Pelosi responds to a question about how much she’s done to rid Congress of corruption.
June 26th, 2007 5:13 am
June 25th, 2007 5:09 am
“I don’t know why they keep calling me “Breck Girl” and “Silky Pony”…
Hey, how does my hair look?
June 24th, 2007 5:01 am
Barack Obama didn’t understand Hillary’s reference to his “indicted fundraiser ties“.
June 23rd, 2007 1:58 pm
Barack Obama unveils the new theme for his campaign.
June 22nd, 2007 5:56 am
See you in a week. Until then, feel free to show your creative side by captioning the photos I’ve set to post over the next week.
Like this one…
Hillary prepares a place for her dreams of becoming President.
June 21st, 2007 11:34 am
Just remember this when you’re reading or hearing stories in the MSM:
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
That’s 87% who support Democrats and their causes enough to financially contribute to them. If they’re willing to write checks to support their agendas, why should we think they wouldn’t also be willing to write articles to support them?
But really, who’s surprised? It’s not like a left-leaning media is anything new.
Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.
It’s no wonder liberals think FoxNews is biased. In the MSM’s sea of liberalism, neutral reporting would appear to have a conservative bias.
June 20th, 2007 10:48 pm
It’s so bad, it’s even ranking worse than HMOs.
Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.
This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.
Maybe it’s because Americans a realizing that the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric was loaded with empty promises and zero actual intention of addressing corruption…
Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised:
“We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks,” Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, “and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.”
In the spirit of “transparency and openness”… she would not provide information on her earmarks.
Neither would most of Congress.
Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership’s promise of “openness and transparency” in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers’ pet projects.
Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn’t respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn’t.
Let’s look at what else Democrats promised:
With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.
They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.
Here are some examples of that “greater integrity”:
1. Working with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff who Democrats used as a poster boy for corruption during the 2006 campaign season.
2. Awarding committee chairmanships to Congressmen being investigated by the very agencies he’d oversee.
3. Ranking members of the Judiciary Committee admitting to breaking ethics rules.
4. Members who chair subcommittees that appropriate billions of dollars to companies controlled by the member’s spouse.
5. Increasing the amount of contributions from lobbyists and special interests… above and beyond what the previous Congress accepted.
6. Balking at tough lobbying reforms.
7. Violating the very ethics rules put in place by your very own Congress.
8. Selecting a registered lobbyist, that represents the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests, to run your PAC.
And on top of the “greater integrity” they called for “greater civility”…
“The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership - not partisanship - with the president and Republicans in Congress.”
And we see how well that’s working out.
June 19th, 2007 4:17 pm
Poor residents will be rewarded for good behavior - like $300 for doing well on school tests, $150 for holding a job and $200 for visiting the doctor - under an experimental anti-poverty program that city officials detailed Monday.
It’s not really a new concept. Everyday millions of people go to work and hold a job for a financial incentive… called a paycheck!
As long as the program is supported by private funds, I’m cool with it. Especially given the reasons to support such a program.
The theory behind cash rewards is that poor people are trapped in a cycle of repeated setbacks that keep them from climbing out of poverty. A person who doesn’t keep up with his vaccinations and doctor’s visits, for example, may get sick more often and struggle to stay employed.
Seems to make sense. And besides, free money to poor people for doing the basic tasks most people already do sounds like something Democrats would be lining up to support, right?
But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote the misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.
The criticism is probably driven from the fact that Bloomberg isn’t dipping into the public till for this one:
In New York, the two-year pilot program with about 14,000 participants will use private funds Bloomberg has raised because he did not want to spend government money on something that is highly experimental. More than $43 million has been raised toward the $53 million goal, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs said.
I mean, what good is a social program, designed to redistribute wealth, if it’s not built upon compulsory confiscation of income from the rest of the population that works hard and engages in good behavior, simply because it’s the right thing to do?
June 19th, 2007 5:30 am
Just kidding. They’re responding in their typical fashion… with burning effigies, riots and threats of murder and terrorism.
Security around the writer was reviewed by Scotland Yard as an Iranian group placed an £80,000 bounty on his head.
“This is an occasion for the world’s 1.5billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision,” said Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan’s religious affairs minister.
“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism,” he told his country’s parliament.
“If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologises and withdraws the ’sir’ title.”
I think this whole islamofascism stuff is simply a conspiracy created by the pharmaceutical industry. Sales of blood pressure medicine must be going through the roof in the muslim world.
And is it just me, or do those “protest” signs look suspiciously professional? Is there some kind of Jihadi branch of Kinkos over there cranking these things out everytime someone offends islam or mohammad?
I don’t know why Rushdie was granted knighthood anymore so than Elton John, Judi Dench or Bill Gates. It’s not like they’re someday going to be called back to the castle to don armor and ride into battle to save the Queen.
But you gotta love the global islamic hissyfits over this kind of stupid stuff.
Bryan hits the nail on the head:
Adds Pakistan’s Foreign Minister:
“Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Mr. Rushdie’s knighthood would hamper interfaith understanding and that Islamabad would protest to London.”
I beg to differ: The reaction to Rushdie’s knighthood has enhanced my understanding of the religion of peace a great deal. Pakistani officials, secular and religious, are on the record deploring the British knighthood for Rushdie as “insensitive,” but silent on the 1989 Iranian fatwa that would have seen him murdered. That says quite a bit more about Islam and its adherents than they realize. Like the cartoon jihad, the knighthood jihad is a clarifying moment in history. Most in the West are sure to miss its meaning entirely.
June 18th, 2007 1:48 pm
It’s bumped Al Gore and his ridiculous money-making scam of global warming off the front pages… and has him whining like a little girl about it.
AL GORE is a man on a mission to save the planet – and is enraged that everyone else seems more interested in saving Paris Hilton.
But he struggles to get his message across when TV networks are donating the majority of their airtime to American socialite Paris Hilton’s stint behind bars.
“The planet is in distress and all of the attention is on Paris Hilton. We have to ask ourselves what is going on here?”
It’s because as lame as coverage of a delinquent Hollywood slut is, it still beats hearing a robot drone on about a trendy cause, simply so he can pad his bank account.