Where do those kooks get their funding?

If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.

Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.

The unions fought hard to prevent such disclosures, complaining that the costs would amount to a billion dollars. The article suggests that the final bill was $54,000, half of which was union litigation to stop the requirement.

Its scary enough when a guy like George Soros can buy massive political influence, but at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is simply appropriating teacher's union dues for a far left political agenda.

Now you really didn't believe that ordinary Americans actually wrote checks for these nuts did you? Union members can now see how their fat cat union bosses (Reg Weaver, NEA union president pulled down over 400K last year...) are spending their money at www.union-reports.dol.gov

I heard audio excerpts of the James Risen interview by Ms. Couric on talk radio, but Lexis-Nexis has the transcript

COURIC: And happy new year to you. I know that you broke this story, as we mentioned, for The New York Times. Why do you think the people who talked about this secret program came forward and told you about it?

Mr. RISEN: Well, you know, I think this was the most classic whistleblower case I've ever seen where people--you know, in--in a lot of stories people have mixed motives for why they talk to reporters. Some--some people--in some stories there's a turf battle, and they're losing out in the turf battle, or whatever. In this case--I've been a reporter for about 25 years, this was the purest case of a whistle--of--of whistleblowers coming forward, people who truly believed that there was something wrong going on in the government, and they were motivated, I believe, by the purest of reasons.:

Really? Why not tell it to the Congressional oversight committee then? What really makes this comment rather fantastic is the fact that Risen admits the the NYT held onto the story for A YEAR. Is that classic whistleblower stuff? "Great information, we'll get back to you in a year or so..." The little ditz on the Today Show may buy this line of crap, but the rest of us know damn well that this was bureaucratic politics of the most traditional sort.

But wait, this isn't the most outrageous thing said by far...

COURIC: Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet do not come across very well in this book.

Mr. RISEN: Well, I--I think that during a period from about 2000--from 9/11 through the beginning of the Gulf--the war in Iraq, I think what happened was you--we--the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down. And you had more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the--the--the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. And so you had the--the--the principles--Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet and Rice and many others--who were meeting constantly, setting policy and really never allowed the people who understand--the experts who understand the region to have much of a say.

COURIC: You suggest there were a lot of power-grabbing going on.

Mr. RISEN: Yes.

Power grabbing by the Cabinet Secretaries from the bureaucrats? Its so abysmally ignorant that it takes your breath away. Imagine, the executive branch making policy.

Frankly, I often wonder what lies behind the thought processes of liberals, and apparently skipping government classes in high school is a big part of it. Now I don't blame low level bureaucrats for getting peeved that their "expertise" isn't sought more often---especially in highly-compartmentalized jobs in government, large institutions and corporate bureaucracies, the small part of the picture that they see often doesn't make sense, and since everyone thinks they are the smartest guys in the room, there is a certain frustration that the whole company isn't structured to make software testing (as an example) way easier.

There is even a pretty good joke of this involving the brain, heart, liver, etc... I won't go into detail, but the a-hole wins the day.

What is far more disturbing is how completely out of touch the elite media is. Now we say that all the time, and its true, they have no idea what is going on in "fly-over" country, but this is different--not understanding how the government works only contributes to the long-standing suspicion that the best qualifications for journalism are how you look and what sexual favors you will disburse.

Can you tell how outraged I am?

Michael Barone is more polite, but equally astonished.

As I Please

Flopping Aces

Swampblog: I hate Katie Couric

Mahablog tries hard not to step in the Risen/Couric cowflop.

GOP Bloggers

Varifrank has an excellent piece that outlines in some detail the mindset of an NSA leaker. Read it all.

The sad death of retired New York Times journalist, David Rosenbaum, has been predictably viewed in more omnious terms by left-wing bloggers.

Apparently George "the Godfather" Bush had him whacked.

Right Wing News has an amusing series of excerpts from the LB...

radio4progressives: This was a f*cking Hit Job by the Bush Junta vis a vis Porter Goss

...Now if this isn't an obvious hit job, i don't know what is.

People we are living in a fascists police state and the few journalists who have been trying to do good work here in state side and in Iraq (and other regions)have been gunned down by the CIA time and time again.

These people are the U.S.A. version of the Gestapo.

Lots more too.

As I watched Ted Kennedy's assinine behavior today, I had to ask myself how the hell such a paragon of privileged mediocrity has managed to be reelected Senator seven, and likely soon eight times.

Kennedy was an undistinguished student at Milton academy, admitted to Harvard as a "legacy", or in other words because his father and older brothers had attended there, was expelled twice for cheating. He was also a member of an exclusive all-male social club called the Owl, which did not admit women until it was forced to in the 1980s, according to the Harvard Crimson. While "taking a break" from Harvard, Kennedy mistakenly enlisted for a four year hitch in the army, which his father's influence managed to roll back to two years, to be served in Paris rather than Korea. Kennedy never advanced beyond private.

After returning to Harvard, graduating once again in rather undistinguished form, Kennedy attended the University of Virginia law school where he was charged four times with reckless driving but never lost his license. He passed the bar (don't ask me how...) and two years later was assistant DA in Suffolk County, MA. In 1962, he inherited his brother John's Senate seat and never held another job.

In 1969, he offered to drive campaign worker Mary Jo Kopechne home. He drove off a narrow bridge. Mary Jo's body was discovered the next morning, with scratches in the upholstered floor of the upside down car. Kennedy had returned back to his hotel, called his lawyer and went to sleep.

In 1973, during the Watergate scandal, Ted Kennedy actually said the following from the Senate floor:

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

Kennedy ran for the presidential nomination against a sitting president of his own party and lost. His philandering and public drunkeness is the stuff of legend. In 1987 he was caught having sex with an unidentified woman under the table at a Washington D.C. restaurant.

His antics at the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach remind one of the excesses of Caesar Augustus, a comparison that Kennedy might not even mind. The culture of sexual exploitation resulted in a rape charge against his nephew.

The exchange we saw today between Arlen Specter and Senator Kennedy is not considered unusual. Kennedy has come to expect universal deferment to his wishes and is unaccustomed to being challenged.

His complete unaccountability makes him a liberal icon in unintended ways.

Even during the hearings, some people were comparing the committee Democrat's antics to clinical McCarthyism, as opposed to general, all-purpose McCarthyism that liberals use to describe anything conservative they don't like.

Authur Herman writes in the New York Post

ON June 9, 1954, during the televised Army- McCarthy hearings, Sen. McCarthy "outed" Fred Fischer, a young lawyer working for the Army, for having once belonged to the leftist National Lawyers Guild. Everyone in the room except McCarthy instantly realized it was a gross gratuitous smear.

Fischer's boss, Joseph Welch, interrupted McCarthy's tirade with an indignant speech of his own, which began, "Until this moment, senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness," and ended, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

The cameras took it all in — one of the 20th century's unforgettable moments.

Herman points out in the article that this was the death of Republican hopes and the birth of the new conservatism that we know and love today (OK, some of us know and love...). William F. Buckley's national review switched the tracks from overwrought rhetoric to reasoned argument, conservatives winnowed the kooks and banished them to the fringes.

Arguably, Mrs. Alito's tears may be the tacit accusation of a lack of decency, and the signal for 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.

John and Paul at Powerline add some excellent insights:

All true, I think. But isn't there a key difference between the right's excesses of the 1950s and the left's excesses over the past several decades? Anti-Communism was a noble and vital cause. Conservatives were able to shake off the damage done by demagogues like McCarthy, and ultimately succeeded in winning the Cold War. But what, exactly, is the noble cause that underlies the Democrats' rhetorical excess today? Perpetuation of abortion? Higher taxes? I wonder whether one reason why the Democrats have a hard time putting their fear-mongering behind them is that, when you strip away the hysteria, there isn't much left.

PAUL adds: Another point, I think, is that the Democrats are harder pressed to internalize the lesson the Republicans learned from McCarthy because the MSM has provided them with cover. With the MSM serving as an amen chorus, the Dems can pretend that their ugly tactics do indeed serve noble causes. Even in the Alito hearings, Ted Kennedy hid behind his alleged repulsion against sexism, unequal opportunity, homophobia, etc.

But the emergence of new media makes it increasingly difficult for the MSM successfully to cover for the likes of Ted Kennedy, and perhaps less inclined to want to do so.

Let me add that the overwrought rhetoric of McCarthyism was merely a veneer over an existing conservative philosophy, just as Ted Kennedy's theatrics masks an underlying socialist ideology. In the end its the philosophy of governance that is on trial and this is the Democrats true vunerability. Whereas Republicans retrenched to their strength, is socialism really a strength for the Democrats?

Its interesting that foreign governments with socialist policies generally have to develop a program of apologetics for failed programs. Canadians are constantly complaining about their medical care system and its instructive to follow the rhetoric which basically consists of denigrating the "American system" as leaving the poor to die in the ditch. A failed policy is represented as the only viable option from among a set of catastrophes.

In the end, Democrat may find that getting back to basics isn't a strategy for victory, and it begs the question of whether its possible to make the transition to a modified or even completely new set of principles and thus a new set of constituencies.

If you're a Democrat, you know you have a problem when Nancy Pelosi is considered a warmongering capitalist tool.

Her opposition to the Iraq war may have earned her a reputation as a radical lefty in Washington.

But when Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi came home to hold a town hall meeting in San Francisco on Saturday, she was greeted like a pro-establishment warmonger.

Dozens of heckling, sign-toting anti-war protesters tried to take center stage at the congresswomen's town hall forum on national security -- calling for an immediate de-funding of the Iraq war and impeachment proceedings against President George Bush.

Tom Elia of the New Editor comments:

And the group illustrated in this piece only represents one leg of the disastrous three-legged stool that is destroying the Democratic Party; the other two being anti-free trade adherents and anti-corporate populists.

A coalition advocating Utopian pacifism, anti-free trade, and anti-corporate populism is a wrong-headed loser on both policy and political grounds.

As long as the political intersection of these three groups remains strong in the Democratic Party, the coalition will remain mired in the political minority for as long as the eye can see.

Great article by Michael Barone

Then Alito described Princeton, "a full 12 miles down the road," where he attended college. "And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me. Both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas." Still all positive. But then he sounds a negative note: "But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community."

To some of the senators, this must have seemed a jarring note. For them, universities like Princeton are places where young people are trained to renounce the racism, sexism and all the other evil -isms that are thought to be endemic in places like Hamilton Township. But Alito, a man of the highest intellectual ability and deep learning, sees the contrast another way. Witnessing radicals shut down a college and bomb university buildings, he saw the left-liberalism of the campus as an attack on one of civilization's highest institutions. And he did not think that campus radicals had higher moral standing than the middle-class people among whom he had grown up.

Read it all.

Sometimes, if you make someone mad enough, they'll tell you the truth. The best cinematic example I can think of is from A Few Good Men, where the Jack Nicolson character, badgered interminably by a snooty, self-righteous Tom Cruise, blurts in response to the question of whether he order the "code red"

"You're damn right I did!"

The Alito hearings seem to have triggered similar behavior among the left-wing. While we all know that the crat's motivation is to regain their power at any cost, getting them to admit it is another thing altogether. Yet, with enough emotion in the mix, sometimes you get lucky

They were in power, now they are out. The new repug masters are making sure they stay on top, even if it means dismantling our Constitution and remaking our country into a fascist state.

The Sunnis in Iraq are at least putting up a fight as they go down. Dems seem to be content to "hold hearings" to determine why we're going down.

Our leaders should be screaming bloody murder. Filibuster, boycott, close down congress, stop this train no matter what it takes! F**k, I'm frustrated.

My apologies to Conyers, Murtha, and the too few others who've consistently fought hard. They ALL have to fight, fight hard, and fight NOW!! .

I guess IEDs are next...

H/T Right Wing News

As I get older, I get more sensitive to how things I say may be perceived by others and I have to give some credit to the lovely Bunny for that process. I endured many kicks under the table to short-circuit my selection of conversation topics, temptations to reply with a wisecrack, scathing rebuttal or punch in the nose.

Clearly Tipper Gore isn't kicking Al under the table enough.

Everytime Al emerges from whatever obscure hole he's been living in, he says stupid and indefensible things that incredibly make him appear more clueless than the last stupid thing that he said.

I am not sure why Al is supposed to represent the Crats, except possibly that all the other liberal lions are still recovering from the beatings their images took during the Alito hearings.

Al's harangue on American civil liberties and the danger the Bush administration puts them in produced an untold number of double-takes as Mr No-Controlling-Authority rambled on without any thought to whether we might recall the incident at Waco, or more to the point, the Clinton administrations own warrantless physical searches. I don't know about you, but a physical search of my house without a warrant seems a lot more threatening to my civil liberties than recording my phone calls to my buddy bin Laden in Afghanistan.

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.

Gore said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, saying Gonzales had an "obvious conflict of interest" as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Gonzales, who has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, defended the surveillance on cable news talk shows Monday night.

"This program has been reviewed carefully by lawyers at the Department of Justice and other agencies," Gonzales said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "We firmly believe that this program is perfectly lawful. The president has the legal authority to authorize these kinds of programs."

On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said Gore's comments were inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.

"It's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants," Gonzales said. "I can also say it's my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant. And so, those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today."

Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but that he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.

What a surprise--he knows next to nothing about the nature of the NSA wiretaps, but he's already drawn a conclusion. We really dodged a bullet on that one in 2000, didn't we?

I haven't said much about the NSA wiretaps, because incredibly, I just don't know enough about the nature of the incursions to make a serious comment. I know, as a blogger, I'm suppose to rush in where angels fear to tread, but it just doesn't seem right to me. If the program is as the details buried in the last paragraph of the New York Times story is as says, then I don't have a problem with it. If you tapping al Qaeda phones in Afghanistan and someone from Pittsburgh calls, I don't see any reason why that should disqualify any intelligence you obtain.

Frankly I am far more concerned about liberal Democrat efforts to shut down free speech in this country by regulating political speech on the internet and talk radio. Al's already made his position clear on that issue--he's for it. So much for the role of defender of the faith for Al.

PA Pundits

FBIHOP is angry with Gonzalez for mentioning the warrantless physical searches, because after all, in 1995, there was no controlling legal authority on the matter. It was perfectly legal to conduct searches without warrants before 1995, don'tch know...

Ranting & Venting quotes KOS: they (conservatives) are all cowards. Such well-reasoned arguments on the left.

The Great Satan notes Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's explanation to Congress on the matter of the Clinton administrations warrantless searches, drug tests, etc...

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

Elephants in Academia

I saw this on Right Wing News, and well, I'm stealing it.

"Imagine the kerfuffle (if Jesus came back today). He comes back, and He goes on TV and says, "Okay, homosexuality is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Stop watching porn. Quit smoking dope. And by the way, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other non-Christian religions are wrong, so stop practicing them." Every fat lesbian activist in San Francisco would be out in the street, running around topless and waving a sign reading, "Kill Jesus NOW!" Jesse Jackson would condemn Him. Cindy Sheehan would demand a meeting. Liberals would start calling him JesusHitler."

Hog On Ice

Its funny because its true.

Shelby Steele writes in the Opinion Journal today:

No one on the current political scene better embodies this Republican advantage than the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The archetype that Ms. Rice represents is "overcoming" rather than grievance. Despite a childhood in the segregated South that might entitle her to a grievance identity, she has clearly chosen that older black American tradition in which blacks neither deny injustice nor allow themselves to be defined by it. This tradition, as Ralph Ellison once put it, "springs not from a desire to deny the harshness of existence but from a will to deal with it as men at their best have always done." And, because Ms. Rice is grounded in this tradition, she is of absolutely no value to modern liberalism or the Democratic Party despite her many talents and achievements. Quite the reverse, she is their worst nightmare. If blacks were to take her example and embrace overcoming rather than grievance, the wound to liberalism would be mortal. It is impossible to imagine Hillary Clinton's "plantation" pandering in a room full of Condi Rices.

Would you like to understand what all the fuss is about as it concerns judicial activism? Consider the situation in Maryland where a Baltimore judge ruled that a law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Now I am not going to comment on whether that is true or not--its on appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court and they'll decide the issue and a lot of Maryland Democrats are praying that they decide it is constitutional.

What? Maryland Democrats want to ban gay marriage in Maryland?

Well yes. Maryland Crats are hardly monolithic on the issue--most would rather deal with gay civil rights than with expanding the definition of marriage. Republicans on the other hand are pretty much monolithic on the question

The issue of same-sex marriage arrived Friday like an unwelcome houseguest for many Maryland Democrats, who say only a quick reversal from the state's highest court can keep the divisive issue from reshaping the 2006 campaign season.

"That would end the debate, and we could get back to a normal campaign season," said Timothy Maloney, a lawyer and former Democratic state delegate. "If not, there are all kinds of possibilities for mischief. . . . The Republicans will use this to beat the hell out of moderate Democrats."

All that is pretty obvious, but then look at this statement.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) said salvation for Democrats who feel hamstrung by the issue could come before Election Day if the Baltimore court ruling is quickly reversed on appeal, and he said he is "confident it will be overturned."

For that strategy to succeed, the high court would have to work fast.

M. Albert Figinski, a Baltimore lawyer, said most expedited reviews by the seven-member court take 85 days, meaning a ruling would come after the General Assembly adjourns April 10.

"But," he said, "the court has been known to accommodate swift hearings in cases that are of great public importance."

That in a nutshell is why Democrats voted along party lines to kill the Alito nomination--the court isolates the Crats from the fallout from their more controversial political alliances. No one even seriously disputes that gay marriage is a political non-starter which is why liberal judges will just have to establish that the right has always existed

Unfortunately, the Crats have been hoisted on their own petard--if the court rules "liberally", they are in a world of hurt

Excuse me while I shed some crocodile tears.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

H/T Michelle Malkin

A Chicago area Walmart has received 25,000 applications for 325 positions. You've got a little more than a 1% chance of getting hired, somewhat better than winning the lotto, but a similar dynamic nonetheless.

Walmart haters are despondant:

“We just think them coming out and telling the press that they have 25,000 applications is disingenuous,” says Tim Drea, legislative director for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881. “I think it’s a PR stunt.”

Mr. Drea says he’d like to see the applications himself before putting faith in that number.

Plus, he says overall he worries that the store will hire more part-time workers rather than full-time employees with benefits.

“Wal-Mart is lowering the bar in retail from what wages once were,” he said.

I'll just point out that unions like the UFCW are the reason that 25,000 people are applying for 325 jobs. One just has to look at the automobile industry to understand that unions mean fewer jobs. There is nothing wrong with the automotive business, but there is something wrong with American manufacturers who are saddled with egregious Union contracts. The relative efficiency of a non-union Japanese or German plant to an American plant is just astonishing. Its not that Ford or GM don't know how to be efficient, its that the unions preclude them from implementing these efficiencies. American manufacturers do a lot of outsourcing to save money, but at the scale its being done at, its highly inefficient. Its also worth noting that the unions control the loading docks--they limit by contract, how many trucks they will unload in a given day.

This would be a book instead of a post if I wanted to point out every single obstacle to efficiency the unions throw into the path of American manufacturers, but efficiency is perceived as bad for unions and therefore they fight it anyway they can--ultimately to their own detriment.

The unions have to impose major reforms or they have to disappear.

The Rocky Mountain News reports that Ken Salazar called Justice Clarence Thomas "an abomination"

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar on Wednesday called U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "abomination" compared with the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Salazar joins fellow western Harry Reid in making racist remarks about Clarence Thomas. How do I know they are racist remarks? Amy Ridenour gives about as good an explanation as I've come across.

Notice that Senator Salazar doesn't point to any of Justice Thomas's decisions or public statements when calling Thomas an "abomination."

No, rather than think of the fine points of Constitutional interpretation -- which is, after all, the job of a Supreme Court justice and thus the matter on which a Justice's competency surely rests -- Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado thought first of race.

Maybe Senator Salazar would like to claim that it is just a coincidence the he compared Justice Thomas to the only other black Justice. (Feel free to write, Senator.)

Maybe Senator Salazar would like to claim that he would have singled out Justice Thomas even if Justice Thomas was white. (This blog's email address is info@nationalcenter.org, Senator.)

Maybe Senator Salazar, if asked without first being given time to have a staffer look up the answer for him, can explain the difference in judicial philosophy between Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- the distinction great enough to get the black man labeled an "abomination" while the white man is left uncriticized.

Or maybe Senator Salazar could explain, without a staffer helping, the difference in judicial philosophy between Chief Justice John Roberts, who Senator Salazar voted to confirm, and Justice Thomas, the "abomination." (Remember, Senator, you have to do this without mentioning that Justice Thomas is a black man.)

I would need a mind-reading machine to prove it, but I believe this is what Senator Salazar, in his heart of hearts, thinks: "Justice Thomas is an abomination because he is black and holds views different from the views I and other mostly-white liberals believe he should hold. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts are allowed to hold views of their own choosing because they are white men, but Thomas should not, because Thomas is black."

Didn't some other Senator say something recently about Congress being "run like a plantation"? Maybe she was thinking of Senator Salazar's views. It is anyone guess what confidences Senators share in the cloakroom.

You go girl.

This is a shocking attitude in 2006, and not one I've ever encountered in the great neighboring state of Colorado. Its incredible that Democrats manage to find so many candidates for office that have the instincts of a neaderthal (apologies to the neaderthals). We have the image of a besotted playboy making waitress sandwiches with fellow Democrat Chris Dodds, lecturing a moral paragon like Sam Alito. A former Senate leader in the character of Robert Byrd was was a member of the KKK in good standing (well past the time when such an affliation was common).

Should Clarence Thomas run into Senator Salazar somewhere in Washington D.C., I think it would be entirely appropriate for him to plow a furrow in the Senator's face. Aside from Nancy Pelosi, who would really hold it against him?

Chris Wallace seems to have found his rhythm at Fox News Sunday. He's asking tough and probing questions of people on both sides of the aisle and refusing to let people slide on by with obfuscations and detours. I was particularly interested to watch this week as Howard Dean agreed to appear--the first time ever I believe. It may be awhile until he comes back.

Dean seemed well-prepared, leaving his crazy Howard persona at home and refining his "Democrats are strong on defense" rhetoric, however when Dean stepped into the guilt-by-association nonsense about the grip-and-grin pictures of Bush with Abramoff, Wallace began jigging his lure.

You and other top Democrats are going after what you call a Republican "culture of corruption" but you deny any Democrats are involved.

Let looks at some exchanges on that:

Dean on: Lobbying Scandal

CNN: "But through various Abramhoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff."

Dean: "That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either."

-CNN Late Edition, January 8

Governor, its certain true that Republicans got twice as much money from Abramoff-related contributions than Democrats did, but Democrats are clean in this area either?

Dean replied, " Yeah they are pretty clean Chris, and I'll tell you why. First of all, every dime of Jack Abramoff's money went to Republicans. Not one dime went to and Democrat or Democrat organization--his personal money. Secondly, he did direct contributions to mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats. But the Democrats--(a) didn't know that he directed his clients to give them money and (b) they never produced anything for Abramoff...

Wallace now starts reeling him in, flat out contradicting the statement Dean had made by pointing out that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte but received large amounts directly from Abramoff ($298,980 and $243,500 respectively)

At this point, Dean is stuttering and emphasizing that NO DEMOCRAT DELIVERED ANYTHING FOR JACK ABRAMOFF.

... netted and flopping around on the deck.

Wallace: "But if we find, we have to wrap this up, there were some Democrats who wrote some letters on behalf of Indian tribes that Abramoff represented--then what do you say sir?

Dean: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble and they should be in trouble, and our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the President's desk, things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now its a Republican scandal. Maybe they will find that some Democrats did some things wrong to. That hasn't been the case yet.

Wallace then engages in a cordial farewell, come back soon exigence, but after Howard has vacated the studio and during the panel discussion, Wallace interrupts a discussion on Kerry's bid for a filibuster to make an announcement.

"For those of you who were watching earlier on when we were talking with Governor Dean, he said that no Democrats ever did anything in response to the money that they got from Abramoff or Abramoff clients like the Indian tribes, and if they did, they were in trouble. Well the Washington Post reported in November that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, wrote a letter to the Interior Secretary back in March 5th, 2002, opposing a casino, that one of those Indian tribes opposed. On March 6th the next day, Abramoff tribal client wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund. Mr. Reid's spokesman said there was absolutely no connection between the letter and the fund-raising, but its worth noting Mr. Reid;s Abramoff-related total was $66,000 between 2001 and 2004. He says he's not returning any of the money because he has done nothing wrong."

Clubbed and gutted.

I think Howard Dean just made this a Crat scandal. He came on the program making bold assertions and Wallace made him eat his own words. He went from Democrats are totally innocent in this, to "maybe some Democrats did some bad things..."

Harry is going to have lot's of 'splaining' to do and insistence that he hasn't done anything wrong just won't do the trick. Tom Delay in all likelyhood had done nothing wrong either, Bob Ney is innocent until proven guilty, but in both cases the court of public opinion decides you are guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that Delay and Ney have stepped aside and Reid hasn't makes a strong case that Republicans have paradoxically seized the high ground on the corruption scandal even while Democrats are out of power--D'oh!

When you work at home, a lot of unwanted issues like debt or previous loans sprout up. Take care of the pressing issues first. Then deal with the exigent mortgages and get rid of all the cheap insurance deals you already have.

Predictably, Harry Reid was asked about his receipt of $66,000.00 in donations from Abramoff clients. In at least one case, Reid wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior supporting a tribes position and then receiving a $5,000.00 check from that tribe the next day. (Denver Post, 11/21/2005)

Many lawmakers followed up the donation with letters urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a casino that would have been harmful to Abramoff's clients.

Typically, the lawmakers said the timing of donations was a coincidence and that they wrote letters because they opposed the expansion of tribal gambling. A spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who received more than $100,000 in donations from 2001 to 2004, told AP, "We've always opposed these things, in our back yard, in our state, someplace else."

Sen. Harry Reid's office has a similar explanation. Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., sent a letter to Norton and Reid received a donation a day later.

Howard Dean, on FNS yesterday, stated that any Democrat who "did anything" of this sort was "in trouble".

There is an odor around Harry Reid that just can't be dispelled by weak statements that he has done "nothing wrong" and insistence that the Abramoff affair is a "Republican scandal"

While Democrats claim to be morally superior to the Republicans on this issue, its worth noting that Bob Ney resigned with very little resistance when his involvement with Abramoff suggest an "appearance of evil" Tom Delay, realizing that his own situation was a distraction, withdrew from reclaiming his leadership in spite of considerable support from his colleagues.

This is called "doing the right thing."

If Reid were serious about irreprochable Democrat ethics, he would also resign and ask for an investigation of his activities for good measure. As it is, Reid and the Democrats simply have no standing to claim moral superiority.

UPDATE: A reader who declines to be named, has written his Democrat congressman the following letter

Congressman Matheson:

In the wake of the Abramoff indictment, the public has become concerned about issues of corruption in Washington. While politically, the Democrats have sought to label this a "Republican problem", I find myself increasingly dissatisfied with Senator Harry Reid's explanation of his own actions in writing letters on behalf of Abramoff clients and receiving an apparently quid pro quo donation the next day.

While Tom Delay has withdrawn from reclaiming the House leadership and Bob Ney has resigned from his chairmanship, Reid stubbornly engages in a litany that he has done nothing wrong and that this is a Republican scandal, thus ceding the moral high ground.

Will you support the standard that DNC Chairman Howard Dean espoused on Fox News Sunday (1/29/2006)that any Democrat who engaged in quid pro quo activities for donations should find themselves "in trouble"?

Will you call for Senator Reid to step down--temporarily or otherwise?

That seems like a good idea. If Democrats are serious about cleaning up Washington, then an election year is no better time to get them on record.

Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post notes something we've all be aware of for years--the far left are working hard to destroy the Crats electoral viability.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

The voters are with Kaine, who reflects the views of the vast majority of Democrats I know personally- faithful, patriotic Americans who mainly differ from Americans on economic issues.

The energy and the money is with the moonbats, as John F. Kerry's bit of pandering these past few days demonstrates so well. What is less well known is that he managed to convince 25 Democrat senators to go along with him. Not enough, but impressive indeed when you consider that a good number of these people were on the record as against a filibuster.

The fact that the two essential components for victory cannot abide each other spells doom for the Democrats and not just for 2006, but long term.

You won't be hearing this much this year, at least not until after the election, but it is nonethless the central truth of our politics. What I find terribly ironic is that the Abramoff scandal seemed to be all it took to heal the rift in the Republican party. Conservatives have been deeply annoyed by the Republican shopping spree and it threatened to undermine party unity. The speed at which elected officials "found God" was remarkable. The Bush administration seems also to have rediscovered core principles, as I believe will be underscored in tomorrow evening's State of the Union Address.

It is said of the Palestinians that they miss no opportunity to miss an opportunity.

They apparently aren't the only ones.

Daily Kos:

I'm not naming names. The list is up for all to see. And each one on that list has just made my life more difficult. Because every time I walk a precinct or call somebody for a financial contribution this election year, I'm going to run into a lot more "Screw the Democrats. They don't stand up for me." And my only reply will have to be a sheepish, we have to elect more Democrats so those unwilling to stand up for you don't weigh as heavily on the party.

Case in point. Inside the bubble, the kossacks think they are mainstream. I have no doubt they can nominate a lot of Democrats who reflect their views, but they simply can't win an election, at least not by honestly representing the moonbat dogma.

Gateway Pundit names other Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff clients and got quid pro quo donations.

And, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is leading the pack: "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Of Nevada Sent A Letter To [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton On March 5, 2002 ... The Next Day, The Coushattas [An Indian Tribe Represented By Abramoff] Issued A $5,000 Check To Reid's Tax-Exempt Political Group, The Searchlight Leadership Fund."

Along with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) : "Harkin Wrote At Least Three Letters In 2003 Pressing The Government To Release Federal Money To Help The Sac & Fox Tribe In His State Cope With The Temporary Closing Of Its Casino Due To A Tribal Dispute, According To Interior Department Documents Obtained By The Associated Press And Records Provided By Harkin's Office."

The esteemed Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-La) joins them: "Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Who Was Engaged In A Tight Re-Election Race In 2002, Sent Her Letter March 6, 2002. That Same Day, The Coushattas Sent $2,000 To Her Campaign And She Received $5,000 More By The End Of That Month. By Year's End, The Total Had Grown To At Least $24,000."

As does Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] ... Debbie Stabenow ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."

And, don't forget Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] Carl Levin ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."

Most people already knew that Dean was crazy, but apparently he's stupid too. Declaring publicly that the Democrats "are clean" on the issue of Abramoff-related pay-for-play was a monumental error. Even CNN isn't buying (Ed Henry)

"I Want To Underline Again, There Are Democrats Implicated In [The Abramoff Scandal] As Well. So [Democrats'] Argument About A Culture Of Corruption May Not Resonate With People Across The Country." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

Ironically perhaps, Tom Delay was not a target for investigation. Yet Democrats unleashed the guilt-by-association beast and it may well turn around to bite Harry in the ass.

Now, Congressional Quarterly reports that Reid's former legislative counsel, Edward Ayoob, joined Abramoff’s then-law firm, Greenberg Traurig, in March 2002, and that some of Ayoob’s clients at the firm were Indian tribes. "Democrats have taken a special interest in Ayoob's clients," reported CQ. "Of the eight tribes Ayoob represented when he was with Greenberg Traurig, Reid acted in behalf of or moved legislation benefiting six." One case involved a casino controversy. "He [Reid] intervened, for example, to block other Democrats from opening a casino in Michigan, noting that other tribes in the state -- Ayoob's clients -- would suffer," CQ noted. "Ayoob gave $51,333 to Democrats since 2002, including $4,000 to Reid in 2003, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Tribes represented by Abramoff or Ayoob also gave Reid $30,500 since 1999, according to the Center." Announcing a Democratic ethics reform package last week, Reid told reporters, "This is a Republican scandal and they can try to spin-doctor it. … Eddie Ayoob didn’t work for Jack Abramoff, he worked for a 1,000-member law firm."

Harry Reid, like Ralph Reed, were Abramoff's glass breakers. Every so often some Autoglass company gets the bright idea that if they send some people around to break some windshields, they can create some business for themselves. Abramoff used his glassbreakers to oppose Indian casino gambling and then offered to "fix the problem" for a considerable fee. The fact that Reid has been doing this for years and getting big bucks for his trouble suggests that its way more than a coincidence.

Regardless of Reid's innocence or guilt, the smart thing to do would be to resign the leadership post and avoid tainting the party.

Captain's Quarters has more dirt on the Culture of Corruption.

Underneath the elegant conference room table in her House office, the California Democrat clenched her hands in her lap. She bit her lower lip. But Milling pressed on, and soon Pelosi was accepting a box of bonbons and an invitation for a 36-hour, expense-paid trip to New Orleans. "I'll be there," she said before the women walked out.

Would you be surprised that New Orleans residents are having to bribe members of Congress will all-expenses-paid trips to visit the devastation? Only 55 House members and 30 Senators have made the trip. Thes rest are holding out for a private jet.

While doing follow-up research on Harry Reid's ethics problems, I came across this piece in the