country?
Here, courtesy of the Cincinnati Post, is a story that might provide an
answer. As usual, the bold print is mine:.
sentenced to 18 months
1 of 7 accused
of hiring illegals
A contractor who admitted
supplying illegal immigrant workers to the Northern Kentucky home building
industry was sentenced Thursday to serve 18 months in federal
After he was sentenced on the federal
charges, Robert Pratt was immediately arrested by Boone County authorities on
charges of fraud, saying he had underpaid unemployment taxes.
Pratt, who lives in Franklin,
Tenn., was one of seven people sentenced Thursday in U.S. District Court in
Covington for knowingly hiring illegal workers. The other six - all of whom
worked with or for Pratt, several of whom are family members - drew sentences
ranging from probation and house arrest to 12 months and a day in
Pratt, called the ringleader and
mastermind of the ring, received the stiffest sentence. Still, his penalty was
cut in half from what it could have been, because he has cooperated with
authorities who continue to investigate what companies knew about the illegal
immigrants working for them.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning told
Pratt during the hearing that his role in organizing, paying, housing and
transporting the illegal workers to their jobs called for a substantial
sentence. Pratt not only used his cultural connections to Mexican workers to
take advantage of them - he is bilingual and of Mexican descent - but he used
his own children to set up and run some of his companies, Bunning
Pratt also betrayed his fellow
countrymen in the United States by using the illegal immigrants, a cheap source
of labor that denies better paying jobs to those here legally and puts honest
businesses at a competitive disadvantage, said Bunning.
"You were the brain trust behind the
conspiracy," Bunning said.
In May 2006, agents from Immigration
and Customs Enforcement raided several Fischer Homes building sites in Boone
County, rounding up nearly 100 people. Most were illegal immigrants from Mexico
or Central America, but at least a dozen were contractors who provided workers
for construction of the homes.
Also arrested were four supervisors
from Fischer Homes. A fifth supervisor was subsequently indicted, but the
charges against all five were eventually dropped after the key witnesses against
them fled the country.
Fischer has not been charged, and its
officials deny they knew of any illegal immigrants working for it.
But the investigation is continuing.
Fischer was conspicuously not mentioned during Thursday's three-hour hearing,
and when Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBride spoke about Pratt's specific
cooperation, he did so privately with the judge.
In the other cases, McBride spoke
openly about the cooperation of the witnesses and defendants.
During his hearing, Pratt alluded to
other, unnamed companies that were "fully aware" he was hiring and employing
He said he is far from the only
person who hires illegal immigrants. They are in restaurants, farms and fields,
and throughout the construction and other industries, he said. He
maintained that rather than taking advantage of the workers, he was helping
people who were looking for good, honest work.
"I never intended to get anyone in
trouble," he said. "I never thought it was that big a deal ... when I was doing
Two of the others sentenced Thursday,
Pratt's son, Howard Pratt, and his daughter, Jacqueline Pratt-Medina, were the
owners of companies Pratt actually ran, McBride said.
The son and daughter shied away from
running the companies - Pratt-Medina because she had little knowledge of the
business and did mostly clerical work, and Howard Pratt because he avoided most
work and had a poor work ethic, McBride said.
Howard Pratt was sentenced to 12 months
and one day in prison. McBride said while he did little to run the company - his
father eventually fired him - he was an American citizen who took advantage of
those who were not. His cooperation in the investigation was minimal, McBride
His sister, on the other hand, received
probation. While she also had a small role in running the company, she gave
investigators information about how her father and brother flagrantly broke the
McBride attributed her cooperation to
"her feelings of guilt ... and trying to make this right," he said..
So what do you think? Do you think that if an employer or
two goes to jail it will make other employers think twice about hiring
One can argue that this is heartless, since the people being hired
are poor folk looking for work. And you may be surprised to know that,
certainly regarding the workers noted in this story, I agree. These people ARE
poor and ARE looking for work. I sympathize with them for needing to seek
it out as illegals, and I would lie to say that, in their shoes, I
wouldn't do the same.
But here is the flip side:
-The reason they come here for work is that Mexico, a rich country
with the means to provide for its citizens, does not do so. By allowing
millions to cross our borders and send money back to their
homeland, we facilitate Mexico's disgraceful indifference to its own
people. By not doing so we force them to take care of their people
or suffer the consequences. Maybe a little less loot in the pockets of
Mexican officials and a little more for their most vulnerable citizens would
-They take jobs from legals. I am so sick of the lie that
"they do the work no one else would do for so little money" that I have a
physical reaction when I hear it.
Yes, they take jobs for lower pay than legals
would accept -- because they will WORK for lower pay and usually without any benefits.
Their illegality is SETTING that wage scale.
If illegals weren't here, the jobs would still have to be
done. But employers would have to hire legals and pay what the market
dictates, not the crumbs they give to illegals.
-They are industrious hard working people just looking to support
themselves and their families. In a great many cases this is 100% true,
that should be said up front. But every illegal who is not here to
work hard can come in too, and there are plenty of them as well.
Is it politically incorrect to note
that California and Arizona have become de facto arms of the
Mexican health care system? Do you live in one of those states, or
in another state that has a large illegal population? Then understand that YOU pay for THEM
to use our health services - as well as countless other social
services. And Mexico gets another free pass on taking care of its
citizens, as we discussed earlier.
Then we have drug dealers. They can come in too, just like the
hard working industrious illegals. So can career criminals. So can
anyone else. To characterize every illegal as hard working and industrious
-The ease of entering the USA illegally extends to everyone, not
just Mexicans. If a hard working Mexican laborer can cross the border, so can a
hate-filled terrorist who wants to bomb the building you work in or the sports
stadium you go to or the school your children attend. Never ever forget
These reasons, among others, are why I so strongly support the
punishment dished out to the exploiters who used cheap illegal labor at the
expense of our own workers. Good. Let there be more sentences like
this. A lot more.
Give the jobs to people who live here legally, and force
Mexico to take care of its own people in the bargain. That's like hitting
for the daily double.
THE WASHINGTON POST WAKES UP (NY TIMES STILL SOUND ASLEEP)
The Washington Post has never been a fan of hugo chavez, the paper has
made it clear for some time that it is not.
But Thursday's editorial is notable for being the Post's bluntest, most
realistic assessment of chavez' budding dictatorship to date.
Here it is -- bold print is mine:.
Mr. Chavez's Coup
A constitutional 'reform' could complete
Venezuela's transformation into a dictatorship.
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A24
TENS OF thousands of Venezuelan students
marched to the Supreme Court in Caracas last week to protest the new "socialist"
constitutional reform that President Hugo Chavez is preparing to impose on the
country. On their return, students from the Central University of Venezuela were
fired on by gunmen who roared onto the campus on motorcycles. Nine were hurt;
university officials later identified the shooters as members of
government-sponsored paramilitary groups. That's just one example of
the ugly climate of intimidation Mr. Chavez is creating in advance of a Dec. 2
referendum that he expects will formally confirm him as de facto president for
life and give him powers rivaling those of his mentor, Fidel Castro.
Mr. Chavez's apologists like to dismiss the
Venezuelan forces opposing his deconstruction of democracy -- which include the
Catholic Church, the private business community and labor unions as well as
students -- as a corrupt elite. So it's worth noting what some of Mr. Chavez's
long-standing allies are saying about his constitutional changes. The
political party Podemos, whose members ran for parliament on a pro-Chavez
platform, call it "a constitutional fraud." Mr. Chavez's recently retired
defense minister, Gen. Ral Isaas Baduel, said it was an "undemocratic
imposition" and that its approval would amount to "a coup."
In fact, Mr. Chavez's rewrite would complete his
transformation into an autocrat. It would lengthen his presidential term from
six to seven years and remove the current limit of two terms, allowing him to
serve indefinitely. He would have broad powers to seize property, to dispose of
Venezuela's foreign exchange reserves, to impose central government rule on local
jurisdictions and to declare indefinite states of emergency under which due
process and freedom of information would be suspended. As a populist sop, one
provision would reduce the workday from eight to six hours; that benefit, the
state's control over national television and the voting process, and the
apparent intention of many Venezuelans to stay away from the polls are expected
to deliver the necessary ratification.
The strength and courage of the resistance to Mr.
Chavez is nevertheless growing. Despite the attacks by government goons,
students have continued to march by the thousands. Bloggers have posted photos
and videos of the government-sponsored violence. Opposition leaders have
continued to speak out despite being labeled "traitors" by Mr. Chavez and
harassed with death threats. Venezuela is on the verge of succumbing to a
dictatorship that will isolate and retard the country, maybe for
decades. It's encouraging that so many of its people aren't prepared to
give up their freedom without a fight. .
Thanks to a demonstrably fixed election, in which an 18% loss for chavez in the exit
polls magically became an 18% victory, not only is he still in power, but he
is emboldened enough to remove what little is left of Venezuela's once-democracy in
favor of a castro-like dictatorship.
I commend the Washington Post for having the elementary dignity to see what
is in front of their eyes. As you are about to find out, however, not
every newspaper does so.
This brings us straight to the New York Times.
There is no such condemnatory editorial in the Times today. And don't bet on ever seeing
In fact, today, just two days after the Post editorialized so eloquently about what
a despicable totalitarian chavez is on his way to being, the Times did a puff
piece on him. First page.
If you think I'm kidding, that this couldn't possibly be true, I direct you
to the following page 1 story in today's edition:.
Chvezs Vision Shares Wealth and
Chvez campaign staff, via
President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela
rallied support for a referendum on his constitutional overhaul in Maturn this
CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 16
In two weeks, Venezuela seems likely to start an extraordinary experiment in
centralized, oil-fueled socialism. By law, the workday would be cut to six
hours. Street vendors, homemakers and maids would have state-mandated pensions.
And President Hugo Chvez would
have significantly enhanced powers and be eligible for re-election for the rest
of his life.
David Rochkind for The New York
Supporters of President Hugo Chvez
hand out flyers encouraging people to vote in favor of the referendum.
A sweeping revision of the Constitution, expected
to be approved by referendum on Dec. 2, is both bolstering Mr. Chvezs
popularity here among people who would benefit and stirring contempt from
economists who declare it demagogy. Signaling new instability here, dissent is
also emerging among his former lieutenants, one of whom says the president is
carrying out a populist coup.
There is a perverse subversion of our existing
Constitution under way, said Gen. Ral Isaas Baduel, a retired defense
minister and former confidant of Mr. Chvez who broke with him in a stunning
defection this month to the political opposition. This is not a reform,
General Baduel said in an interview here this week. I categorize it as a coup
Chvez loyalists already control the National
Assembly, the Supreme Court, almost every state government, the entire federal
bureaucracy and newly nationalized companies in the telephone, electricity and
oil industries. Soon they could control even more.
But this is an upheaval that would be carried out
with the approval of the voters. While opinion polls in Venezuela are often
tainted by partisanship, they suggest that the referendum could be Mr. Chvezs
closest electoral test since his presidency began in 1999, but one he may well
We are witnessing a seizure and redirection of
power through legitimate means, said Alberto Barrera Tyszka, co-author of a
best-selling biography of Mr. Chvez. This is not a dictatorship but something
more complex: the tyranny of popularity. .
Unbelievable. The headline glowingly calls chavez a visionary, and is
followed by a picture of him in front of an adoring crowd which, further down,
is supplemented by a picture of smiling supporters handing out leaflets to eager
takers. You'd swear this hatefilled little pus pimple was the second
Then the "journalist" gratuitously tosses in a few paragraphs indicating there are people against what chavez
is doing, but quickly bring you back to the preferred point of view by claiming that
voters will probably approve his steps toward dicatatorship. There you
go...the Venezuelan public wants what hugo is offering.
No need to mention how completely the opposition is being intimidated
before this vote takes place. In pinch sulzberger's little feifdom, it
is hugo chavez happy-time.
This, folks, is the difference between a newspaper and a propaganda
organ. The Washington Post, though far from perfect, is
the former. The New York Times is the
JOHN HINDERAKER, ON DEMOCRATIC ATTEMPTS TO SURRENDER
Here, courtesy of www.powerlineblog.com, is John
Hinderaker's analysis of how Democrats are desperately trying to snatch defeat
from the prospects of victory.
Read it and see what you think. For what it's worth, my take is that
Hinderaker is dead on target.
"Democrats Unable to Bring Troops Home"
That's the risible headline that the Associated
Press attaches to its account of
the Democrats' so-far-unsuccessful effort to surrender to al Qaeda in
If you think about it, it isn't easy to attempt to
surrender, but fail. The best analogy I can think of is the first Gulf War, when
groups of Saddam's soldiers were seen following unmanned drones with their hands
in the air, in a futile effort to be taken prisoner. Little did we know then
that just a few years later, a majority in Congress would try to surrender to al
Qaeda at the very moment when our troops are crushing them. At least Saddam's
soldiers had an excuse: they were losing.
The AP buys into the idea that the Dems are
carrying out the will of the people by advocating defeatism:
Nearly a year after anti-war voters
put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass
legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. Frustrated by Republican
roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion request
for war spending until next yearpushing the Pentagon toward an accounting
nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the
I don't know who put the Dems into power--it
certainly wasn't me--but the idea that everyone who cast a ballot for a Democrat
was pro-surrender is ridiculous. From here on, though, the AP does better. If
you actually read the article, the fecklessness of the Democrats comes through
loud and clear:
Now, Democratic leaders say they won't
send President Bush a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military
has enough money to run through mid-February.
Responding to the congressional blockage,
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday signed a memo ordering the Army to
begin planning for a series of expected cutbacks, including the layoffs of as
many as 100,000 civilian employees and another 100,000 civilian contractors,
starting as early as January, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell
"The memo reflects the urgency of the situation
we find ourselves inwe are in a real crisis," Morrell said, noting that
layoff notices to some civilian employees would have to be sent as early as
mid- December. He decried Congress' refusal thus far to provide the money
needed to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accusing
lawmakers of "holding hostage the well-being of our men and women in uniform,
and our national security."
The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base
that is fiercely anti-war. But it also will give Republicans and the White
House ample time to hammer Democrats for leaving for the holidays without
funding the troops.
I should certainly hope so. I'm sure that past
Congresses have done something as disgraceful as the Dems' current attempt to
bring about defeat by starving the military, but I can't, offhand, think
CNN'S ORCHESTRATED DEBATE
It occurs to me that, however improbable it is, there might be someone
with an IQ above 63 who still thinks the CNN "debate" was not entirely
orchestrated on behalf othe candidates, mostly on behalf of Queen Hillary.
If so, this article from Mark Ambinder of the Atlantic Monthly should
put such foolishness to rest for once and for all:.
"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated
With CNN Response)
16 Nov 2007 11:21 am
Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary
Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote
on her MySpace page this
morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved
query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
"Every single question asked during the debate by
the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit
questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five
questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a
year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I
would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in
Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical
So what happened?
"CNN ran out of time and used me to
"close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl
comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had
to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and
censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted,
not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's
reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and
the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York
Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how
the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my
integrity based on that question."Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton
tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.
In a separate post, Luisa provides the question
she wanted to ask:
Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site
for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that
it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan
to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in
transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What
will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for
the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?
Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate,
said that the student was asked to choose another question because the
candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca
"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she
was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that
the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She
probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different
candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."
Poor Maria Luisa. She didn't get to ask the fully vetted, fully
rehearsed question she wanted to ask. Instead she was forced to substitute
a different fully vetted, fully rehearsed question instead.
You might gather that, as disgusted as I am with how completely
non-spontaneous CNN's "debate" was, I am not particularly sympathetic to Ms.
Luisa either. If so, you gather correctly.
Luisa, you see, was fine with being a scripted actress on behalf of CNN and
the Democratic party. She just didn't like the script they stuck her
After the debate, Hillary Clinton and her people were highly complimentary
towards moderator Wolf Blitzer. They called him "a lamb" - so help me, I
am not making this up, they really did.
And with good reason.
DISDAIN FOR THE TROOPS - BOTH MILITARY & BOY SCOUT
This editorial from the Boston Herald speaks for itself. And if you aren't sickened by what
marsha weinerman and her fellow idiots on the Cambridge election commission did, you ought to be.
The bold print is mine -- and please reread the last paragraph because that says
By Boston Herald editorial staff |
Friday, November 16, 2007 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials
lefties have at last begun to show their true colors - and they sure as hell
arent red, white and blue.
You know all that rhetoric about hating the war in
Iraq, but supporting the U.S. troops who are there? Well,
A troop of Boy Scouts in Cambridge set up
donation boxes at 33 polling stations in that city on election day last week.
Their mission was to collect amenities for troops serving overseas - those
little items like snacks and lip balm that make life a little easier.
The Scouts had spent considerable time and money to publicize the event,
distributing fliers in city buildings, libraries and local businesses well ahead
of time, according to their troop leader, Jamisean Patterson, writing in this
weeks Cambridge Chronicle.
Most of the boxes were set up in the lobbies of
those polling stations with the permission of the Cambridge Election Commission,
Then one resident in one precinct
complained about the implied pro war message, according to Marsha Weinerman,
executive director of the Election Commission. The citys law department was
consulted and it was determined that the best course of action would be to
remove the boxes, Weinerman told the Chronicle.
Takes your breath away, no?
It gets worse. At the same polling station
that was the scene of the complaint, on the same bulletin board where the Scouts
had posted their flier were about 75 other fliers. According to Patterson they
included those promoting Get Out of Iraq, Campus Green, College Democrats of
America. The only one removed belonged to those evil Boy Scouts collecting
things for the troops, he added.
The Cambridge cave-in was shameful but
instructive. There are in this world those so blinded by hatred of this war and
of George Bush that they would punish those who have been called to fight it -
denying them, what, granola bars? That is mindless and its stupid. That public
officials caved in to such mindlessness - yes, even in a city like Cambridge -
is a public disgrace. .
Honestly? This story makes me want to puke.
Refresh my memory: Isn't Cambridge where you will find Harvard and
Wouldn't you think there would be an election commission official with a
brain there too? Even a small one?
Maybe marsha weinerman can do an interview or two to explain why she wants to
punish our troops individually. Oh, wait, she can't. She's too busy
SUPPORTING the troops, right?