Housekeeping Note:

debate08 has added Blogs of Interest to the right-hand side of the page ... there are Blogs from the Left, Right, and Center.

Just added are Higher Pie, Political Teen, From the Bleachers, and Davidson's Law

Bush: Leader of A free world

Don't look now, but Bush's vision for the world - with liberty and democracy spreading across the Middle East - is taking shape.

Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan began the transformation, and two events in as many days have sped the process dramatically.

Over the weekend, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's order that the constitution be changed to allow challengers on the ballot this fall signifies that the world's most populous Arab nation will hold multi-party presidential elections - for the first time - ever.

And just today, in Lebanon, the pro-Syrian government has resigned, paving the way for elections in that country, free of Syrian influence.

What was the impetus for these two most recent events?

Walid Jumblatt, leader of the anti-Syria movement in Lebanon, had this to say last week:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt.

"I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
[Read full story here]

This is a truly incredible statement that validates the President's once thought of us 'pie in the sky' foreign policy. Undoubtedly no major American media outlets will pick it up and the Left will continue to harp on Bush's "mis-handling of Iraq" ... meanwhile, liberty will continue to spread and the world will be a better place because Bush is President.

Powell Speaks

I've always been a supporter of Colin Powell and have a great deal of respect for him ... so it's incredibly disappointing to read the UK's Telegraph today, in which Powell chose to criticize Iraqi troop levels and discuss his problems with Secretary Rumsfeld.

As the former public official charged with making the President's case on foreign affairs to the world, and with Secretary Rice currently overseas doing exactly that, you'd think Powell would know better than to undermine their efforts by criticizing US foreign policy to a foreign newspaper.

Perhaps his comments were taken "out of context" (like everyone else's comments when they say something regrettable) but the mere fact that he's talking to a foreign paper is troubling.

Ragged Old Flag

Judge Me, Judge Me Not

The showdown in the Senate on President Bush's nominees for the Federal bench will likely be a long and heated one that could potentially shut the Congress down.

And the water was further muddied by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter today when he expressed concern about using the "nuclear option" to get the President's nominees an up or down vote in the full Senate.

Remember folks, that all we're talking about here ... an up or down vote by the full 100-member Senate.

Here's what gets me confused: The American people voted a Republican into the White House and more Republicans than Democrats into the US Senate. But, Democrats - in the minority - are able to deny the President's nominees a vote based on the fact that they're too Republican.

I guess the Will of the People doesn't matter anymore.

WANTED: GENUINE DEBATE

It must become the central issue of the 2008 elections if we're ever going to have a real dialogue and find a real solution.

The issue? Illegal immigration.

See today's USA Today's article Despite new technology, Border Patrol overwhelmed ... key excerpts are below:

... 11,000 men and women who serve as the borders front-line defense are overwhelmed. Despite an influx of new technology, such as underground sensors and cameras that pan the desert, agents catch only about one-third of the estimated 3 million people who cross the border illegally every year...

... Most of the illegals are poor Mexican laborers looking for work. But officials are alarmed that a growing number hail from Central and South America, Asia, even Mideast countries such as Syria and Iran. In 2003, the Border Patrol arrested 39,215 so-called "OTMs," or other-than-Mexicans, along the Southwest border. In 2004, the number jumped to 65,814.

... James Loy, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, told Congress last week, "Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

These statements should concern us all ... and the American public deserves to see and hear a genuine debate by level-headed public officials on what they believe should be done to end this national security risk. The problem is, when was the last time that happened during a presidential election?

Footnote:
You may agree or disagree with George W.'s guest worker proposal, but at the very least it's sparking debate. And until the President's proposal is fully flushed out and formally proposed we should withhold judgment.

But while I'm a supporter of the current administration, clearly not enough has been done in the past 4 years (and especially after 9/11) to protect our borders.

It makes the political world go round...

The RNC has 6 times more money on hand that the DNC as they cast their eyes to the 2006 elections ...

--------------------------------------------------------
RNC Holds 6 Times More Cash Than Dems

By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

February 22, 2005, 4:37 PM EST WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee began the month with a 6-to-1 financial advantage over its Democratic counterpart, with $16.5 million in the bank compared to the Democratic National Committee's $2.6 million.

The RNC raised $10.5 million in January, according to its monthly report to the Federal Election Commission.

The GOP spent $8.7 million, including a $1 million transfer to Senate Republicans' fund-raising committee and nearly $1 million in telemarketing, according to an analysis by Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service.

The DNC raised $4.1 million last month, based on its FEC report. It spent $7.6 million, including a donation of $1.5 million to Virginia Lt. Gov. Timothy Kaine's campaign for governor and a $1 million transfer to the Senate Democrats' fund-raising committee.

The disparity between the two national committees in January fund raising illustrates the benefit President Bush's re-election to the White House can have day to day for his party. However, all is not lost for new DNC Chairman Howard Dean; in the last election cycle, though behind early on, the Democratic National Committee eventually exceeded the RNC in contributions by several million dollars.

Among other party committees filing January reports this week:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee began February with $1.7 million in the bank and no debt. It raised $5.3 million in January and spent $4.6 million.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $475,648 left after paying off post-election debts. It raised nearly $2.7 million last month and spent just under $2.6 million.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which raises money for House Democrats, began February with $11 million in debt from last year's elections. It had $1.5 million in the bank as this month began. The DCCC raised $1.5 million and spent $1.7 million in January.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's fund-raising committee, reported $2 million on hand. It raised $4.6 million and spent $5.8 million last month. The spending included $3.5 million on phone banks.

--------------------------------------------------------

Felons for Hillary!

Can't beleive I missed this one last week ... thanks to California Conservatives for Truth for posting it ...

--------------------------------------------------------

"Immediate National Security Risk" ... ?

You may not have heard, but ChoicePoint Inc, one of the nation's largest collectors of consumer data, announced today that thieves infiltrated their computers and stole - in a year-long scam - sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and credit reports from over 100,000 Americans.

ChoicePoint has an estimated 10 billion pieces of data on virtually every American - they sell this data to companies and have contracts with numerous government agencies.

The obvious response to this news is check your credit reports ... as well as the obvious why does this company have all this data, and why don't they have adequate security measures?

But the other, more alarming question is, what will these thieves do with this data?

Armed with the kind of information taken from ChoicePoint, criminals will easily be able to obtain authentic, government-issued driver's licenses ... only in your name, or perhaps mine. And we all know what can be accomplished with a driver's license - yes, they can get lines of credit or commit mortgage fraud. But there could be more sinister motives at work here ... more than one 9/11 terrorist had a driver's license.

This story is just breaking today, but so far no news organizations have made this terrifying connection ... that this is a massive national security risk, not just an elaborate plan to make a buck.

But one organization, the National Notary Association, has made the connection, calling this theft an "immediate national security risk".

There are natural "alarmist" out there ... who panic first, then think later. But the folks at the Notary Association don't fall into this category - the theft from ChoicePoint may be one step in a very elaborate front of the War on Terror.

I'm Back ... So Is Flipper

Following a week-long hiatus, debate08 is back ... and so is flip-flopper John Kerry.

Today Kerry said he will vote in favor of Bush's $81.9 billion spending plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think we're in a very different situation," Kerry said. "I'm going to vote for this ... I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

But apparently, while in the midst of a Presidential campaign, military funding is not important to success and completion of the process?

Let's take a second and recap Kerry's many positions on the war in Iraq:

He voted in favor of sending troops into battle.

But he then voted against funding those troops; although he famously cleared that up with his "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" defense.

He then spent months defending his vote against the funding by calling Bush's handling of the war incompetent. So now that Kerry supports Bush's funding plan, is it safe to say that Kerry now supports Bush's handling of the war?

Of course not. We may be capable of following a string of events like this to a logical conclusion, but Kerry is not.

Kerry says the Bush administration is now only "trying some of the things" that he proposed such as focusing on training Iraqi forces (actually, Bush said that all along too) and getting other countries involved (did Bush ever say he didn't want other countries involved? He's just not willing to allow them to dictate US foreign policy!)

"I think my security proposals for the country (Iraq) were smack on, dead on," Kerry said, I assume with a straight face, but how is that really possible?

I'll tell you who doesn't have a straight face right now ... Hillary.

She's in the background, staying quiet, laughing her head off at the comeback of Kerry's incompetence.

The nomination is all but hers.

Debate08 Poll

George W. Bush has proposed a bold agenda for his second term. But which of the issues below will be the most important that Bush faces over the next 12 months?

1) Social Security reform

2) Making tax cuts permanent

3) A Supreme Court nomination

4) Iraq

5) Iran

6) Peace in the Middle East

7) Other... what?

"Hell No!"

Cheney, on Fox News Sunday yesterday, emphatically said five separate times that he will not run for President in 2008 ... something we all already knew.

"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve ... Or not only no, but hell no," Cheney said.

But Cheney also added that he will serve the President for four years and then he's done, ending speculation that Cheney might step down in two years or so and make way for a younger Veep ... in essence allowing Bush to "anoint" the Republican nominee (something debate08 believes he's already done with Rice's ascension to Sec. of State).

Cheney is too important to the Bush Administration to step down. Bush's reliance on Cheney has been the source of easy jokes for the past four years - apparently some would feel better if went back to the "Days of Gore" and the V.P. did little but practice his Nomination speech.

So, much to the angst of many on The Left, it's Bush/Cheney for four more years ... just like the 60+ million Americans who voted for the team would want.

The A-Factor in CA

Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 94th birthday ... so in tribute, let's talk California politics.

California was Reagan Country ... and while there have been Republican Governors since Reagan, the Golden State has moved slowly but surely over to the Democrats. In recent history, both branches of the State legislature have moved firmly into the D-camp, Gore won the state easily in 2000, and in 2002 every statewide office went Democrat.

Then along came Arnold.

Gov. Davis' poor leadership caught up with him and Arnold breathed new life into the California Republican Party. Republicans picked up a modest two State Assembly seats in November's elections and while Bush lost the state, he did better than expected after spending virtually no time or money in the Golden State.

And now another California Democrat has met the Davis fate and stepped down in shame - California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley resigned Friday amid corruption allegations and FBI probes.

California Democrats are not immune to the national trend ... they too are on the ropes.

To be fair though Arnold's numbers have taken a modest hit in recent months. Dems and Independents aren't as smitten with him as they once were ... although his approval rating is still in the 60% range. And as the Sacramento Bee wrote today, Arnold biggest Achilles heel might be over-exposure at the hands of a star-stricken media corps.

But still, with Arnold at the top of the ticket in 2006, Republicans have reason to be optimistic. They'll have a strong list of down-ticket candidates, with State Senator Tom McClintock running for Lt. Governor (he rose to national prominence during the recall with his knowledge of and plain speak about the state of the State's finances) and other returning candidates like Bill Simon and Gary Mendoza (a rising Latino star in CA Republican politics).

A strong showing by Republicans in '06 (perhaps picking up 3, even 4, statewide offices) will put California and its 55 electoral votes squarely in play in 2008. If Hillary and the Dems lose California, they lose the White House. Period.

So while the attempts to allow a foreign-born American to run for President will not effect Arnold (it's a five or six year process to change the US Constitution), Arnold could still play a significant role on the national stage.

And don't doubt that Arnold and his handlers don't know this.

Easongate

The clock is ticking on CNN, Time Warner, and Eason Jordan.

Check out Easongate for full details.

Eason Who?

CNN's Chief News Executive Eason Jordan came about as close to treachery as you can get last week ... and I'm willing to bet you've never heard of him before.

While participating in a World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" in Davos, Eason stated multiple times that he knew of 12 journalists who had been killed by the US Military in Iraq ... that had in fact been targeted for murder by the US military.

He had no proof, of course ... and when pressured he tried to climb out of the hole he'd dug.

Can you read about this scandal at CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, even Fox?

Nope, they're going to protect their own. But you can read about it on the Blog.

Forumblog, Captain's Quarters, or Hugh Hewitt's blog are the best sources. And there are rumors that a tape of the Forum exists, at which point it will be impossible for the mainstream media to ignore this.

On a side note, next year's World Economic Forum has been tentatively titled "How the Blog Replaced the Media."

Giving The Left a chance

I'm feeling bad for The Left ... they've had a rough go of it recently.

Successful elections in Afghanistan; Kerry's loss; more successful elections, this time in Iraq; a well-delivered, inspiring SOTU address by Bush outlining a bold second term agenda; the confirmation of Rice as Secretary of State and the all but assured confirmation of Gonzales for Attorney General after a failed Democrat filibuster ... it just goes on and on.

Democrats have been holding the short end of the stick for some time now. They don't have an issue to call their own anymore ... even Social Security has been taken by the Republicans!

So, in the spirit of fair play, I've decided to help ... Left, it's time to go back to that old faithful: the destruction of the environment.

An article in NewScientist.com last week may give hope: "The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday..." begins the article.

"Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise. Scientists used to view Antarctica as a 'slumbering giant', said Chris Rapley, from the British Antarctic Survey, but now he sees it as an 'awakened giant'."

That's good stuff. Gripping.

Cue pretty picture.




So there it is Left... run with it.

Of course, there's that "other end of the stick", summed up further down in the article:

"Whether the loss of mass by the glaciers is due to natural variation or is caused by human-influenced warming of the oceans is not known for sure."

You know the saying ... there's never a quasi-scientist with a political agenda around when you need one.

Unofficial launch of Rice Presidential campaign...?

Dr. Rice, Bush's new Secretary of State - the first African American woman to ever hold the post - set out yesterday on her first official trip to Europe ... an 8 day, 10 city stop.

I see this as her first day on the Presidential campaign trail.

Hillary will undoubtedly run in 2008 - she's the best shot for Democrats. And Republicans will have to bring the best they've got if they want to hold onto the White House. Rice is that candidate. Her record and resume are unmatched, her integrity is unparalleled, she's fierce, articulate, intelligent, and - of course - a Black woman.

Bush, in selecting Rice for Secretary of State recognizes not only her incredible talent in foreign relations, but also the need to get her out from behind the gates of the White House and into the media - and public - eye. If she's to stand a chance against Hillary, who'll be in front of the cameras more and more as her pseudo-term as NY Senator continues (it's really a presidential campaign using NY taxpayer money), Rice will have to increase her visibility. As Secretary of State she can do just that.

Ironically, while Bush in 2000 was strong on domestic issues and weak on foreign policy, Rice will be just the opposite. She has the management qualifications for sure - Provost of Stanford University and now running the huge State Department - but on most, if not all, domestic issues her opinions are unknown.

And over the next four years we'll hear little from Rice on these domestic issues as she fulfills her role as the Bush-spokesperson across the globe, articulately his foreign policy agenda.

The Rice Presidential Camp will, in early 2007, have to address this perceived weakness.

But perhaps it will NOT be a weakness. Think about it: On social security, on tax reform, education, health care etc. etc. Rice is a clean slate. She's not on-the-record on any of these issues, and that will give her the flexibility to shape her views in the best political way without worrying about previous statements.

So the stage is set and the players are moving into position. It will be a battle of epic proportions ... Hillary v. Rice.

Oh, boy it's gonna be good.

Bush Speaks

President Bush's greatest legacy will not be No Child Left Behind, reforming the tax code or Social Security. It will not be his faith-based initiatives or his commitment to fighting HIV/Aids. It will be his unflinching, unyielding belief in the power of freedom ... a power that can liberate people and secure not only the U.S. but the entire world.

So while tonight's State of the Union was sprinkled with bold domestic agendas, the real meat of the matter lay in his words on Iraq, elections, and freedom.

Here are some excerpts:



The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.

We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty as they showed the world last Sunday.

One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "we were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost but most of all to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country and we are honored that she is with us tonight.




As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.