Coulter Tells It Like It Is

I really haven’t felt like weighing in on the Don Imus flap. Fortunately, Ann does it for me. (By the way, about a year ago she wrote a piece about the now-absolved Duke lacrosse players that remains a must-read for this important, oft-overlooked point:

Yes, of course no one “deserves” to die for a mistake. Or to be raped or falsely accused of rape for a mistake. I have always been unabashedly anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-false accusation — and I don’t care who knows about it! -But these statements would roll off the tongue more easily in a world that so much as tacitly acknowledged that all these messy turns of fate followed behavior that your mother could have told you was tacky.
Not very long ago, all the precursor behavior in these cases would have been recognized as vulgar — whether or not anyone ended up dead, raped or falsely accused of rape. But in a nation of people in constant terror of being perceived as “judgmental,” I’m not sure most people do recognize that anymore.
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that girls shouldn’t be bar-hopping alone or taking their clothes off in front of strangers, and that young men shouldn’t be hiring strippers. But we live in a world of Bill Clinton, Paris Hilton, Howard Stern, Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman,” Democratic fund-raisers at the Playboy Mansion and tax deductions for entertaining clients at strip clubs.
This is an age in which the expression “girls gone wild” is becoming a redundancy. So even as the bodies pile up, I don’t think the message about integrity is getting through.

Reporter Point-Counterpoint

Two opinions on the state Court race today. First, Senator Glenn Grothman weighs in:

The election for Supreme Court on Tuesday is one of the most important in years.

Governors serve for four years, state legislators for two or four, but Supreme Court justices serve for 10 years. As courts become more activist, they can do more harm to our business climate than government bureaucrats. They can order government to spend more money and drive up taxes.

Little old Wisconsin has attracted national interest in the Wall Street Journal for having one of the worst Supreme Courts in the nation.

I’ve known Judge Annette Ziegler for 10 years and am confident she will stand up for justice against the activist wing of the court. Her opponent is being supported by the same Madison trial attorneys who have created the current mess.

Please join me in voting for Annette Ziegler.

Why would Clifford continue the activist mess? Maybe it has something to do with
this story…or this one

And in this corner, we have Ted & Hedy Eischeid:

We have watched the current State Supreme Court race between Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler with some interest.

Such non-partisan races can be tough ones for voters trying to make the best choice. In addition, several interest groups are running ads for both candidates that simply make the choice more confusing.

However, there is one standard that decides who we will vote for and that is integrity. Judicial candidates can’t speak about how they will vote on future cases, but we as voters can look at their records and decide which of the candidates will be a fair judge who will decide cases with intelligence and integrity.

Given this perspective, we will be voting for Linda Clifford. Mrs. Clifford has an outstanding legal record, one of integrity and intelligence. Unfortunately, her opponent, Annette Ziegler, has clearly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct multiple times.

If Judge Ziegler can’t follow a simple ethical code expected of all judges, how can she fairly hear cases brought before the highest court in the state? We don’t care how much experience she has as a judge — flawed ethical behavior as a judge equals a flawed judge. Judge Ziegler’s version of integrity simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Based on this critical issue of integrity, we will be voting for Linda Clifford on April 3. For the State Supreme Court, integrity does matter. Vote for a breath of fresh air on Tuesday.


OK, class, what’s missing in this letter? Anyone? If your guess was “What ethical violations?” you’re correct!

For more information on the scandals of the race, check out
this article from Fact Check, which says that while “The investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission may clear that up, albeit after the election,” there’s currently “no evidence that the Zieglers got any financial benefit from her rulings.”

The Vindication of Mark Green

From the Associated Press:

A lawsuit over nearly $468,000 in campaign funds Republican Mark Green had wanted to use in his unsuccessful race against Gov. Jim Doyle was settled Friday.
Under the agreement reached with the state Elections Board, Green is prohibited from using the money for another run for office, but he can tap into it to pay for legal fees and make contributions to other candidates.-The case had been pending before the state Supreme Court.
Kevin Kennedy, executive director of the Elections Board, said the board and Green had “agreed to disagree about the law” but the settlement allows both sides to move on.
Green had put the money aside in a separate account while the case was pending. He is now working as an attorney in private practice in Green Bay.
The Elections Board ordered Green in August to get rid of the $468,000 in donations because the money came from out-of-state political action committees that had not registered in Wisconsin.
Under the settlement, both sides agreed that Green had complied with previous decisions by the Elections Board on similar issues, current interpretation of the law and instructions provided by the board’s staff. The settlement also says the board’s actions against Green were based on the panel’s interpretation of relevant state laws.



I suppose it’s nice that Green’s goodwill seems to have the last word, but the damage has been done. He was smeared in the minds of many Wisconsin voters, and how many are going to find out now that he really isn’t a crook?

Plame….Val Plame

I guess the Democrats aren’t satisfied with the likely imprisonment of Scooter Libby. Now we apparently have to milk this invented scandal for every bit of political expediency we can.

Valerie “007” Plame, wife of liberal hatchet-man Joe Wilson, testified before Congress today that she & her husband were victims of a White House smear campaign. Over at National Review’s Corner, they’ve been keeping track of the highlights. In particular, John Podhoretz notes:

“Valerie Plame Wilson has been testifying for an hour, and while it appears on a chart, the name of Richard Armitage — the actual person who actually leaked her identity to Robert Novak (and, a month earlier, to Bob Woodward) — has yet to be spoken. Scooter Libby’s name? Ten times.”

“Valerie Plame Wilson complained that Dick Cheney — the elected vice president of the United States — made an “unprecedented number of visits” to the CIA in the run-up to the Iraq war. She’s right. It’s shocking. Evidently, Cheney actually listened to the CIA.”

“This is what Valerie Plame Wilson just said about her husband’s trip: “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, I did not have the authority.” An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president’s office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out. She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn’t want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night. Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor. Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in. Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA. In other words, she didn’t recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by.”
Cliff May notes: “My friend the ex-CIA officer reminds me that, in addition to Valerie Plame’s new and very creative assertion that sending Joe Wilson to Niger was the idea of a guy who just happened to be strolling by her desk one day, there also is the fact that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that the Wilson was known to the CIA because Plame had recommended him for an earlier mission. See attached excerpt.”
———-
Impressive, huh?

Most importantly, take a look at this PDF file—it’s the testimony of Victoria Toensing, who, as one of the key players in drafting the final version of the law in question on “outing” “covert agents,” knows this as well as anybody.

No crime was committed. You’d never know it from the media’s ominous headlines. Or the Democrats’ hysteria. Or the White House’s cowardice.

The Party of Values

————–


—————
I hadn’t seen Mrs. Giuliani on the stump with her husband before now (has she done this anywhere else yet?), but, from this performance, I’d have to say the campaign might want to be more careful with how she frames her remarks.

Here, she starts off by saying, “I wanted to tell you all a little bit about how Rudy and I came to be our team together.” The problem with this is that we all know their relationship began as an affair, while he was still married — be it in a publicly “distant” (that’s how the press likes to put it) marriage. She then goes on to describe some of their early flirtations.
I don’t think I was the only one at this point thinking: Ick.
The former Ms. Nathan is, after all, describing the beginning of an affair that would lead to an ugly and painful divorce that still is affecting the former mayor’s relationship with his children.
————-

——–
The GOP should be so proud.

Hey Hackbarth! Am I a Bad Conservative?

———–
Ann Coulter, 3/14/2007

————–
Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush’s failed war policies.
—————-
To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats’ failed domestic policies — to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd’s longevity as a U.S. senator.)
————-
Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world’s most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation’s capital.
—————
Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.
————–
Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but — because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats — the maintenance crew can’t be fired.
————–
If the general “in charge” can’t fire the people not doing their jobs, I don’t know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.
————–
You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It’s almost like a cause-and-effect thing.
———
The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.
————–
In a typical story from the nation’s capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman’s sister that the ambulance was on its way.
———–
You read these stories every few months in Washington.
———-
New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.
———-
First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the “emergency medical technicians” had personal business in the area.
——-
Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the “emergency medical technicians” had completely missed his head injury and listed him as “drunk” and “low priority.”
—————
Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that “to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired.”
————–
No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation’s capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he’d be told: “I’ll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you’re fifth on my list. I’m not making any promises, just don’t flush for the next week.”
—————–
It’s especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let’s leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.
———-
On “ABC News” last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room — located between the residence and the Oval Office — “a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap.” During David Gregory’s stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.
————
Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it’s before 2:30 in the afternoon and he’s still at work and he hasn’t taken a “sick day,” a “vacation day,” a “personal day” or a “mental health day,” I predict the answer will be: “I’m on my break.”
————-
The Democrats’ response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.
———-
This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired — as Republicans wanted — or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable — as the Democrats wanted.
————
HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE’S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!
———–
Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.
———-
When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland’s vote on the Homeland Security bill.
———–
Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican — maybe Chambliss! — introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans’ hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.
———–
And don’t worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We’ll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.

"I’m a Clinton – Of Course I Know a Scandal When I See One!"

Hillary Clinton—that pillar of integrity—is warning America about the “widening scandal” of the US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration (yeah, that’s the same gal whose husband’s Attorney General canned a whopping 93 US Attorneys). So what’s the ex-First Lady’s idea of a scandal?

Routine, responsible administrating. Yawn.