Malkin and the "informed Left"...
One of the striking features of leftist blogs like DailyKos and Democratic Underground is, that the more passionate you are, the more expletives, insults and slurs are thrown into your opinion.
Enough "F-bombs" and SURELY world opinion will be swayed. The second is to cast personal slurs on those who have diametrically opposite views. And, never mind debating the issue, better to attack the messenger... especially if she is a representative of a minority who, by rights, should be on "the side of reason".
Michelle Malkin's had more than her share of these.. after all she should be the poster child of women's Lib, she's the main breadwinner in her household, her husband supports and assists in everything she undertakes; and she's intelligent and witty with a good camera presence. Unfortunately, she's also a Conservative and makes NO pretense of being anything else. And she has kids.
So.. she must be a "yellow whore" who, like a puppet, only parrots her fascist hubby's views... after all she's a woman so it must be hubby that writes all that.
Finally Michelle has had enough: JUST A YELLOW WOMAN DOING A WHITE MAN'S JOB
Good for her.. but it will only inflame the moonbats more... they absolutely HATE being called on their hypocrisy.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Malkin and the "informed Left"...
One of the striking features of leftist blogs like DailyKos and Democratic Underground is, that the more passionate you are, the more expletives and slurs are thrown into your opinion.
Enough "F-bombs" and SURELY world opinion will be swayed. The second is to cast slurs on those who have diametrically opposite views. And, never mind debating the issue, better to attack the messenger... especially if she is a representative of a minority who by rights should be on "the side of reason". Michelle Malkin's had more than her share of these.. after all she would be the poster child of women's Lib, she's the main breadwinner in her household, her husband support everything she undertakes and she's intelligent and witty with a good camera presence... unfortunately, she's also a Conservative and makes NO pretense of being anything else.
So.. she must be a "yellow whore" who, like a puppet, only parrots her fascist hubby's views... after all she's a woman so it must be hubby that writes all that.
Finally Michelle has had enough. JUST A YELLOW WOMAN DOING A WHITE MAN'S JOB
Good for her.. but it will only inflame the moonbats more... they absolutely HATE being called on their hypocrisy.
One of the striking features of leftist blogs like DailyKos and Democratic Underground is, that the more passionate you are, the more expletives and slurs are thrown into your opinion.
Enough "F-bombs" and SURELY world opinion will be swayed. The second is to cast slurs on those who have diametrically opposite views. And, never mind debating the issue, better to attack the messenger... especially if she is a representative of a minority who by rights should be on "the side of reason". Michelle Malkin's had more than her share of these.. after all she would be the poster child of women's Lib, she's the main breadwinner in her household, her husband support everything she undertakes and she's intelligent and witty with a good camera presence... unfortunately, she's also a Conservative and makes NO pretense of being anything else.
So.. she must be a "yellow whore" who, like a puppet, only parrots her fascist hubby's views... after all she's a woman so it must be hubby that writes all that.
Finally Michelle has had enough. JUST A YELLOW WOMAN DOING A WHITE MAN'S JOB
Good for her.. but it will only inflame the moonbats more... they absolutely HATE being called on their hypocrisy.
Monday, November 14, 2005
ICANN! not EUCANN, not UNCANN
Wednesday the UN holds a meeting in Tunis where it seeks to create a platform to wrest control of the Internet Domain system from a small non-profit in Southern California.
While granting that ICANN has been and currently does not, in any way shape or form, base its decisions on world politics or economics, the UN is uneasy at the thought of one country hosting and sanctioning the organization that, in effect, doles out the addresses for the world.
The core issue is, of course, freedom of information and speech.
But the prime mover of the effort to get control away from the US is, interestingly, China. Which, by the way, exerts the greatest effort to LIMIT its own citizens in what they can post and read on the net. Others are Iran and various smaller Asian and middle eastern countries, none of which can be said to exactly encourage unlimited net access for their own.
Naturally, this has become political. And a way to bash Bush.
UN fights US over internet's future
10.11.05
By Rupert Cornwell
- Roger Cornwell, originally in the UK Independent which is certainly 'progressive' (currently same as 'anti-US') in its world view.
What he sees as UN bashing, some might see as simply trying to eliminate the demostrated pervasive corruption within. But that doesnt matter in the Progressive view... it's the thought that counts!
Here's another article on it
And, once that is done, the UN can put fees and kickback mechanisms in place that will help fund the former.
Here's a test on who should run the DNS...
* Which of those countries trying to get/retain control would have allowed the Internet to proceed as it has?
* Which of those countries has more people trying to get INTO it, than trying to get OUT?
Not to mention which country invented it in the first place.
Wednesday the UN holds a meeting in Tunis where it seeks to create a platform to wrest control of the Internet Domain system from a small non-profit in Southern California.
While granting that ICANN has been and currently does not, in any way shape or form, base its decisions on world politics or economics, the UN is uneasy at the thought of one country hosting and sanctioning the organization that, in effect, doles out the addresses for the world.
The core issue is, of course, freedom of information and speech.
But the prime mover of the effort to get control away from the US is, interestingly, China. Which, by the way, exerts the greatest effort to LIMIT its own citizens in what they can post and read on the net. Others are Iran and various smaller Asian and middle eastern countries, none of which can be said to exactly encourage unlimited net access for their own.
Naturally, this has become political. And a way to bash Bush.
UN fights US over internet's future
10.11.05
By Rupert Cornwell
At least until very recently, the hand of its host Government in ICANN's workings has been undetectable. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is the mantra in Washington, and it is hard to disagree.
A UN solution, moreover, contains further dangers, American backers of the status quo argue. The internet has been a tool for free expression and democracy the world over. Ominously, among the countries pressing most strongly for a more internationalised and governmentalised structure are such beacons of liberty as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, all concerned to limit the flow of information to their restless citizens.
Then there is the instinctive dislike of America's Republican establishment for the UN and all its works. On the arch-conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal this week, Norm Coleman, the Republican senator for Minnesota, wrote of a possible "digital Munich" in Tunis.
"The internet faces a grave threat," warned Coleman, who has built his political career in Washington on UN-bashing. "We must defend it ... we cannot allow the UN to control the internet."
- Roger Cornwell, originally in the UK Independent which is certainly 'progressive' (currently same as 'anti-US') in its world view.
What he sees as UN bashing, some might see as simply trying to eliminate the demostrated pervasive corruption within. But that doesnt matter in the Progressive view... it's the thought that counts!
Here's another article on it
"I am torn about this, as I suspect many Internet law experts are. On the one hand, basic principles of international law suggest that a common carrier essential to commerce in all nations should be internationally controlled," said Frank Pasquale, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, New Jersey.And there we have the nut of the issue! The original agenda was, in itself, over a REALLY tough problem to solve. But the NEW agenda is pretty damn straightforward... all these tinpots can agree that the US is the bad guy. So let's haggle over ways to get some of his power neutered.
"On the other hand," Pasquale added, "many of the countries most eager to impose international control also have bad records on free speech issues, political prisoners."
The so-called World Summit on the Information Society was originally conceived to address the digital divide - the gap between information haves and have-nots - by raising both consciousness and funds for projects. {italics mine}
Instead, it has centered largely around Internet governance: oversight of the main computers that control traffic on the Internet by acting as its master directories so Web browsers and email programs can find other computers.
And, once that is done, the UN can put fees and kickback mechanisms in place that will help fund the former.
Here's a test on who should run the DNS...
* Which of those countries trying to get/retain control would have allowed the Internet to proceed as it has?
* Which of those countries has more people trying to get INTO it, than trying to get OUT?
Not to mention which country invented it in the first place.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Revisiting Global Warming, Junk Science and 'nattering nabobs of negativism'..
The Liberal Left environmentalists say, 'Let them eat Cake'!
Since the beginning of the 'Industrial Revolution' and probably back to the dawn of recorded time, we have had those chicken-little doom and gloomers who trumpet the warning that mankind is on the brink of self-destruction.
Now enter "Global Warming". And the fascinating conundrum that we are destroying ourselves with burning of fossil fuels.
While the jury is still out on our ability to influence natural forces, let's just assume that we are having some small effect on the increase in atmospheric CO2.
So.. What to do about it?!!!
The common concensus in the eco-religion is "Use less, Buy Less, Produce Less."
Well, if you do all those, then the world economy takes a hit.. a BIG hit! And when the economy takes a hit, the employment rate goes down, if you have nothing to produce, you certainly dont need people to produce it. Of COURSE, though, consumption and usage WOULD automatically go down.. because without wages, there's no buying and a lot less usage.
Of course that won't be a problem if all governments adopt economic central planning and production.. and isnt THAT convenient! Because then you have adopted the Marxist model despite its long, and without exception, track record of failure.
When you attempt such by governmental fiat, political concerns inevitably rear their ugly heads.
When I was a kid, the USSR periodically released 'new' evidence that Russian Scientists had actually invented everything from the telephone to the auto to radio to the airplane. Which was treated derisively by the west. But let's look at the background facts, suspending disbelief... They MIGHT have been telling the truth.
So let's ASSUME that is so..certainly there IS a lot of brain-power in Russian society.
Why weren't these marvelous Russian inventions put into common usage? Because it wasnt in the interest of the Czar and, later, the Commissariat to let the 'masses' have them. If I have to explain WHY that is so, you wont believe me anyway.
Which gets us back to the aforementioned non-productivity model - to wit: what we have now is "good enough".
Another buzz-issue is the development of new technologies.. sounds good, but the USUAL proposal is that we be taxed to develop those technologies, for their own sake.
Never mind that all definitive advances in any field have been by means of private effort and endeavor... and yes, that EVEN includes most of NASA's space program by-products. Teflon wasnt invented in NASA labs... I dont recall if 'Tang' was or not.
If I recall correctly they were invented by private concerns to meet NASA specs.
And to this day, most 'new' environment friendly technology work is being done in the private sector... yes, there are a multitude of academic grants but they tend to produce only the proven concept, it's up to industry to make them feasible and affordable.
So let's say that there is promise there... but it's not enough. How about stepping back and looking at the BIG PICTURE?!!!
First let's address 'population control'... the liberal-eco-wacko promotes this as key.
Well, it's indisputable proven fact that the wealthiest, developed societies produce the fewest offspring and the poorer 'subsistance' societies produce the most offspring. We neednt go into 'why', it's a fact and needs no provenance.
- EXCEPTION BEING: the rich in feudal societies, but that's another issue.
Second, every kid that has ever read Science Fiction knows that all life on this planet is 'carbon-based'. Since CO2 is the current issue, shouldnt we then look at how to fix MORE carbon from CO2?
If plants take in CO2 and exude O2, then lets grow more plants! This, of course is where the environmentalists have a point.. to wit: the reduction in rain-forest area.
THIS is where the global effort needs to focus. Stop demolishing the Amazon and other tropical areas. How hard can that be!
Uh, except for populist politics, of course. The poor Brazilian peasant doesnt want to hear that he has to give up his subsistant slash-and-burn living... how's he going to support his 12 kids?!! Get my drift, here?
But the BIG PICTURE bottom line is this:
The warmer it gets, the longer the growing season, the more green leaves there are, the more CO2 is converted.
And the warmer it gets the higher the evaporation rate in the oceans, the more water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, the more rainfall, the more water for plants to grow. The more plants grow, the more carbon is fixed.
And you will note that those plants release the same water they take in; once they use it to fix the carbon and produce O2, they release it back into the atmosphere.
So, while the main worry of global warming is an excess of seawater, might the ANSWER ALSO be in that?
Picture a genetically modified edible plant that thrives in saline.. like, say, kelp does.. and picture 'sea-farms' on the coast of Saharan Africa.
More O2, less CO2, more food, more water vapor released, more rain, more tillable land, more plant-crops, more ... well I'm sure you have some imagination.
The Liberal Left environmentalists say, 'Let them eat Cake'!
Since the beginning of the 'Industrial Revolution' and probably back to the dawn of recorded time, we have had those chicken-little doom and gloomers who trumpet the warning that mankind is on the brink of self-destruction.
Now enter "Global Warming". And the fascinating conundrum that we are destroying ourselves with burning of fossil fuels.
While the jury is still out on our ability to influence natural forces, let's just assume that we are having some small effect on the increase in atmospheric CO2.
So.. What to do about it?!!!
The common concensus in the eco-religion is "Use less, Buy Less, Produce Less."
Well, if you do all those, then the world economy takes a hit.. a BIG hit! And when the economy takes a hit, the employment rate goes down, if you have nothing to produce, you certainly dont need people to produce it. Of COURSE, though, consumption and usage WOULD automatically go down.. because without wages, there's no buying and a lot less usage.
Of course that won't be a problem if all governments adopt economic central planning and production.. and isnt THAT convenient! Because then you have adopted the Marxist model despite its long, and without exception, track record of failure.
When you attempt such by governmental fiat, political concerns inevitably rear their ugly heads.
When I was a kid, the USSR periodically released 'new' evidence that Russian Scientists had actually invented everything from the telephone to the auto to radio to the airplane. Which was treated derisively by the west. But let's look at the background facts, suspending disbelief... They MIGHT have been telling the truth.
So let's ASSUME that is so..certainly there IS a lot of brain-power in Russian society.
Why weren't these marvelous Russian inventions put into common usage? Because it wasnt in the interest of the Czar and, later, the Commissariat to let the 'masses' have them. If I have to explain WHY that is so, you wont believe me anyway.
Which gets us back to the aforementioned non-productivity model - to wit: what we have now is "good enough".
Another buzz-issue is the development of new technologies.. sounds good, but the USUAL proposal is that we be taxed to develop those technologies, for their own sake.
Never mind that all definitive advances in any field have been by means of private effort and endeavor... and yes, that EVEN includes most of NASA's space program by-products. Teflon wasnt invented in NASA labs... I dont recall if 'Tang' was or not.
If I recall correctly they were invented by private concerns to meet NASA specs.
And to this day, most 'new' environment friendly technology work is being done in the private sector... yes, there are a multitude of academic grants but they tend to produce only the proven concept, it's up to industry to make them feasible and affordable.
So let's say that there is promise there... but it's not enough. How about stepping back and looking at the BIG PICTURE?!!!
First let's address 'population control'... the liberal-eco-wacko promotes this as key.
Well, it's indisputable proven fact that the wealthiest, developed societies produce the fewest offspring and the poorer 'subsistance' societies produce the most offspring. We neednt go into 'why', it's a fact and needs no provenance.
- EXCEPTION BEING: the rich in feudal societies, but that's another issue.
Second, every kid that has ever read Science Fiction knows that all life on this planet is 'carbon-based'. Since CO2 is the current issue, shouldnt we then look at how to fix MORE carbon from CO2?
If plants take in CO2 and exude O2, then lets grow more plants! This, of course is where the environmentalists have a point.. to wit: the reduction in rain-forest area.
THIS is where the global effort needs to focus. Stop demolishing the Amazon and other tropical areas. How hard can that be!
Uh, except for populist politics, of course. The poor Brazilian peasant doesnt want to hear that he has to give up his subsistant slash-and-burn living... how's he going to support his 12 kids?!! Get my drift, here?
But the BIG PICTURE bottom line is this:
The warmer it gets, the longer the growing season, the more green leaves there are, the more CO2 is converted.
And the warmer it gets the higher the evaporation rate in the oceans, the more water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, the more rainfall, the more water for plants to grow. The more plants grow, the more carbon is fixed.
And you will note that those plants release the same water they take in; once they use it to fix the carbon and produce O2, they release it back into the atmosphere.
So, while the main worry of global warming is an excess of seawater, might the ANSWER ALSO be in that?
Picture a genetically modified edible plant that thrives in saline.. like, say, kelp does.. and picture 'sea-farms' on the coast of Saharan Africa.
More O2, less CO2, more food, more water vapor released, more rain, more tillable land, more plant-crops, more ... well I'm sure you have some imagination.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Stealing childhood.. further regimentation of kids at play!
Is it any wonder that more and more kids are having weight problems... and rebelling at authority once they get into their teen years? Not when you think about incidents such as this article in the London Telegraph
Nursery children must stay inside to protect neighbour's rights
Exactly! "Laws get made" and selfish people become "Mr
Grinch" and take advantage of them, never mind how many are the losers!
Is it any wonder that more and more kids are having weight problems... and rebelling at authority once they get into their teen years? Not when you think about incidents such as this article in the London Telegraph
Nursery children must stay inside to protect neighbour's rights
A nursery has been forced to keep youngsters indoors after a council threatened it with legal action following a complaint about the noise its children made.....
For 50 years children have gathered at the Memorial Hall in Locks Heath, Hants. But the future of the Jigsaw Nursery is in doubt after a nearby resident, Jim Habens, objected to the noise coming from a new outside play area built with donations from parents.
Mr Habens, 60, who runs a bed and breakfast from his bungalow, said: "I have complained because I have human rights as well as anyone else."
Sally Pratt, the co-supervisor at the nursery, which opens four days a week and caters for 70 children aged between two and five, said the reduction in facilities caused by the threat of enforcement could lead to it receiving a poor Ofsted report.
She said: "We have had ongoing problems with the gentleman in the bungalow for some time, saying the children are being a nuisance. The chairman of the hall and myself went to see him in the summer and we complied with everything he asked for.
"But within a couple of weeks we received a letter telling us the environmental health had been called in."
Her colleague Amanda Adams said: "Mr Habens has plagued us with complaints about the children, but it is just them laughing."
..
Brian Bayford, the borough councillor with responsibility for environmental issues, said: "It is unfortunate when it's just one neighbour. But if anyone is causing a noise nuisance, and it is unacceptable or above a certain limit, this is the process.
"Laws get made and it is the responsibility of the council to take action on that."
Exactly! "Laws get made" and selfish people become "Mr
Grinch" and take advantage of them, never mind how many are the losers!
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
War History: We saved them, but they might not think it's worth it...
Hitler, Saddam; Germany, Iraq; Europe and Middle East MSM coverage..
"We have swept away {the Dictator}, but a great many {in the occupied areas} feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."
({} = my edits)
How often have we heard this out of the MSM? Well, way back in 1946, to be precise... PLEASE read the links in that post for the whole article!
Add to that, if you want to note something telling... and estimated 'more than 1000' US servicemen and civilian contractors die in Germany, most from fragmented hold-outs, in year immediately following end of war.
- - - -- -
Further thinking points:
10,000 allied casualties, about 2500 killed on D-Day, alone... what if CNN were covering it 'live'.... Or Fox, for that matter?
Imagine Geraldo standing in the shelter of the cliffs, ducking and bleating about the carnage.
Remember how GREAT his coverage in New Orleans? His talk of 'stacked bodies' and rapes and murders in the Superdome?
Hitler, Saddam; Germany, Iraq; Europe and Middle East MSM coverage..
"We have swept away {the Dictator}, but a great many {in the occupied areas} feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."
({} = my edits)
How often have we heard this out of the MSM? Well, way back in 1946, to be precise... PLEASE read the links in that post for the whole article!
Add to that, if you want to note something telling... and estimated 'more than 1000' US servicemen and civilian contractors die in Germany, most from fragmented hold-outs, in year immediately following end of war.
- - - -- -
Further thinking points:
10,000 allied casualties, about 2500 killed on D-Day, alone... what if CNN were covering it 'live'.... Or Fox, for that matter?
Imagine Geraldo standing in the shelter of the cliffs, ducking and bleating about the carnage.
Remember how GREAT his coverage in New Orleans? His talk of 'stacked bodies' and rapes and murders in the Superdome?
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Libby Must go to Trial!
An unattributed opinion piece in USAToday,
Bush, Cheney can't let Libby go to trial
claims that the Bush Administration “can’t afford to let Libby got to trial” because all the ‘machinations of pushing to invade will come to light’.
It's evident from reading this bilge WHY it's not signed, because it's based on fact NOT proven or in evidence... just on DailyKos and DU talking points.
And that's why it needs to go to trial.
point: It will explain why Libby testified to one set of facts on how he learned Plame's involvement while his notes show otherwise; see my "Telephone" post, below.
point: it will explain how the investigation started in the first place. This may prove embarassing to the anti-Bush cadre in the CIA
point: It may settle the contention that Cheney PUSHED CIA into justifying the WMD existence. Could it be that Cheney merely went to Langley to find out WHY there was disagreement on the issue?
point: It may settle the issues on why Wilson was selected, when he had little experience in that field; and why he didnt have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which would have prevented him from publishing without CIA approval; and why he didnt have to file a written report.
All those being normal practice under the circumstances.
point: Wilson would be called to testify and would have to explain why his own verbal debriefing shows that Saddam's agents tried to meet with the Niger Minister of Interior.. and he would have to testify on his understanding of the Minister's cryptic "I didnt respond because I knew what it was about"
It's time for the Administration to 'go nuclear' on all these unsupported 'attack points'; just as Delay going to trial will expose the Texas Dem's hypocrisy and dirty tricks, so will a Libby trial.
And good lawyers would get all these issues admitted into testimony, as they point to motivation and lead to the charges at hand.
An unattributed opinion piece in USAToday,
Bush, Cheney can't let Libby go to trial
claims that the Bush Administration “can’t afford to let Libby got to trial” because all the ‘machinations of pushing to invade will come to light’.
Testimony in a trial likely would show that Bush, Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were hell bent to invade Iraq, reasons be damned. When their phony cover that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was blown, they hunkered down against anyone who told the truth about their trickery.
Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, did that. So, possibly coached by his boss Cheney, Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.
It's evident from reading this bilge WHY it's not signed, because it's based on fact NOT proven or in evidence... just on DailyKos and DU talking points.
And that's why it needs to go to trial.
point: It will explain why Libby testified to one set of facts on how he learned Plame's involvement while his notes show otherwise; see my "Telephone" post, below.
point: it will explain how the investigation started in the first place. This may prove embarassing to the anti-Bush cadre in the CIA
point: It may settle the contention that Cheney PUSHED CIA into justifying the WMD existence. Could it be that Cheney merely went to Langley to find out WHY there was disagreement on the issue?
point: It may settle the issues on why Wilson was selected, when he had little experience in that field; and why he didnt have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which would have prevented him from publishing without CIA approval; and why he didnt have to file a written report.
All those being normal practice under the circumstances.
point: Wilson would be called to testify and would have to explain why his own verbal debriefing shows that Saddam's agents tried to meet with the Niger Minister of Interior.. and he would have to testify on his understanding of the Minister's cryptic "I didnt respond because I knew what it was about"
It's time for the Administration to 'go nuclear' on all these unsupported 'attack points'; just as Delay going to trial will expose the Texas Dem's hypocrisy and dirty tricks, so will a Libby trial.
And good lawyers would get all these issues admitted into testimony, as they point to motivation and lead to the charges at hand.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Delay going Nuclear?
When rape is inevitable.... goes the old saying.
So far Tom Delay and DeGuerin are doing exactly what I had hoped for: Setting up for a trial in which the Dems find they have a sabre-tooth tiger by the tail.
So far he has refused to plea-bargain down to a misdemeanor and gotten the trial judge (A move-on.org contributor) recused. Which will leave Ronnie Earle no choice but to either ask for the charges to be dropped or proceed with a really weak case.
I predict Earle's next move will be to attempt to put off going to trial, and Delay wont want that either. It will be refused.
Then Earle will actually cite 'possible new evidence' needing depositions, once the trial is started.
Of course, ol' Ronnie MIGHT just retire and dump the case off to a subordinate. Damage control, as it were.
Then he will ask for the charges to be dropped; 'in the interest of public confidence in their elected officials'
I cross my fingers that Delay will refuse to allow the case to be dropped... and I think there's precedent for him to force it through.
While there is no doubt that the INTENDED SPIRIT of the law has been broken, it will come out that the statute was intentionally designed that way. For the benefit of Democrats, and not Republicans.
And to salve what the Dems see as their idiot electorate.
There's ample evidence on file that the Texas DSC has done exactly what Delay is accused of... thus, if the trial proceeds to verdict, the grounds for a civil case against Earle will be laid, if not actual criminal charges of malfeasance.
Before libs protest this projection; they should answer this question. If this is indeed the bright shiny jewel in Earle's career crown, WHY would he offer the plea-down?
Hmmmmm? Thought so.
One more case in a long line of GOP Rope-a-Dopes! We can always hope so, anyway.
When rape is inevitable.... goes the old saying.
So far Tom Delay and DeGuerin are doing exactly what I had hoped for: Setting up for a trial in which the Dems find they have a sabre-tooth tiger by the tail.
So far he has refused to plea-bargain down to a misdemeanor and gotten the trial judge (A move-on.org contributor) recused. Which will leave Ronnie Earle no choice but to either ask for the charges to be dropped or proceed with a really weak case.
I predict Earle's next move will be to attempt to put off going to trial, and Delay wont want that either. It will be refused.
Then Earle will actually cite 'possible new evidence' needing depositions, once the trial is started.
Of course, ol' Ronnie MIGHT just retire and dump the case off to a subordinate. Damage control, as it were.
Then he will ask for the charges to be dropped; 'in the interest of public confidence in their elected officials'
I cross my fingers that Delay will refuse to allow the case to be dropped... and I think there's precedent for him to force it through.
While there is no doubt that the INTENDED SPIRIT of the law has been broken, it will come out that the statute was intentionally designed that way. For the benefit of Democrats, and not Republicans.
And to salve what the Dems see as their idiot electorate.
There's ample evidence on file that the Texas DSC has done exactly what Delay is accused of... thus, if the trial proceeds to verdict, the grounds for a civil case against Earle will be laid, if not actual criminal charges of malfeasance.
Before libs protest this projection; they should answer this question. If this is indeed the bright shiny jewel in Earle's career crown, WHY would he offer the plea-down?
Hmmmmm? Thought so.
One more case in a long line of GOP Rope-a-Dopes! We can always hope so, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)