I'm Back.

OK, the train show is over. Greg L. stopped by, as did Robert Molluer, and maybe some other people, I was pretty zonked out with all the work (I went to bed friday night at 4am, and got up at 7am to get everything set up by 10).

I've been pretty busy commenting on other blogs, especially about the Steve Chapman/BVBL lawsuit.

My leg still hurts, but it's been a bit better the last few days (actually my knee is now bothering me, but that's another story).

I've got to get a column out for Wednesday, and then I've got a bevy of stuff to post about that I've been neglecting for the past week.

light blogging.

My continued struggles with my hip, along with the preparations for the train festival, have limited my time and ability to post to my blog. I've been making comments in other blogs, but doing my own blog entry takes more time and effort.

I finished my column for the week, and I hope I can post a few things before the end of the week.

Democrat May Win 50th District -- According to Democrats

Saturday, the Potomac News ran a column on the 50th district race, titled "Democrats eye 50th District" online, but "Democrats may win 50th district" in the newspaper.

The article quotes and uses information from four people named in the article:

1. Amy Reger, executive director, Democratic Party of Virginia
2. Joshua Scott, program director, UVA Center for Politics
3. EJ Scott, Manassas City Democratic Committee chairwoman
4. Stephen J. Farnsworth, associate professor of political science, University of Mary Washington

Amy and EJ are both certain the democrats can win this seat:

But does the party stand a chance in the 50th District, which is a traditional Republican electorate?

"Absolutely," said Amy Reger
...
"I think this area has changed considerably," said EJ Scott, the Manassas City Democratic Committee chairwoman. "I think we've been seeing a shift. We believe it's going to continue."

Joshua Scott was skeptical, noting the "special election" is scheduled for a regular election day:

You're going to see a higher turn out, certainly than you would have during a special election," said Joshua Scott, the program director for the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

When you have someone like George Allen at the top of the ticket drawing higher turn out, one would assume that would help Republican candidates."

Farnsworth was busy giving the democrats political advice:

The Republican Party has just gone through this massive internal fight over transportation, with the Senate on one side and the House on the other," Farnsworth said. "The Democrats would also be wise to exploit the Republicans' inability to reach an agreement on transportation."
...
"Last November, Tim Kaine demonstrated that transportation could be a winning hand in Northern Virginia," he said. "The best strategy for a Democrat is to play those same cards a year later."

The reporter does her part, painting last year's election in a light most favorable to the democrats:

In the 2005 gubernatorial election, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, won Prince William and Loudon counties, a feat his Democratic predecessor, Mark R. Warner, was unable to achieve. Kaine also won one of the largest precincts in Manassas City.

The reporter obviously has precinct-level information, and could easily have totaled up the results for the entire 50th district, which would have shown a handy Kilgore victory in the district -- so instead the reporter uses county-wide results for PW and Loudoun counties, even though only few republican-dominated precincts in PW are in the 50th district, and NO Loudoun precincts are in the district. The reporter ignores manassas park altogether, and uses "one of the largest precincts" for Manassas rather than noting that overall Manassas is a largely republican city.

The reporter asserts without evidence that: "Del. Parrish was a widely popular legislator who held moderate views", when in fact, other than a few votes, the most obvious being the tax increase, Parrish consistantly voted with more conservative members.

But this "moderate" label allows J. Scott to make this assertion, again with no evidence:

"That's the opportunity for the Democratic candidate," Joshua Scott said. "The moderate voters who aligned themselves with Harry Parrish, many of them who voted for Tim Kaine in the fall and are frustrated with Bush."

There is no evidence that "many" Parrish voters last november voted for Kaine. And it's always nice to get a gratuitous shot at the President, who will have little effect in November. Don't take my word for it, listend to Joshua, who brought it up in the first place:

But it is doubtful that President George Bush's record low approval ratings could affect state or congressional elections.

It's one of the factors that goes into people's decision making process," Joshua Scott said. "How many people in Manassas are going to go into the voting booth and pull the lever for George Allen and the Democratic candidate for the House seat? People aren't likely to split their votes in that sense."

Meanwhile, Farnsworth knows the truth, and can't deliberately mis-state the facts -- after all, he is a professor. So we get this piece of "tell the truth and then obfuscate it with opinion":

"The best candidates are candidates who have prior political experience," Farnsworth said. "They may have worked as a municipal official or county official."

Oops. The only democrat in the race has never held any public office, and few know her name. So, how does she have a chance?:

"If you don't have name recognition going in, you can always buy it," Farnsworth said. "What I think any Northern Virginia Democratic candidate would be wise to do is to call up Mark Warner, call up Tim Kaine and help them raise money."

I think he meant "TO help the candidate raise money", not for the candidate to help Mark and Tim raise money. But note how deftly Farnsworth brushes aside the "experience" he just said was critical, and replaced it with "name recognition".
Farnsworth conclued with yet another assertion without evidence:

There are a lot of indications that Democrats are going to benefit from a dispirited Republican electorate," Farnsworth said. "This could be a very interesting fall."

And what did the republicans think about this? How would we know, the reporter didn't seem to find any republicans to talk to. Heck, she didn't even get Larry Sabato's opinion :->

Manassas Railway Festival Update

The Manassas Railway Festival will be held NEXT SATURDAY, June 3rd, in downtown Manassas.

My family will have a small train display, in the back of the Train Station parking lot. Stop by and get a lesson in building a train layout with Lego bricks, or just enjoy seeing odd-looking traings go around and around and around.

Assuming I've managed to set up a 10-20 tent, bolt 9 tables together, and put up hundreds of pieces of track and thousands of pieces of Lego, in a 2-hour period.

I have visions of completing the layout just about 5pm -- the time I have to start taking things down.

This has been a tremendously intense effort, made much harder by my inability to walk before late morning, and the general pain of moving around. Make it worth my while, come down and enjoy the fun....

Why is it?

Why is it that when republicans break their campaign pledges, it's almost always to move to the left, but when democrats break THEIR pledges, it's almost always to move to the left as well?

Couldn't just once a democrat, having promised to be a good democrat, actually break his promise and take conservative positions?

Probably just a matter of perspective.....

advantageous side effects.

As I've obliquely mentioned several times, I've had an injury since before April 1st that has been hard to identify, regarding pain in my left hip. I've seen the doctor twice, and the best we can come up with now is simple muscle spasms and strains (I know I pulled a muscle in mid-april, likely while compensating for the other pain).

The odd thing is that there is substantial pain (at least for a male, I've heard we men are terrible with pain), but only right after getting up in the morning -- generally after a few hours the pain is largely gone. There's more pain other times, but this post is not for me to gripe about pain.

Anyway, there is a silver lining in this cloud. Since the first time I saw the doctor, about a month ago, I have lost over 20 pounds. I don't know if the pills I'm taking suppress my appetite, or if the pain when getting up and sitting down prevents me from walking to the kitchen for snacks.

I know this -- with pain in my hip, I decided that it would have to be better if there was less weight on the joint. I'm severely overweight, and I've meant to fix that for a while -- but my love for food overcame my desire to be lighter. I've got a ways to go before I'm considered "fashionably obese", but for the first time in years, I feel like I've got my eating habits under control, and can keep them in check.

So while each morning I have to will myself to get out of bed, knowing that the act will lead to pain, agony sometimes, I can see some good coming out of this. I see an orthopedic guy in a week, hopefully to rule out any joint damage -- nobody thinks it IS joint-related, but I felt I needed to know that for a fact so I can move one.

Thank you for indulging me.

My Response to Senator Frist's Immigration Note

Senator Frist runs a blog where he allows comments. I thank him for that. Today, he posted his thoughts on the immigration bill just passed by the Senate. Highlights:

- Construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers
- Addition of 15,000 new Border Security agents
- Immediate deployment of National Guard to the border
- Addition of 20,000 detention beds so we can end “catch and release” once and for all
- Prohibiting illegal aliens with a felony or a history of resisting deportation from ever obtaining legal residency or American citizenship
- Preventing fraud by making illegal immigrants provide verifiable documentary evidence in their application for legal residency.
- Declaring English to be the national language of the United States.
...
This bill, though not perfect, marks progress. It replaces rhetoric with real enforcement and sends a very clear message that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter this country.
...
Bottom line, we’ve produced a significant bill with strict enforcement provisions … provisions that will only get stricter as we negotiate final details with our colleagues in the House

One thing I agree with -- I certainly hope the provisions will "only get stricter". Here is my response to his blog:

Honorable Senator Frist,

If only the bill that was just passed met the description you gave, it would be a good starting point. The things you "neglected" to mention make this a horrible bill. I may quit the local republican committee so I can campaign AGAINST any republican who votes for the Senate bill. I can only hope and pray that the house republicans stand strong for conservative principles. You can forget being a presidential contender.

For example, conservatives want strong penalties for businesses who have purposely and knowingly hired illegal aliens. But your so-called reform bill grants AMNESTY to the employers.

Conservatives want illegal immigrants to go to the back of the line. The Senate bill grants virtually all the illegal immigrants the right to stay in the country.

I'm not an absolutist. I understand that there are SOME illegal immigrant families that have truly integrated into our society. Those million or so should be granted a path to citizenship without deportation, to reward them for their assimilation. The rest should NOT be given any special treatment.

Conservatives want people who steal other people's identities to be prosecuted. The senate bill grants them social security benefits earned by their theft. Again, I am willing to seek the middle ground. If an illegal alien obtained a valid social security number, even by using false documents, I don't mind crediting THAT to them IF they become citizens -- in order to reward them for doing their best to do the RIGHT thing.

But when millions of americans learn that some illegal immigrant has been useing THEIR social security number, possibly ruining their own records and credit and creating blemishes on their record, those citizens will want the aliens PUNISHED, but your bill grants them the fruits of their illegal behavior.

And how can you vote for a bill with a straight face that actually makes it ADVANTAGIOUS for an AMERICAN CITIZEN to become an illegal alien? That is what your bill does -- illegal aliens get amnesty from crimes that would land citizens in jail.

President Bush called for a guest worker program that required the workers to LEAVE when they were done. The Senate bill does NOT require the workers to leave. A temporary guest worker program simply MUST require those working to leave when their time is up.

I will contact my republican representative and let him know that he should vote AGAINST a senate-like bill.

My Junior Senator, George Allen, had the true principled character to vote against the Senate bill, He, not you, represents the true conservative view in america -- a view that can compromise to treat illegal aliens fairly, without granting illegal immigrants rights that are denied to U.S. citizens.

Finding bad news in the Good.

The latest CriticallyThinking column is posted. In "Finding Bad news in the Good", I use a little sarcasm to show how we are inundated with bad news because that's what makes people read the news.

Using two examples from the last weekends news, I highlight how good news is spun into bad by looking at the downside which always exists.

Like the pessimist who always see the glass as half-full, the news media is always looking for the negative consequences in whatever is happening.

It's like if you decide to go to a theme park, and it turns out you pick the perfect weather day, you will likely have long lines.

Hastert Under Investigation! Oops, Never Mind.

In what had to be one of the shortest scandals in recent history, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert went from complaining about a search warrent, to being under investigation in the Abramoff bribery scandal, and back again in the space of a few short hours.

At about 7pm, Reuter's reported the following:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the
FBI, which is probing corruption in Congress, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

ABC, citing high level Justice Department sources, said information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

But, in what has been a continuing rash of misfortune for Brian Williams and ABC, about an hour later Reuters had a New Report:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Justice Department official denied a report on Wednesday that the speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI in connection with a corruption probe
...
But a Justice Department official told Reuters: "The story is wrong. Hastert is not under investigation."

Somewhere in the blogosphere, someone is already writing about the latest Rove Dirty Trick that somehow made an investigation disappear before it even got started.

Oddly, some conservatives were happy to hear of Hastert's misfortune, simply because they were upset with him over his trampling on what should have been a "republican" moment, the revelations of pending charges against another democratic congressman.

Which just shows that the internet is repleat with people who have too much time, and too little sense.

the tangled Webb we weave - Part 2, "Anti-Christ"

Part 2. Vincent suggests that the furor over Webb calling Miller "the anti-Christ of outsourcing" is little more than political correctness gone awry:

Lets be honest here..We ALL know George Allen would destroy Miller, and Republicans who want Allen to win are bashing Webb to make Miller look better..

but bashing Webb for his out of context “anti-Christ” comment is ridiculous.

CC, Shaun Kenny, and others are making WebbÂ’s comments out to seem pre-meditated.

We all know he didn't mean to slam the guy on being Jewish.

Lets get over it, and focus on issues.

My previous post dealt with whether Webb was a bigger threat. In this post I'll address the "anti-christ" issue.

Webb certainly used the quote in a pre-meditated fashion, he had it highlighted in papers he brought with him to the debate. So the only unknown is if Webb INTENDED to attack Miller for being Jewish.

But first, whether Miller was Jewish or not, calling someone the “anti-christ” is unprofessional, and beneath the dignity of one seeking a seat in the U.S. Senate. Of course people say the wrong things all the time in the heat of the moment, but Webb used this word purposefully.

The "anti-christ" is the greatest evil this world will ever see. Next to the anti-christ, Hitler was a humanitarian, Pol Pot was a saint, and Stalin a freedom-fighter. Most politicians know not to directly call someone "Hitler" -- "Anti-christ" is much worse.

Further "Anti-Christ" is a religious term, and to misuse it is to show a lack of understanding of the name's religious significance.

Second, Throughout history some Christians have attacked Jews for “killing christ”, and being “against christ”. This issue was debated extensively with the release of the Mel Gibson movie “The Passion of Christ”.

So whenever someone uses the term "anti-christ" in reference to a person of the Hebrew faith, the history requires us to explore whether the reference was "jew-bashing".

Vincent says "we all know" Webb wasn't attacking Miller's faith. But remember that Webb did NOT initiate this claim — he was quoting someone else. That someone else could well have chosen the word because Miller was jewish. Jews are often wrongly blamed for other people's economic misfortune -- the Shakespearean play "The Merchant of Venice" features Shylock, "a stereotypical caricature of a cruel, money-obsessed medieval Jew", taking advantage of the good Christian Antonio.

We cannot know a person's motives, but the phrase apparently came from a Union endorsement letter. A "Raising Kaine" commenter suggested the phrase came from THIS ARTICLE, but that article uses the term "antichrist" in a different way: "aka the Antichrist if you're an unemployed IT worker". In any case, it could be that the original author did NOT know Miller was Jewish, but it would fit the historical pattern if it were known. Given that another Webb supporter was found the next day noting that Miller "did not attend church", it seems his Jewish heritage was known and was a source for negative attacks.

Further supporting this is the fact that the phrase "Antichrist of outsourcing" is nonsensical. Normally you might call Miller “The King of outsourcing”, or the prince, or the master, or the big kahuna, or some other word denoting the greatest of the bunch.

But the AntiChrist will be no real king of anything, and rather will destroy all he surveys. If Miller was the “Antichrist of outsourcing”, he would be destroying it, not facilitating it.

On another level, it is offensive to bring religion into the topic of out-sourcing — are we saying Jesus would be opposed to sending our money and jobs to places where they make lives better for thousands of people less fortunate than ourselves?

Webb either knew what he was doing, or not. If he did not, you must believe that Webb read “anti-\christ of outsourcing”, and thought it was the perfect quote to use in the debate. That means he had no clue that the term “antichrist” was inappropriate. It’s hard to imagine he could be that out-of-touch, but either way, it is not to his credit.

Last year Senator Salazar (D-Col) called the Focus on the Family people “the anti-christs”. At least he used the term correctly — he was trying to say that their actions were HINDERING christ’s work on this earth, rather than helping.
He apologized.

So, is Miller an opponent of Jesus Christ? that is what “anti-christ” means. Look it up in the dictionary, you’ll find this:

1. An enemy of Christ.Antichrist
2. The epithet of the great antagonist who was expected by the early Church to set himself up against Christ in the last days before the Second Coming.
3. A false Christ.

As you can see, none of those definitions makes any sense in the context of outsourcing.

But worse, calling a jewish person “the enemy of christ” brings up the entire “jews killed jesus” argument.

So, is Webb insensitive, or did he or his campaign think it would help to subtlely remind people that Miller is Jewish, and therefore no friend of Christ?

I think he was just insensitive to the mis-use of religious symbolism. But he SHOULD have known. And he should have apologized. And his supporters shouldn't be attacking MILLER for being slandered in this way -- but the democrats, always on the seamy side of politics, are going after Miller with a vengence, the devil be damned.

As Lowell over at Raising Kaine said:

More to the point, perhaps the following definition is more what labor unions mean when they call Harris Miller the "antichrist of outsourcing:"

In Christian eschatology, the Antichrist has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth, while convincingly disguised as wholly good and a bringer of truth.

Yeah, sure sounds like ol' Harris Miller to me!

Well. Harris Miller -- the embodiment of evil. That's going to be hard to reel back in if Miller wins the primary.

the tangled Webb we weave - Part 1, Who's better for Allen?

This post is part I of a response to TC's complaint that republicans attacking Webb for what he said at his debate were distracting us from being seriously afraid of losing:

We ALL know George Allen would destroy Miller, and Republicans who want Allen to win are bashing Webb to make Miller look better..

but bashing Webb for his out of context “anti-Christ” comment is ridiculous.
...
I believe on June 13th that Democrats will nominate James Webb, because they know he can beat Senator Allen, and want to win that bad.

... I believe Webb would win Fairfax, Loudoun, and possibly PWC.

I believe Webb would also win VA Beach with Kellam, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News.

If Mark Warner takes some time off campaigning, and goes with Webb everywhere…we have problems.

Our party is too weak right now to take anything for granted.

First, let me say that I'm not particular about who I "bash", or more correctly, what issues I comment on. It's just that the places I visit are mostly filled with Miller-bashing, so it's more interesting to discuss Webb than join them attacking Miller.

Second, I have no crystal ball, so I can't say which candidate would be more of a challenge come November. November is a long way away. I'll say this -- if Miller can win the Primary, all this Miller-Bashing will be forgotten, just like Webb's political history and non-democrat views are ignored for the sake of victory.

Given that both candidates will have full support of democrats, Miller is probably the bigger risk, because he has MONEY. Also, he has been involved in politics longer, has better contacts.

Webb is a "better" candidate only to the degree that you think Republicans are upset with Allen -- and I see no evidence of that, either from the moderates, or more importantly, from the conservatives that have abandoned the President.

And if the bloggers are to be believed, Miller is more "centrist" than Webb, and would therefore appeal to the independents better.

I am certain that Allen can beat either of these two -- but even so, he could lose to either of them. I suppose my CURRENT opinion, more of a feeling, is that republicans would be best served if Webb survives a close primary, but broke and bloodied by all the things the left for now is dismissing as meaningless.

To the degree the press can be neutral, they WILL bring up all the negatives once the primary is over and they have a candidate to write about. Both Miller and Webb are more susceptible to this than Allen, who already went through a press inquiry while winning the Governorship and the Senate seat. Being the incumbent will add some extra scrutiny, but a lot of that has already happened as well.

that THat went long, so I'll continue with "part two".

There won't be any Fitzmas this week....

As I reported yesterday, the latest story on Fitzmas was that the indictment of Karl Rove did take place as reported last Friday, but that it was being held for the following Friday.

But Friday came and went, another deadline missed. And now, the originator of the story, "Truthout", has issued a "partial apology":

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t

YEs, well, I guess if you don't know anything, the smart thing is to "wait and see".

But I look for the left to weave a grand conspiracy theory of how Karl Rove tricked Leopold and Truthout, so that when his indictment really comes, nobody will believe it.

Or that there WAS an indictment, but somehow the evil Bush administration made it go bye-bye.That fairy tale started yesterday:

Fitzgerald's brief is certainly vulnerable to pressure from the White House. And it is clear that something drastic followed the May 12 meeting at Patton & Boggs.

First, a small number of journalists who were writing about the Rove indictment found themselves being spun by Rove's media machine and his paid spokesperson, former Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo, a longtime GOP hack. Some questionable information about two of the journalists were posted anonymously on a blog.
...
WMR's report on the Rove matter became the subject of ridicule by the typical right-wing network in Washington, including shills for the National Review, other neocon outlets, and the Rove camp.

Nevertheless, Friday, May 19, came and went without an announcement of an indictment.
...
Meanwhile, a jovial Rove and an even cockier Rove spokesman reveled in the mini-media storm they helped to create -- Rovian manipulation at its best.

So Marsden, just like Truthout, has given up for now:

However, the Kabuki dance between the Special Counsel, Rove and his lawyers, and certain media are becoming a huge distraction. WMR apologizes to its loyal and supportive readers for being led, along with our sources, down the Rove rabbit hole of media mirages and public relations B.S. Until an actual announcement is made by the Special Prosecutor regarding Rove, we will concentrate our limited resources on other, more important, stories, including continuing CIA rendition flights, NSA eavesdropping, and Iraq war atrocities.

Hal Parrish Declines run for his Father's Seat.

Not really a scoop, it's already in the papers. Maybe nobody cares anymore, I know a few weeks ago everybody was speculating on whether Hal would run or not. From the Potomac News:

A widely rumored political contestant for the 50th District special election announced Wednesday that he will not run for state office.
..
Hal Parrish said he is holding off plans to run because the death of his father ensued increased responsibilities on the home front and at his business, the Manassas Ice and Fuel Company Inc.

"Because of my responsibilities both for my family and the family business, I came to the conclusion ultimately that right now is probably not the right time for me," he said.

That leaves three people in the race. All claim to be pro-life, pro-2nd-amendment, fiscal conservatives.

Fitzmas isn't coming this year.... Or is it?

Well, the Friday deadline came and went, and no Rove Indictment.

Then, the Tuesday deadline came and went, and STILL no Rove Indictment.

Days Flew By, and still not indictment? What happened to Fitzmas?

Well now comes the scoop, not from that unreliable "truthout" and Mr. Leopold, but from the King himself, the Wayne Madsen Report, which somehow Q&O beat me to posting about -- which is sad because this was my big chance to be on top of the story. Q&O did such a good job that I have almost nothing to add.

Almost. In a part not quoted over at Q&O, Madsen reports that:

WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House.

As crazy as most of Madsen's stuff is, this one takes the cake. Rove was in money difficulties so he decided NOT to take a cushy multi-million-dollar job in the private sector, or to make $100,000 a pop speeches? People don't "stay at the White House" to make more money or take the heat off or help them out of legal trouble.

Madsen could be right, but he probably is wrong. His previous day's story was that Cuba and Venezuela both knew of 9/11 before it happened -- and they WARNED us and we ignored them. It takes a true leap of faith to believe that either of those countries would warn us if they knew of a terrorist attack.

Bush’s Immigration Reform: Good start, but falls short.

This is a link to my column which appeared in Wednesday's Potomac News opinion page.

Titled: Bush’s Immigration Reform: Good start, but falls short., it details what I liked and disliked about Bush's plan. Go read it.

I'm not with the conservative base on this, but I'm not near the Senate centrists either. I don't want illegal immigrants to be felons. I want the border secured before we start granting favors, although I also don't want to start widespread deportments until we have a guest worker program in place.

I don't want to let all the current illegals stay, but I don't want to kick them all out. There's the unsettled illegals which could go, but families with roots in our country who are assimilated already shouldn't be cast out simply for being illegal, IF we are going to allow them to apply for citizenship eventually.

And the one thing I absolutely agreed with the President about -- you need to learn english to assimilate and reach your potential in our country.

I didn't use the obvious joke in my column: President Bush is the exception to that rule.

TC Attacks B-types for sensible resolution

Over at TooConservative, Vincent launches another of his patented hit pieces on his political enemies. And as usual, he misses both the point and the mark.

In a post he titles "Stirrup Breaks Tax Pledge", Vince comments on a vote at the Board of County Supervisors meeting yesterday, where the board voted to approve a request by the Bull Run Mountain Civics Association to raise their special assessment from $0.10 to $0.12, so they can make much-needed improvements to their roads. The proposal can be found HERE.

The Resolution was motioned by John Stirrup, because it was in his district. It passed Unanimously.

Some detail: Bull Run maintains it's own roads. Under an agreement entered in 1990, The county collects a special tax assessment on the property of the homeowners, and then returns the amount as a budget item. This simplifies and strengthens the cash flow, and makes it easier for Bull Run to borrow money and sign long-term contracts. But it does mean that if the Association wants to increase the money available, they need to get approval from the board.

In this case, they wanted to use a new road surface that would last longer than their gravel roads, at a cost of $1.3 million dollars. They also qualify for money from a county road fund if they adopt this plan.

No SANE person would find any reason to object to this -- Home owner's associations work for their members, and members increase dues in order to obtain direct benefits, in this case a better road.

But TC finds in this rather perfunctory act of civic duty a chance for a political cheap shot at two members of the board that are no friends of Sean, and therefore TC's mortal enemies.

So he attacks them for "raising taxes" after they signed a "no tax pledge", thusly:

Stirrup said they needed more money for roads because even though rising property values had doubled the tax revenues per home since he took office, the amount wasn’t enough to keep up with rising costs (you know, inflation!). So Stirrup moved for, and Stewart seconded, a 20% increase in the tax rate in addition to the higher taxes due to rising home values. Most homeowners will pay almost $80 more a year due to the tax hike.

It is true, 12 cents is 20% more than 10 cents. And it is true they will pay 80 more a year. And this is certainly a "tax".

But a "principled conservative" would not stand in the way of a group of people asking to raise their own taxes to pay for their own roads. And a rational adult would never see a vote on this resolution as a violation of a tax pledge.

Now, I oppose tax pledges -- I'm a limited-government conservative, not a "lower my taxes" conservative (they work out the same, but I believe the focus should be on restricting government, not on taxes). But allowing people to raise their own taxes is a good, principled, conservative position, endorsed by the founding fathers.

And in this case, to oppose the resolution would be to deny the civics association the money they needed, just because they have to get board approval for it.

I can assure you that if Stirrup and Stewart had voted AGAINST this, TC would be mocking them for their stupidity.

TC closes by attacking Stirrup for suggesting a use for some $400,000 dollars in a new program Stirrup attacked as wasteful just one month ago.

To make matters worse, Stirrup promised to seek the spending of $400,000 of taxpayer money from a new country program he voted against establishing last month saying it was a “waste” and “fat.” Stewart supported him in this promise as well.

Why do “principled conservatives” love to spend money, but hate to take the heat when it comes to tax rate and budget time? Look at Washington, Richmond and now Prince William for a clue.

Once a program is approved, there is no reason not to try to find some good use for the money in the program. Now, I have no idea whether this particular bit of spending Stirrup wants is a "good use" or a "bad use", because TC could care less about WHAT the spending was for, so intent is he on attacking the people doing the spending.

TC closes with his patented hit piece with his patented divisive labelling: " Come on Group B-lets stop the hypocrisy.".

At least he used "hypocrisy" right this time. Credit given where Credit due.

Update: Vincent has suggested that some comments on his thread were too emotional and not factual. While I see no factual errors here or there, I believe this post to be overwrought with observations of a personal nature.

In the 1st sentence, I should not have said "as usual", as it implies a personal defect -- I should stick to the facts of this specific instance.

Later I said a "rational adult would never see", implying that TC was irrational. I should have said "I don't see how a rational adult would see".

Where I said "because TC could care less about WHAT the spending was for, so intent is he on attacking the people doing the spending.", that is a statement of motive, and I have no way of knowing his motive. I should have said "because TC did not provide the facts needed to make an informed judgment. He simply used the occasion to attack the people doing the spending."

I apologize to TC for the overly personal items, and hope the corrections meet his approval. I am not changing the comments regarding hit pieces and name-calling as they are factual descriptions of items, not personal attacks.

Rich Endorsed as "best incumbent" in 10th district race

Too Conservative reports that the "Conservative 4th District Chairman Endorses Rich".

I'll repeat the endorsement letter here, under the assumption that Jim Rich would like it to get wide circulation:

Jim:

I wholeheartedly support you in your re-election bid as Chairman of the 10th Congressional District Republican Committee. Your District needs a stable, experienced, and steady hand to guide the Republican Party. The only candidate standing for election to that office which fits that criteria is you. Your support for the GOP has been unwavering.

In times of turmoil and change, both within the Party and the nation, we need to have consistent leaders who have been through the battles. We need leaders who have earned their experience the hard way–by working for it. While this may be a new concept for some, leadership still demands experience. You have it in droves.

Whenever our Party needs you, we always know you will be standing at the intersection of competency and reason.

You have the political maturity and steadfast judgment to weather any situation our Party may experience. Since joining the RPV State Central Committee in 2001– first as a state central member and later as a District Chairman–I have gained excellent insight from your words of wisdom. Our party needs your experience and wisdom to maintain a seat at the table as we chart our way through the political future.

Best wishes to you in your re-election as Chairman of the 10th District Republican Committee.

Sincerely,

Wayne J. Ozmore, Jr., Chairman

In other words,Vote for Rich, because he's the incumbent.

Let's look more closely: Here are the things that this endorser thinks are the greatest strengths of Rich for the job:

1. He's Stable
2. He's Experienced
3. He's Steady (synonym: stable!)
4. He's Unwavering (synonym: stable!)
5. He's Consistent (synonym: stable!)
6. He's Experienced
7. He's competent
8. He has reason
9. He's mature
10. He's steadfast
11. did I mention he's experienced
12. He has Wisdom
    

You think somewhere he could have found the time to say Rich was a good leader who attracted new members and turned out the votes. Maybe he ran out of paper.

This sentence takes the cake though, for saying a lot of words that are, in the end, meaningless:

Our party needs your experience and wisdom to maintain a seat at the table as we chart our way through the political future.

Apparently, there is this table, see, and our party only has one seat at this table, and if we don't re-elect Rich we will lose the only seat at the table we have. For some reason, it is at this table, where Republicans only have one seat now, that our way through the political future is being charted. If Rich is gone, someone will be charting out way through that future, but it won't be us, because we will have lost our seat at the table.

Because Rich apparently is really good at staying in the seat at the table, with his steadfastness, experience, and stability. No chair-rocker, Rich knows how to keep all four legs firmly in the intersection of reason and wisdom, at the table of the future where our path is charted.

Who Stole Fitzmas, Day two -- the saga continues.

As I mentioned yesterday, Leopold of "truthout" says Karl Rove was indicted last Saturday in the Valerie Plame non-leak case. This has prompted celebrations of "Fitzmas" (christmas delivered by Fitzgerald, the special prosecuter) among the left.

But the Grinch seems to have stolen Fitzmas. Wonkette tackles this sordid story in an entry titled "Karl Rove Indicted, Everyone With a Blog to Get Their Own Unicorn", but my favorite line there was from a commenter, who said: "from what I read on firedoglake, Jason Leopold has until Thursday before everyone gets to mock him, again".

Also, Karl Rove spoke today at the American Enterprise Institute. Which wouldn't be a big deal, except that as we learned from Howling Latina:

And before you discount Leopold's story, you might want to check out what another blogger discovered. Rove is busy cancelling appointments.

Democratic Underground reports that a previously posted Rove speech to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy and Research was deleted from the "coming events section at [the] AEI Web site."

Citing the Democratic Underground for news is like asking your two-year-old for directions.

But even if the facts were wrong, maybe the story's still true. So we'll keep a close eye out for that nasty Grinch who stole Fitzmas.

West Wing Retires, with one final faulty fact.

I was a fan of the TV show "The West Wing", and have watched it pretty much from it's inception, for all mind-numbing seven years. I think I watched because it was nice to see a place where democrats actually tried to govern and spoke of real issues and had real debates and understood facts and stuff -- even though it was a fake universe, it was a better one than the alternative reality many democrats seem to live in.

(OK, ASIDE HERE: I use the term "democrats" a lot. It's just shorthand. I don't believe most democrats, or even a majority of democrats, would fall into any of the groups which I label "democrat" in my posts. It's just an easy way of refering to them, which doesn't make it right, but makes it easy for me).

The last show, as usual, had many little factoids which would make the show useful educationally if it were not for the inordinate number of times they get these "factoids" wrong.

This show's false factoid regarded the inauguration. After a running theme of a particularly cold day for the TV inaugural of the president-elect Santos, Jeb and Abby are conversing about the weather, and Abby asks Jeb who's bright idea it was to have an outside inauguration in January. Jeb answers with the names of several of our Founding Fathers, I think "Franklin, Jefferson, Madison", but I'm a little fuzzy on that.

In any case, they were off by a bit, as the original Inauguration Date was set in the Constitution as March 4th. It wasn't until the last century that the date was moved to January 20th, by the 20th amendment. The change took effect in 1937.

Anyway, I probably won't miss the West Wing much, it was getting old and stale.

Update: Karl Rove is STILL indicted....

As I reported in my previous post, it's been a merry Fitzmas Mother's day weekend for left-wingers everywhere as they rejoiced to the news that Karl Rove has been indicted.

Now I know that is news to most of you, but the liberals are certain of this. The story crossed OUR wires courtesy of Howling Latina, who on Friday reported that Rove had informed the White House that he was going to be indicted. And Chris Matthews reported it would happen Friday. But when Friday came and went, Howling Latina was there to explain -- Karl had already been indicted.

This was followed by reports that Rove had been given "24 hours" to "get his affairs in order". So by Saturday Night we'd know if this was true. But Saturday came and went with no announcement. So on Sunday, those wacky folks at Democratic Underground had a new explanation -- the 24 hours were "business hours", which meant it wouldn't be announced until TUESDAY.

Meanwhile, someone decided it'd be a lot easier on the rest of us if they got some actual facts. Leave it to Byron York, who talked to Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo. From The Corner at National Review:

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?No.

Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?No.

Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?No.

Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?No.

Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?No.

In other words, the salient "facts" from Leopold's Truthout article seem to be, well, not entirely truthful -- it's like someone took the truth out of his article, and replaced it with Howard Dean's wish list.

Rove could well be indicted at any time -- after Libby's indictment, anything's possible. But if he is, it seems Truthout will only be right by shear luck, not by any great investigative reporting.

The funny thing is how quick the left was to believe this, when not a SINGLE reporter from a major news outlet was confirming the story all weekend. The idea that Fitzgerald could dissappear for 15 hours on Friday when people were expecting indictments, and no reporter would have any idea what happened to him, always seemed a bit absurd.

And what is sad is how happy this news seems to have made them. They can't be pleased with anything substantive happening in the world, but they take great pleasure in the misfortune of another, even though a Rove indictment for false statements would not feed a single hungry child, or do anything for any of the causes they supposedly hold dear.

It would, however, help them on their way to regaining power. Whether you want people in power who fall for every irrational story that comes along, you'll have to decide that come election day.