Lottery Post Journal

Whaddyaknow? Democrats break promise even before taking over

Here's a shout-out to all those who voted for the Democrats, as an oh-so-smart way to bring change to Washington.

The Democrats haven't even taken over yet, and they're already showing their stripes.  What do they care?  They are guaranteed to be in power for at least 2 years, no matter how stupid they are, so why not go ahead and do whatever the hell they want?

The hillarious part is that Nancy Pelosi, Idiot-in-Chief, is basically blaming her own party for not electing John Murtha to the House majority leader post as the reason for breaking her promise.

This is just the beginning.  Expect lots more stupidity.

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006; A07

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission's co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

"The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean said.

Those people, the appropriators, do not seem to care much, he said. The intelligence budget is a small fraction of the nearly $500 billion overseen by the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Kean said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an Armed Services Committee member, told the Sept. 11 commission that if his panel spends 10 minutes considering the intelligence budget, it has been a good year.

"We think this is extremely crucial," Kean said of a reorganization shifting budget authority to the intelligence committees. But, he added, there are "a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it."

In 2004, the Senate tried to reach a compromise on the issue, proposing to create intelligence subcommittees under the House and Senate appropriations committees. The appropriators would maintain most of their power, but at least distinct panels would have to watch over intelligence spending.

The idea went nowhere in the House. To make it work, total spending on intelligence would have to be declassified, another commission recommendation that Congress has rejected. Besides, Young said, an intelligence subcommittee effectively exists in the form of the Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman and ranking member, who have taken serious interest in intelligence spending.

Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.

Link to Article

Putting things in perspective

The latest Dick Morris newsletter, which arrived this afternoon.  Dick Morris ran Bill Clinton's successful presidential campaign, and is an excellent political analyst.

The Giant, Helpless, Pitiful Democratic Majority


November 24, 2006 -- For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that — now that it is upon us — it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority — 218 — to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army — disciplined, unified and determined — the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has buy it retail — caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus — hat in hand — to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats — the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem déjà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only — to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation.


As they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Dick Morris Newsletter

Dick Morris, who is best known for managing Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election, is one of the most brilliant political analysts out there.  People can subscribe to his newsletter by going to  Highly recommended.

Here is the latest commentary that arrived in my inbox today.


It is only because pro-lifer Bob Casey beat Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), former Reagan Navy Secretary Jim Webb defeated Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), and gun-control opponent Jon Tester triumphed in Montana that Harry Reid is the new Senate majority leader., party chairman Howard Dean, and the blogger left had nothing to do with the '06 victory. Democrats who study the election results carefully will reaffirm the lessons learned by the defeat of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis - the American people will not elect liberal Democrats, but will turn to moderates.

The irony is that the expressed will of the American people has been so radically ignored in the shaping of the 110th Congress. The fact is that the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to the speakership is no more a legitimate expression of the voters' will than would be the retention of Dennis Hastert. The seniority system, rigidly applied by Pelosi in violation of the spirit of the Gingrich reforms of 1994, has ordained that a liberal establishment will run Congress, whatever the voters say.

Is there anyone who will sanely maintain that Rangel represents the broad middle of American views on tax reform, or that Levin speaks for most Americans on national security? All that has happened is that the ranking members have become the chairmen, regardless of their views or qualifications. It is a gesture of homage to seniority that would have the approval of the segregationists that used to run Congress by applying the same ground rules. Back then, no matter how loudly voters demanded integration and an end to racism, the Democratic majority kept apartheid firmly in place. The distortion of the electorate's will taking place now on Capitol Hill is no more extreme.

Will the Democrats pay for their imperial overreach? Not if, despite taking the majority, they stay in opposition, use their power to oppose the Bush administration, investigate it endlessly, and continue the negative criticism that embodied their '06 campaign.

But such is not the nature of the Democratic Party. Power will likely go to their heads. Their constituencies will not be appeased by mere partisan criticism of Bush. Had the Democrats been fortunate enough to win only the House, they could have hidden behind the wall of Senate obstructionism and pleaded their inability to pass legislation. But having won both, they have no excuse but to pass legislation that will reflect the will of their issue-group masters and expose the differences between the views of their party and those of the voters.

Bush will still be president, so their output will face a daunting succession of presidential vetoes. So will there be a backlash? No. There will only be the beginning of a backlash. Bush's likely intransigence on Iraq, global warming, and a host of other issues will shield the Democrats from the political consequences of their own legislative initiatives.

Rather, we have to see 2007 and 2008 as the beginnings of a massive Republican revival. Only when the likes of Hillary Clinton take the White House in 2008 - still my bet - will the resurgence be fully evident. Just as she saved the GOP in 1994, she'll repeat the favor in 2010 and 2012.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

America like a 'nuclear winter'

Who would have thought that such a small victory for Democrats, like what happened last week, would have such a devastating effect on the United States?

Like a nuclear winter, America will experience a period of morbid darkness, as if the populace had elected the Grim Reaper himself.  It has already begun.

One can only hope that the after-effects will be washed away after a couple of years, like a cool spring rain washing away the dirt and grime of a bitter winter.

America's Mayor will be running for President

Rudy Giuliani has filed papers to start his exploratory committee for running for President.  That's the first step anyone takes when they run for President, so it's pretty much official now.

This represents the first glimmer of hope in a dark, frightening shroud that has covered this country since last Tuesday.

A Thoughtful Excercise Prior to Voting

As we plunge toward the election in three days, the liberal lies, distortions, and misdirection are reaching their pinnacle.

The Democrat emphasis on "Bush lied", "everyone hates the war", "Bush is dumb", "Bush has low approval ratings", "religious right", and other such dreck are a smokescreen that hides the most important issues.

You would think that if it was so important to get Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House, that the Democrats would have her at practically every campaign event, in order to show how great it would be to have her attain that post.

However, what is actually happening is that the Democrats are carefully hiding Nancy Pelosi, because they know that if the voters knew what they were really doing by throwing out their encumbant Republican, they would never vote for the Democrat.

As I documented previously, Nancy Pelosi has opposed every single security measure that has protected us since 9/11.  She has opposed every tax cut that has made our current economy one of the best ever, and has put record numbers of people to work.

It is depressing to read the liberal cadre of people posting here.  I'm not sure if they are fooling themselves, or they have been hoodwinked by the media for so long that they actually start to believe the crap, but whatever the cause there is an utter lack of wisdom and knowledge at work.  It doesn't do much good to bicker over the liberal talking points when we're all dead.

The Excercise

Which leads me to the main point.  I have a simple but effective excercise, which would be a good thing for anyone to go through prior to voting Tuesday.  In order for it to be effective, you need to rid yourself of distractions and take it seriously.

Stay with me; don't scan quickly.

Picture in your mind an atom bomb exploding over whichever major city you can most vividly imagine.  New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, it doesn't matter.  See the explosion.

As the bomb explodes in the heart of the city, imagine what area is included in the radius of destruction that is completely vaporized.  It will be basically a big crater in the ground, with very little in the way of structures; anything left is mostly just assorted rubble.  From the outside looking in, it will look strange to be able to see straight through where all the buildings were previously standing, and see clear through to whatever is on the other side.

Atomic explosions in movies do not really do a good job of showing what it would be like, because they still have recognizable standing structures, and the action of the explosion always happens kind of in slow-motion, as you watch the explosion ripple outwards, blowing things over.  In reality the bomb releases so much power so quickly, that it just instantly vaporizes everything.

Outside the big crater that used to be a bunch of buildings, the zone of destruction will extend in a radius of, say, 25 miles (a circle 50 miles from one side to the other).  So, from the place where the bomb exploded, you could measure 25 miles in any direction, and everything within that circle, is either blown over (like from a Category 5 hurricane), and/or instantly burned to a crisp.  I suppose it would look like the news footage shown on TV after the Mount St. Helens volcano exploded, with every single thing blown over and torched, except the area of destruction would be magnitudes larger than the effects of the volcano.

Outside of the zone of complete destruction, there is still devistation, as if a tornado ripped through, but when most people describe the effects of an atomic explosion they focus on what is vaporized.  This additional desctruction should go into your thoughts as well, and it extends for several more miles.

When an atomic bomb goes off it releases an emormous amount of radiation, so even if you avoid being vaporized, and even if you are outside the zone of destruction, the radiation may cause death in a much, much worse way.  Dying by radiation poisoning is more akin to dying in a chemical weapons attack.  In your mental picture, imagine neighborhood upon neighborhood within the suburban towns surrounding that big city, with every member of each family within the millions of homes there, each with severe radiation poisoning, each doomed -- some quickly, others over weeks or months.  Some weaker cases will just pass on genetic mutations to their future generations, as happened in Chernobyl.  Cases of leukemia will skyrocket.

Then, think about what will happen to our country itself when the dust settles.  In the first year of the explosion.  Two years afterwards.  Five years.  9/11's 3,000 dead will seem insignficant to the 3,000,000 people dead (or more) from the atomic blast.

Any talk of today's society being a "police state" will seem ridiculous by comparison to what we will be forced to become.  After all, we will be talking about the very existence of America, not just preventing terrorism.  If more bombs were to go off, the country itself will start to become uninhabitable from the radiation.  Today's silly debate about whether or not we should listen to terrorists making calls within the United States will cease to become an issue, as all communications will be closely monitored, without regard to the ACLU's complaints.

All of the current debate about whether we should prevent people from streaming over our borders unchecked will seem silly in comparison to the border security and military presence we will implement after the explosion.  After all, the most likely way the bomb was transported into the country was over the border to the North or the South.  We will not be so concerned with a "guest worker program" or protecting the rights of someone who illegally snuck into the country, when we are trying to prevent the extermination of our population.

Now to the last part of this excercise.

In your mind, restore the city back to the way it was before the big explosion.  Restore the neighborhoods, the houses, the familes, and the country itself.

Picture the candidates who are running for the Senate and the House in your district, the people you are sending to Washington, D.C. to be your protectors from this type of disaster.  (This is where a lot of people will just say "Aha! This is where is says vote Republican!" but I'm not doing that.)  I want to you focus on one candidate, and then the other.  Don't compare them, think of them separately.

For each candidate (separately) think about what they have actually talked about as it relates to something that would prevent the atom bomb from being detonated in that city.  Not comments about what they woudn't do, specifically things that they said they would do.

Also, think about things that person has said which you feel would make it more likely for that bomb to be detonated.

You should be asking yourself, how did the bomb get here?  Who did it?  How did we miss it?  What could we be doing to prevent all of those things from happening?

Think about these things in a serious, deliberate manner, as if the weight of the country rests upon your decision.  Because in reality, it does.

A look at Nancy Pelosi's voting record

This woman will become Speaker of the House if the Democrats take over, so her voting record and political philosophy are critical to understanding what we are getting this country into.  Most people don't understand just how powerful the position of Speaker of the House is.

That person is 3rd in the line of succession to President.  That one person has control over what comes up in the House for discussion and vote, so that one person is in control over every law that will be signed by the President -- or what doesn't go in front of the President.  For example, if she was the Speaker of the House, we would not have had the border fence.  Not a snowball's chance.

If the Democrats win, we all lose.  Period.

A look at Nancy Pelosi's voting record
November 3, 2006

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would bring to the office a level of left-wing liberalism that will be unprecedented. In the National Journal's 2005 ideological ratings, which were based on scores of votes, Mrs. Pelosi was ranked more liberal than 91 percent of her House colleagues on economic issues, 96 percent on social matters and 82 percent on foreign-policy issues. Here are her relative rankings (economic, social, foreign) for 2004 (93, 88, 81), 2003 (92, 89, 70), 2002 (88, 84, 90) and 2001 (94, 83, 93).

Until she received a 95 percent liberal rating in 2005 from the Americans for Democratic Action (the nation's pre-eminent liberal organization), Mrs. Pelosi had racked up five consecutive years (2000-04) of 100 percent ratings. Her lifetime ADA rating is 96 percent. Last year, the American Conservative Union gave her a 0 rating. Her lifetime ACU rating is 3 percent.

Typical for her 20-year House career, Mrs. Pelosi received a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year and a 0 rating from the National Right to Life Committee. A Roman Catholic who has repeatedly voted to uphold partial-birth abortion, who has voted against parental notification when minor children seek abortion and who has shown no concern for the rights of the innocent unborn, Mrs. Pelosi has consistently opposed the death penalty.

Over the years, Mrs. Pelosi has consistently voted against welfare reform, including the 1996 bill signed by President Clinton and its re-authorization. In 1998, she opposed a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer in the classroom. In 1999, she opposed allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property, including schools. She has voted against education IRAs. In 2003, she opposed a $10 million program for school vouchers in the District of Columbia. That same year she voted against the 10-year $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug bill because she preferred one that was twice as expensive. Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly voted for tax increases and opposed tax cuts, even the 2001 bill that doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, among other cuts.

As the United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for oil, Mrs. Pelosi has always opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In recent years, she has become protectionist -- leading the opposition in 2000 against then-President Clinton's successful effort to establish permanent normal trade relations with China. She also opposed giving Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush trade-promotion authority; and in 2005 she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. In 2004, she voted to end Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba. She voted to reduce funds for the B-2 intercontinental bomber, which performed superbly in the 1999 Kosovo War, in 2001 in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly opposed anti-missile defense, even as a nuclear-armed North Korea has tested ballistic missiles.

Kerry actually believes what he said; here's proof

Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest
Nov 2, 3:12 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) — During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.

After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities

Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, said Wednesday the historical document needed to be viewed in the era in which it was written but that it nonetheless raised a "bedrock question in a time of war when sacrifice should be shared by all Americans."

"These are the words 34 years ago of a 28-year-old veteran home from a war gone wrong, wondering who in America will bear the cost of battle and shoulder the responsibility of military service," Wade said.

Kerry filled out the candidate questionnaire at the request of Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, an anti-war group that decades later turned over its historical documents to university researchers.

AP obtained the document from someone who gathered it from archives during Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign against President Bush. Republicans in that election relentlessly assailed Kerry's role in the anti-war movement decades earlier.

Kerry and Bush renewed their rivalry again this week, with the president accusing Kerry of offending troops. Kerry said he botched the text of a joke and didn't mean to insult troops.

On Wednesday, Kerry canceled campaign appearance on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates and issued an apology.

Kerry Apologizes

John FrankenKerry just now decided that enough people thought he should apologize, so he finally did so.

Mind you, he really didn't want to apologize; if he felt sincerely about apologizing he would have immediately done it, instead of insisting incredulously that Bush should apologize to the troops.  (How wacky is that?!)

Hopefully this whole thing would remind people of how dangerous and foolish it would be to put Democrats back in charge, many of whom hate and ridicule the military.  Remember, it was John "Swift Boat" Kerry who said that U.S. troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi famillies in the middle of the night.

Full Story