Powered by TypePad

« John Edwards, Deplorably Racist? | Main | Times - Limbaugh A "Victim", Like MoveOn »

September 29, 2007



Hillary: "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time..."

How about, I'd like to give everyone the opportunity to earn $5,000 they could put into an account that will grow over time...

Of course, that's a foreign concept. Almost unAmerican.


Give a $5,000 personal Social Security account to prime the pump.


They've earned the right to life. Why not the right, nay duty, to earn?


What happens to the grant if the child does not live to 18? Does the accumulated money go back into the pool or does someone inherit? Will the money truly be set aside, or will it be a faux account like Social Security? Will there be terms and conditions on accessing the accounts that limit what and where it can be spent? I see all kinds of unintended consequences with this program.


It's a ploy to get votes from her constituency. It will never happen.


Why stop at those here? Sin't this nativist? Make the campaign song "I'd like to buy the world some bonds".


How about a tax on, er, umm bloggers?

Hmm... that should separate the wheat from the chaff. The riff from the raff. Hekyll from Jekyll...

More seriously, I think the net to the country from bloggers is a minus. More harm than good. Sunstein's Republic.com and increased polarization plus Lipmmann's "bewildered herd".

Not good.

Despite all of the Stakhanovite efforts from TM.



I think it's a minus to the Dems and a plus to the Reps, SMG. Kos et al are driving the party off the cliff. More conservative bloggers spend more time undoing the MSM lies and providing an alternative voice to the CW shaped by the left.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Each child already gets $3,300 PER YEAR. It's called a personal exemption on the income tax return. For low income people, there's also the EITC.

Maybe Hillary wants people to not get the benefit in cash, but in a bond?

Btw, bonds aren't equities. Also, that 7% return to equities is a 'real' (inflation adjusted) return.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Each child already gets $3,300 PER YEAR. It's called a personal exemption on the income tax return. For low income people, there's also the EITC.

Maybe Hillary wants people to not get the benefit in cash, but in a bond?

Btw, bonds aren't equities. Also, that 7% return to equities is a 'real' (inflation adjusted) return.

His Excellency Gromulak, Overlord Chieftan of the R'Qqharbian Cess-Mutants.

I His Excellency Gromulak, Overlord Chieftan of the R'Qqharbian Cess-Mutants welcome this.


Your excellency--that is the best satire of the Columbia kerfuffle ever. I bow again to Iowahawk--


Nothing like keeping the floodgates of illegal immigration open even wider.

How long before Americans wake up and realize that Hillary wants to tax everyone into poverty so everyone is EQUAL together in poverty waiting for more government handouts?

Hillary thinks she can STEAL every hard working American's dollar to give to the lazy and keep herself in power.

When will people realize that more welfare programs create MORE poverty, and free incentives create MORE poverty?

No wonder she's dumbing down America, and the non-educated are voting for Hillary.

Next, she'll be taking away your home for the common good to give to those who need better shelter.


"How about the eligibility of children born out of wedlock - will the pro-family crowd want to offer $5,000 bonuses to illegitimate kids? And by the way, does anyone even say "illegitimate" anymore?"

Wow. Who have you been hanging out with lately Tom, Marie Antoinette? Your attitudes are starting to sound very "let them eat cake". No I think the pro-family crowd will want all the iilegitimate children to not get the $5,000 dollars and intead will want the little bastards to toil in servitude to help the little darling legitimate real children make their way. Just like they did in the good old days, you know the Middle Ages.


How about a tax on, er, umm bloggers?

Internet Tax Moratorium Bill Stalls
A U.S. Senate committee has postponed action on a bill that would extend an Internet tax moratorium after it expires Nov. 1.

There are disagreements in the Senate about how long the moratorium on access taxes and other taxes unique to the Internet should be extended. A group of senators, including Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, want the moratorium, in effect since 1998, made permanent.

Another group of senators, many of whom have opposed any extension of the moratorium in the past, have proposed a four-year extension. The Internet Tax Freedom Extension Act, sponsored by Senators Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat, Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and others, would extend the moratorium until late 2011.

Opponents of a permanent moratorium say a temporary extension keeps Internet service providers from attempting to sneak other services such as VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) into the tax ban. Some senators have also argued the tax ban hurts states' ability to raise revenue.

The moratorium prohibits state and local governments from creating new Internet-based taxes. Governments are not prohibited from imposing taxes that companies or customers face offline, such as property tax or sales tax.

More ...

His Excellency Gromulak, Overlord Chieftan of the R'Qqharbian Cess-Mutants.



This is tied to national or military service? Well, don't people signing up for the military get a sign up bonus in excess of the $5,000 now?

As for the children of illegals, I do not know, but according to the law they are citizens so I would not be surprised if they are included.

But I do not know the details of this plan.

It sounds like a 21st century version of the chicken in every pot promise.

I don't think it would be the illegals that would be the biggest problem, it would be the bad girls who have babies out of wedlock. Just kidding. Really, the idea that someone who can not see past next week would have a baby and raise it for 18 years so that the kid could get $5,000 seems a bit far fetched to me. I also think the idea that profamily people would want to punish children for the way they came into the world is an insult to the profamily people. That is like saying that as long as the babies are in the womb they must be protected, but once they get here they are on their own. I don't think people think that way.

I think the biggest problem with this idea is that it would cost a whole bunch of money.

"3. If this is such a great idea is there any particular reason not to include current one year olds? How about two year olds? Five? Fifteen? Where does one draw the line?"

I'm thinking 28. That takes care of my four.



I think it is a minus to the Democrats too, but I am not so sure it is a plus to the Republicans. A draw maybe.


Why so unambitious? Why only five grand? Such a pittance.

For college or a down payment on a home?

Why not five hundred grand?


Dear Presidential Candidate:

How do you explain to a voter that his child belongs to the last political identity group to be pandered to by Democrats?


There is no plan. This is all from a comment Hillary made in a campaign event - a trial balloon if you will.

Barry Dauphin

If the child dies before age 18, the accumulated monies go to the Chelsea Clinton for president campaign fund.


Patrick R. Sullivan- I consider that getting to keep some of our own money. Only people with an EIC actually are getting the $3,200 from the government.

Clinton's trial balloon was a pander, much like Gore's plan of the government matching savinds accounts up to $6,000/ year.
But yeah, I don't see how this works. How long would it be before the argument is made that someone that can't afford to feed her children can afford to wait to get access to her $5,000?



That is true, I have known people who got more money back at tax time than they paid.

Soylent Red

Erm...a couple of things strike me immediately.

Unless I am mistaken, bond rates are right around 8.25% for bonds over 10 years. A principle of $5000 for 18 years at this rate is roughly $22,000. That is hardly enough to send little Johnny to even a state college. Might cover junior or community college.

At any rate, whatever the intent, the effect is not necessarily a more educated population. What happens if little Johnny decides he doesn't want to go to college, but rather live in mom and dad's basement, drink beer, and pimp his ride?

$22,000 is a lot of beer and rims. What would the benevolent hand of gub-mint do to prevent this expression of little Johnny's personality and individualism? My guess is nothing. Thus little Johnny, self esteem and individual freedoms intact, will still be a mouth breathing knucklehead.

Sounds like another half baked line of Lefty BS to me. But that just could be because I'm not smart like Hillary.


Or...........I vote for half baked idea, Soylent.(HI!!!!!)

Soylent Red

What up Clarice? Tarantula migration season down here at the Fort...


Weather is finally lovely here, Soylent. My new Bengal kitten is so gorgeous..I am besotted. Charlie in Colorado warned me but I didn't listen.


Try this: At age 4, any child otherwise eliglble for the existing Federal "HEADSTART" program may, instead, put the same federal dollars (about the same $5000) toward a college fund.

Now, this does steal 4 interest-bearing years. On the other hand, it's money already being collected as taxes, and already being spent toward education. It's only a different idea and a different mechanism. Revenue neutral, value neutral. Switching from a "push" at the start of kid's eduation toward an incentive or "pull" as (and IF) the kid completes primary and secondary school to enter college.

May or may not work. But for the sake of killing the proven-to-be-ineffective HeadStart program, why not? Wouldn't it be nice to establish the principle that ineffective programs WILL be killed, and the money spent in other programs for similar aims?


Soylent --

You missed this

one condition: that he or she commits to at least one year of national or military service.

Em- FA- Sis on the national service, I suspect...more "union" government workers and diploheads tend to vote for Democrats...

But what gives? Howz come it's okay and a good idea for Hillary to invest money for my child but ***I*** can't invest my own Social Security while I wait? Hmmm? Remember, Hillary was the one high-fiving at the SOTUP for having killed Social Security reform.

richard mcenroe

Just wait until the subprime hustlers get into this hustle. Low-percentage advances on Junior's baby bond! After all, these children are minors, so mommy and daddy will be the legal conservators of their money, and that new widescreen looks so good...


When a grown-up Republican says No to the idea, there will be some voters who resent the fact that they were cheated out of $5000 for their poor kids.


Hillary may have "An Idea Whose Time May Not Be Coming" but here's an "An Idea Whose Time May Be Coming". If you are a soup fan like me, but don't always want to cook all the time, dump one of those cooked Asian frozen dinners, preferably with rice noodles, into hot chicken broth, add a little soy sauce maybe, and you have a great soup. I thought to give that a try today and it turned out great. Maybe I'm going to try it with all kinds of other frozen dinners- make them intoall soups.

Okay, not really a politcal post here, but I was excited about this and I did try to segway it in.


Last time I checked, nothing has been stopping Hillary from doing this for the past 40 years. If she wants to start a non-profit foundation that takes charitable money and pays out 5,000 upon proof of successful fornication, that's her business.

There isn't a single valid reason this has to be done by the government, unless its because she doesn't think people will willingly give the money and that it has to be taken by threat or use of force.

And I believe threats of force are by their nature tortorous to people.


Enough already with the Clintons. I'm so sick of both of them! Along with the clean sweep Russert should retire right along with them!


WaPo vs WaSJo, toe to toe, surveying each other, not in privacy, on privacy.


Is there really any difference between Hiliary's plan and Bush's plan for partial privatization of Social Security ?

Both take money from the public coffers and put it aside in private accounts outside of the public system. Both create the sense that there is a safety-net to the safety-net.

The movie might be new but it's the same soundtrack.

Besides, $5000 is almost .. well it ain't enough.

The cost of a college eduation is running about twice inflation, so if you had a child today .. what could you get for $2500 today ? Not much. The best schools are now running almost $50,000 a year now for the full package .. tuition, room, board, fees, books. A clid born today will need about $350,000 to $500,000 a year for the same.

Worse yet, colleges are a demand service, so as the market of college bound students show up with more money, the colleges will raise their prices to absorb it all, while serving the same number of students. That in a nutshell is why college costs aren't tax deductable. There is no point. It won't help anybody except the schools themselves.

We need better pandering. I'd suggest $50,000 as a start.


What the $20 and the pack of cigs Acorn offered last election did not procure enough votes? She is needing to up the bribe?


Cut out the middlemen--nationalize our colleges and universities. Why not, if it wokrs so well for health care?

Patrick R. Sullivan
Unless I am mistaken, bond rates are right around 8.25% for bonds over 10 years.

The coupon rate on 10 year Treasuries is 4.75%, but it sells at a premium, taking the yield down to about 4.6%.

The inflation adjusted 10 year treasury is currently yielding 2.27%.

You can get them here.


OT: WOW that was one heck of an interview with Clarence Thomas on 60 Minutes.


Dang, I missed it, Jane!


It was amazing. He spoke about his upbringing - his education, the fact that he had always succeeded but at Yale was considered inferior because he was black. He spoke about how he couldn't get a job and much to his dismay ended up working for Senator Danforth who was a republican - because he was not a liberal, but a radical. He voted for Reagan because he shared his work ethic, never wanted to be on the Supreme Court, and how he believes that the whole Anita Hill thing was arranged by Pro-abortion people because they feared he was anti-choice. He says to this day he has conflicted feelings about choice.

He still comes across as angry, but really compelling. I wanted to sit down and join the discussion after watching that.


There's a full report of it online but I could have saved time by reading your excellent synopsis.


I'd like to read that report. Where is it? I have to tell you what I loved about his interview was his defiance - and that is not quite the right word. He trusts and completely embraces his values, which I share for the most part, and he thinks the people who want to make him a whining victim are bullies. It really was a great interview.



Read the Kelo opinion and you are forced to respect him.



Thanks for your response last night. (Have been making tombstones all day for a Halloween Party. Thought of putting my favorites on them: Murtha, Shumer, Hillary but didn't :).

There are no role models for young girls today. Between Rosie,
Brittany, Lohan, Paris, Cindy Shewolf, Wendy Murphy :), Code Pink, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and of course, Hillary and I could so go on and on.

We need more Clarice Feldman's in our life!! I am sure everyone here would agree.

As you say, Smooches!


You are way too generous. Smooches anyway.


All most forgot. If you get a chance tomorrow, Thomas will be on Rush for 90 minutes. He commented that Cookie his translator cried during parts of it. He recorded it last week.


Um, Taranto already said everything that needs to be said:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 'baby bond,' from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home," the Associated Press reports. Mrs. Clinton drew applause from at least one lawmaker:
"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs [sic] Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their [sic] 18?"
Uhh, maybe so they won't owe $32,000 on the national debt?


I know alot of JOMers don't read Michelle Malkin, but you should visit her site and read how our soldiers are being treated in Oakland. Its hard to believe!


from Cathyf's quote

""I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs [sic] Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton."

Stubb's got Norman Hsu money eh?


Maybe that's their secret plan for funding it. Hsu is going to steal the money for it!

Appalled Moderate

This is just so self-evidently dumb that I find myself struck dumb. Evidently, Ms. Clinton simply does not understand the welfre reform law her husband signed into law.

Or maybe, this is just her idea to put everyone on the government dole so that nobody ever gets the idea of making hay by promising to reduce the size of government.

It's the domestic version of the Iraq invasion.

Appalled Moderate

Of course, the logical way to pay for this baby entitlement is to removed the deduction for dependents from the Internal Revenue Code. You just tell everyone you get your child rearin' money up front, courtesy of your friends at the government. It's fairer too! Only rich people pay taxes!


All kidding aside, focus on the word bond. And I'm sure that Clinton does not mean corporate bonds, she means the government variety. A government bond is a particular form of government debt -- the government debt that every child born is liable for.

This is like giving your kid $20 so that the kid can buy you a birthday present -- of course everyone understands that you are paying for your own present. The point about financing your own gift is that it's the thought that counts and your child is still doing the shopping and choosing, etc. This would be more like if the kid then gave you a $20 bill -- no card, no envelope, just the bill -- as the present.

If you really want to give every child born the equivalent of a $5000 bond, reduce the government deficit for the year by $5000 for every child born in that year. Something George Bush seems to already be accomplishing by all those "tax cuts".

Rick Ballard


My compliments on another fine piece.

Wrt to the topic, it may well be that Clinton's staffers think that offering money to babies is safer than allowing her to kiss them. There's always the possibility that, were she handed one, she might absentmindedly eat it. Much safer to just fling some OPM at the parents.


Thanks,Rick..And Cathyf makes the bright lights:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/bonds_for_babies.html>Bonds for Babes


Baby boomerang
October 1st, 2007 by donsurber

Voters are rejecting Hillary’s promise to give a $5,000 college scholarship to every baby born in the USA. The Rasmussen Poll reported 60% hate it, while 27% like it. That comes after she admitted that the nation cannot withdraw its the troops from Iraq by 2013. That was followed by her rollout of Hillarycare v2.0, aka, “We’re going to party like it’s 1994.”

Did someone pour water on her? Because I smell a meltdown.

Read the rest:



The proposal seems fimiliar-like it was from "The 2% Solution"-a plan to raise taxes by about 200 billion dollars to "fix everything". I'm coming up empty but I do remember that a proposal similiar to this floated sometime in 2004.

Also the national service requirements are more bunkdom-federal employee unions were pretty quick to kill off AmeriCORP (and anything that interferes with their jobs) and the educational entitlement alone from the GI Bill ($1200 paid in the first year of enlistment) is up to 39k+ and with the $600 buy-up this is pushed up an additional 5.4k [so on a 4 year enlistment paying $1800 in to the fund will return $1251 per month of full time education/excluding any service specific kickers/ for 36 months. This is an 8.9% per-month return on the education benefits alone]. A problem with fattening up the education benefits is that that is considered wrt Pell Grants and the like and with additional income hits the economic federal aid grants pretty hard [ie for income contingent grants the above example would add 12,500 in income for 10 months of school at full time to the yearly income total]. The problem [and this got me pretty hard in my first 2 years of school] is that enlisted personnel that leave the service to go to college really have to plan it well-at least a year in advance to fully capture every opportunity avaiable to them.

This doesn't even get into the SL forgivness and repayment programs that the military provides or the enlistment bonuses et al or the other benfits avaiable [VA home loan guarentee pops up in my head].


Clarice just got a mention by Rush...


*blush* thanks, clarice. Although of course now I think of a better analogy:

It's like committing identity theft to open a credit card with the ID-theft victim's name and social security number, and then using the new card to balance transfer $5000 of debt from the old credit card that you opened the last time you committed ID theft against this victim. Except that there are no fraud-protection laws saying that you are only liable for the first $50 of charges like with credit cards...


No kidding! I'm holding out for a free trip to Palm Beach for a joint appearance.LOL


Nah--Cathy--Math is sooo hard. I liked your first analogy better.


Oh and in good news-Oscar Wyatt pleads guilty. Since he's 83, the judge will probably lighten up the sentence, but I'll hope that Wyatt would shead some light on his connections to the Russian side of OFF and which US politicans he lubed with the surplus.


Sweetness & Light lists his political contributions. Usual suspects.


HAH -- thanks Rich, I've been following it closely



Voters Reject Clinton Baby Bond Proposal By 2-to-1 Margin

Clinton Nomination is Not Inevitable


This topic has gotten a little stale, so a review of the Kingdom is in order. First of
all, how did this film get made. It remarkably portrays the enemy that we face in Saudi Wahhabism; the wellspring of AQ. a series of coordinated, brutal attacks on an American housing compound eventually trigger the response of an FBI investigative team headed by Jamie Foxx. They are frustrated at every turn, as the Saudis almost to a man,
except for the Saudi police captain, al Ghazi treat them with an almost alien contempt; with the State Department rationalizing it all. Thy still manage to uncover the network of Abu Hamza, the bomb plotter and confront
them in a scene out of Black Hawk Down. There
are some minor glitches but it grabs from the
end and doesn't let you go. It suggests this
war will contimue for a long time with or without forces in Iraq


Ok, how's this one...

It's like coming home from college to find out that your crazy alcoholic spendthrift mother has opened a credit card using your name and social security number. When you confront her, she tells you that it's a "gift" and she has put $5000 in your account. Then you find out that she already stole your identity once before to open a credit card, which she had charged up stuff and it had a $27,000 balance, before she charged the $5,000 "gift" and so now it has a $33,000 balance.
Ah, but heck, I still think Taranto said it best of all!

Rick Ballard

"Clinton Nomination is Not Inevitable"

Never has been. I don't think that Tweedledum or Tweedledummer can knock her off but she's no more 'invincible' than Screamin' Dean was.


Hillary said it in front of a predominately black audience. Why ( other than Media Matters has not stirred the bedpan) isn't this a patently racist comment? Seriously as compared to what the Left is railing on about for Rush, this actual pandering and condenscending to level that should be rightly seen as racist in its assumption of ignorance and low expectations.

Will she get called on it for that? No way but thankfully its so obvious that there is nothing free about this "free lunch" that it will be given its rightfully burial.


On the invincible Molly Clinton, her negatives stand today at a whopping 46%. No one with those kind of numbers has ever been elected President. Don't let polls taken this far out influence you, the Republican always polls down this early. Its a built in bias with several explanations. Jay Cost did a write up on this in the 2004 election. I wish I had saved it, it was well written and informative, everything most polls are not.


The hill just got a little steeper for those of us still slogging. Cox and Forkum editorial cartoons:

With mixed emotions I announce: John and I will no longer be producing editorial cartoons...

Rick Ballard

From Chris Forkum's adieu:

"But at this point, anything seems more appealing than immersing myself in the sewer of daily politics."

The pols have all earned the level of disdain shown both in the general polls and by this announcement. The shabbiness of the political "War Room" and the attendant 24/7/365 efforts just aren't paying off in the way that the Clinton/McAuliffe machine had hoped.

It's really about time that someone went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.


Heh, Rick. Jay Cost taught me more about polling in a few short articles than I could have ever learned in the press. He is the greatest--well tied with Barone for the greatest. Barone is the guy who knows whassup in every damned electoral district in the country.


Republicans introduce resolution thanking Rush Limbuagh for his support and providing morale to the troops....


Love it that rush played Harry Reid on his show...punked


This is a volunteer military. Almost by definition an anti-war soldier is a phony soldier. It is a measure of the lack of insight the anti-war left has to think that anyone but a moonbat would think they had a point. Truly, they've become precious.


And, oddly, ironically, the most authentic soldiers also despise war.


Truly, they've become precious.

Haven't they though? Helpless to get any of their agenda accomplished the lefty bloggers are left with focusing on only phony scandals to get their leaders attention - and by proxy put Media Matters finally in the crosshairs of scrutiny and hopefully the IRS for their violations of the tax code.


Who says the Rep base isn't energized. The MoveOn ad has brought in a ton of $$ to their treasuries..and this will bring in even more..Eli Pariser and David Brock are geniuses--pass it on (on the qt) to your liberal friends..


Want some fun?

Stringscape in Physics Review.


Wow. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html>Rush is taking it to the senator.


I know Sue - it's great.

Suck on this Harry Reid --

Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has raised and donated millions of dollars to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides college scholarships to the children of Marines and veterans of other branches killed in action;

Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s website features an “Adopt a Soldier” program which provides them with free subscription access to his online program features;

What have you Harry Reid or MoveOn.Org done for the troops other than demean and degrade them?


If there were just one identified so singly as was McCarthy, then that career would collapse with the coming success in Iraq. But there is not. It is all of them. The effect will be diffused and MSM will smother it.


Isn't David Brock the guy who wrote an expose type book on Anita Hill and used to be with American Spectator?
If he's the same guy--what in the world happened?


Yes. He lied then and now--just on different sides.


Hi All long time, no blog! I'm always lurking tho...

This Rush fiasco is just disgusting. The main constant on Planet Leftard is a massive lack of reading and audio comprehension skills.

Coupled with the fact they have never been disciplined by an adult with a higher than 50 IQ, and this is what you get.

Brainless monkeys that just can't stop flinging their poo and jumping on the bed.


What about the assh--e Democrap from Iowa that just insinuated Rush may have been on drugs when he was talking about the troops???

Rush should demand a retraction. Just goes to show just how much scum is floating on the Dem surface.


Isn't David Brock the guy who wrote an expose type book on Anita Hill and used to be with American Spectator?
If he's the same guy--what in the world happened?

Media Matters happened. They gave him a million bucks to get on the Hillary bandwagon and he got on it with both feet.

Good to see you Enlightened!


Hi Jane!

Personally I sense a "disturbance" in the "force". Ever since the MorOn.org ad sliming Petraeus, there has been a shift. I just sense GOP'ers - and some in the middle -just getting fed up with this viciousness. The personal attacks on O'Reilly and Rush are bringing more people together than their intended aim - splitting them apart.

I think the GOP's best course is NOT Tit for Tat! Let these idiots blather on - the absolute lack of morals they exhibit is just an added bonus to their complete idiocy.

BTW - What about Cindy Sheehan? She claims her soldier son was against the war. Where's her proof? Her "Absolute Moral Authority"? The leftards thought they had some anti-war Gold when they jumped on her bandwagon. And she drove it right off a cliff.

I'll say it, and I ain't no Rush - she is a Phony Soldier by Proxy.


MoveOn.org and Liberal Liars vs. Rush

Someone tell me again about "ethics" . . .

Where are there any recognizable ethics in the Democrat Senate? Don't use Joe Lieberman as an example of Democrat ethics, since he is now an Independent.

Where are there any recognizable ethics in the Liberal MSM reporting of this latest outrage?


Thank you Clarice and Jane re David Brock--have been cleaning out some books and that one will definitely go into the bin.
Was listening to Rush today and he was eloquent in his put down of Reid.
The thing that boggles my mind is how "behind" congress is in so many areas. They're almost as bad as I am.


If anyone is interested, I have the video of Rush taking on Reid on his show.


Scroll to the update for today.

hit and run

Today, from Geraghty:

Expect a Lot of Economics Talk From Republicans This Week

I think this week will turn into Economics Week on the campaign trail.
All of this is leading to the next debate a week from tomorrow, held in Detroit, covered on CNBC, and focusing on economic and business issues.

Friday, from Hillary:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

I Question the Timing.

Rick Ballard

Lisa Schriffen (at The Corner) has a slight problem with Mrs. Giuliani III. The "albatross around his neck" remark is unlikely to get her a decent seat at the inauguration, should it come to pass.

Why is Miz Clinton being so coy about her fundraising totals? Couldn't she just put an asterisk next to the total with a "*may change depending upon how many contributors are finally indicted" note?


Heh, Rick--Her biggest fundraisers are in jail or on the lam.


Stupid Jane Hamsher had deemed herself decider and is calling for the troops to be deprived of Rush on Armed Forces radio-- what does she care what the Troops want to listen to and why is that woman always spit in the troops faces?


This weak they're trying to protect the "boys" overseas from talk radio, next week they'll be plotting how to keep their votes from being counted.



In answer to your question look no further than the first word of your post. Fully explanatory. Standard poodles and Hamster lady.

The comments to this entry are closed.