Right Side Redux: 01/01/2006

Media Blitz in the Cannon Building

A flurry of members we saw today

All 4 Cylinders

That's all I can say. He is overwhelmingly on message and pulling no punches.

Live-blogging from Capitol Hill

Quick summary.

We had a gambit of House Members parade through the blogging ranks today. Couple of key points:

Talking points on energy are down pat. Everyone had an agenda to push.

Lobbying reform was the next hotest topic. Most everyone understood that the issues are intense. Some, like Dreier, are pushing major reforms. Others were more hesitant about the issue, feeling that it's an individual accountability issue.

Most people are expecting a litany of issues from the president... he has a real chance to prove them wrong in my estimation.

Here's a list of people blogging here:
Robert Bluey (Human Events Online)
Ian Schwartz (Expose the Left | aka The Political Teen)
Pat Cleary/David Kralik (NAM Blog)
Paul Searle (No End but Victory)
Tim Chapman (TownHall.com)
Chris Grisham (SoldiersPerspective.com)
David Freddoso (Evans and Novak)

Tim Chapman on the Forum

Tim Chapman is doing a great job live-blogging the forum here.

Congressman Dreier on Reform

Congressman Dreier on Reform

MP3 File

Anti-war = Isolationist

I love the first read of the speech. Turning the anti-war stance into an isolationist view is fantastic! Here's a quick excerpt:

In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting - yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people... the only way to secure the peace … the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership - so the United States of America will continue to lead

Either way, I'll be here blogging live from Capitol Hill!

Updated Roll Call Here

Robert Bluey (Human Events Online)
Ian Schwartz (Expose the Left | aka The Political Teen)
Pat Cleary/David Kralik (NAM Blog)
Paul Searle (No End but Victory)
Tim Chapman (TownHall.com)
Chris Grisham (SoldiersPerspective.com)
David Freddoso (Evans and Novak)

More Reps

Rep. Pence

Rep. Campbell

Rep. Chris Smith

The Parade Begins

Here are the first two representatives with different takes on the Exxon-Mobile stuff. It just shows you the breadth of issues and positions within the Republican party. First, Congresswoman Capito

Something to look closer at:

MP3 File

Shimkus on Exxon-Mobile profits. Not such a bad thing.

MP3 File

360° view of the Blog Row

Room 334 Cannon building. Hearing room for the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Arrived!

I am here on Capitol Hill. Well, actually, I'm in the Cannon House Office building in the hearing room of the Veterans Affirs Committee.

Here's a money shot of the Capitol with some great sunlight that I took:

Here are some signs displayed out some congressman's office. Let's see Republican or Democrat?

Here is the room where we will be blogging (from the seats of the congress members).

Blogging from Capitol Hill

Once again into the breach!

Look here throughout the day. Likely fellow bloggers:

www.redstate.org, www.hotline.nationaljournal.com, http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/ , http://soapbox.townhall.com/ , http://michellemalkin.com/ , http://blog.nam.org , www.noendbutvictory.com , www.soldiersperspective.us, http://www.nationalreview.com/beltway/beltwaybuzz.asp, www.rightsideredux.com www.thepoliticalteen.net ; http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle.php; www.bet.com

Everyone admits the obvious

Here's Kathyn Lopez on NRO at 5:09 PM today:

SENATOR REID VOTED FOR CLOTURE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
( before he voted against it!) link

Here's Daily Kos poster sbwoodside at 6:32 PM (EST):

They voted FOR alito before they voted AGAINST him
Let's make a list and start sharpening our sticks.
--simon
link

NOTICE: 1/31 1:30PM - I am now live blogging from the Capitol

Rush on the Onion Deficit

If Alito is so bad, why won't the Democrats filibuster?

MP3 File

Frey Controversy - Par for the Course for Oprah's Books?

Interesting side note on the whole Frey/Oprah controversy.. Last year Oprah reviewed a book by "life coach" and "O Mag" columnist Martha Beck, entitled "Leaving the Saints". She also had Beck on her TV show to promote the book.

Beck is the daughter of the late Mormon scholar, Hugh Nibley, renown for his Egyptian research and his staunch defense of the Mormon faith. Beck claims that through recovered memories she recalls being raped by her father repeatedly. The family says the claims are scurrilous. Even the liberal leaning Mormon muckraking rag Sunstone took issue with the book, which is full of supposed family dirty laundry. The book is also full of inconsistencies. Here's a quick one as an example.

One of the most glaring internal inconsistencies something any good editor should have caught is the account of her visit to the second therapist she consulted for help. She starts out with one of her many pseudonyms: "Let's call her [the therapist] Rachel Grant" (234). One paragraph later, Martha is sitting in the waiting room having second thoughts and letting her mind wander: "I wondered if Dr. Grant was descended from former Mormon president Heber J. Grant."

She then shares an anecdote about one of her own ancestors accompanying President Grant's awful singing on numerous occasions. My eyes flicked back to the part where the author had just mentioned that the name "Grant" was fake. I wondered if maybe she had changed only her therapist's first name. Later research revealed that the therapist is in fact named Ruth Killpack (and is thanked openly in the acknowledgements for "Expecting Adam"). More than anything, this one self-evidently fictitious passage unsettled me about the way Martha chooses to narrate her life. I am left with the feeling that she never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

It turns out that Beck started writing the book "Leaving the Saints" as a novel with a male protagonist and then turned it into an autobiography, just like she did her previous book "Expecting Adam".

The Sunstone review concludes:

Martha's case against Mormonism is so exaggerated and shallow, the accuracy of her narrative style so suspect, and her use of hyperbole in such a devastating accusation so misplaced, that I believe she is doing the worst possible disservice to the painful issue of abuse.

Is this Oprah churning book club scandal just par for the course?

Bias in politics! Say it ain't so!

This is the front page item on MSNBC. Shocking. Truly shocking. I mean really, who knew there were biases in politics? Am I reading this right? I'm going to ignore this.

Scary People at Starbucks

Twenty-Five Years Ago Today

RedState has the pic: "

"

Duh!

I'm not sure what all the acronyms stand for, but again I say:

duh! Yeah, it was!

CNN grabs Beck

Glenn Beck and Family

MSNBC tried and failed to do anything with their conservative lineup. Scarborough Country is just too wishy washy, Dennis Miller was in the wrong timeslot, Savage was too Savage... but I think CNN might come away a winner here.

Arbitron ratings came out a few weeks ago and indicated that Glenn Beck's radio show moved up to the third most listened spot behind Rush and Hannity.

Glenn is conservative with a decent libertarian streak. His show is incredibly funny but also very honest about life and dealings.

CNN just closed a deal with Beck to have him give color commentary on news events on Headline News. I think this is a great win and I predict Beck will have his own timeslot and show by the end of the year.

CNN has a long way to go to catch the Fox evening lineup but I might just turn the channel to see Beck on CNN.

A Gay Easter?

This is just too much!

A Gay Easter?: "'On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families,' enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, 'there will be no going back,' Soulforce promised. "

All Politics is Local

Vote Tellers waiting for the ballots to count

All politics is local.

Some of you know that I've been involved with a number of political campaigns, managing the phone banks, parsing the data, helping on the finances, training on technology, and prepping the candidate. Over the weekend I had the chance to wear all these hats at the same time.

On Thursday night I got a phone call from a very close friend asking me how much it would cost to put up a website. I asked what for. She replied: "Lynn is thinking about running for the election."

My reaction was two-fold: 1) If I had to pick a list of candidates that I would want to represent me on any political level, Lynn would be right up there. And 2) The election was in 4 days and there was little chance that he would win.

Mind you I'm no Karl Rove, but neither am I a Bob Shrum. But this was gonna be tough. Senator Mims, representing the 33rd district in Northern Virginia was called to serve in the new governor's office. A special election was ordered for his replacement. Two prominent Republicans entered the race: Mick Staton and Randy Minchew. Then at the last minute I get the call from Lynn.

Lynn is a brilliant guy who hasn't a pretentious bone in his body. I've known his family for almost a decade. Lynn is also the equivalent of a Arch-Bishop in the Mormon church (known as a Stake President). So, I encouraged him on, dreams of a darkhorse winner taking the big prize floating through my mind.

After the third glossy from the Staton campaign in as many days I knew our chances were slim. Still, it was a special election held on a holiday (yesterday). But the weather looked to be good and the push polls and GOTV calls were in full force.

Staton ran a classic sifting campaign. Being the front runner he knew that turnout was key. I don't know the details of his campaign, but based on the efforts I received at my mailstop here's how it probably worked:

It worked like a charm. Turnout was expected at 1500 it topped 2700!

Needless to say, a big turnout was not good for our candidate. But we had a real grassroots ability that other candidates lacked. We made sure to avoid our church directory lists (very verboten in the Mormon church). But many of us have social and work relations outside of the church. We made good use of this and put together a decent calling campaign. By the end of the day we had called hundreds of people. We pressed all day Monday (since Lynn registered just on Saturday this was a difficult last-minute task - but enthralling nonetheless).

Here are the final results:

Staton	1539	56%
Minchew	837	30%
Chapman	345	13%
Smith	34	1%

"You made quite a showing!" - Opposing candidate

"Keep up the great turnout!" - Election official

"I hope we can count on your voters come general election. We need them!" - Election official

"You brought in that many people in 2 days?!" - Election official

I'm encouraging Lynn to run again (you can see the website I built here).

If you haven't had a chance to involve yourself in an election I highly recommend it. The best vantage point to observe democracy in in the trenches. And, again, all politics is local!

Van Halen's got nothing on this Jump

I love the mantra "power to the people" but this is taking it a bit far. Apparently, someone had an idea that if everyone on the Western hemisphere all jumped at the same time it would move the earth into a slightly new orbit and solve global warming and host of other issues plaguing the planet. See below below:

I'm not certain if this is a joke or not. The guy who owns the website (according the Internet registration records is Torsten Lauschmann who own this site (even more bizarre) and this site (don't know what to say?).

From this post it appears that it could be a hoax. This scientific fellow debunks it.

All hail Taranto! The conquering hero!

The following is taken from Opinion Journal. I clip it here for posterity's sake: a slam dunk point-by-point rebuttal of a liberal going haywire.

Roe v. Truth
With the Alito hearings in garbage time this morning, we suppose we were one of about six people still watching. But we did catch a moment we thought was worth highlighting, from the anti-Alito testimony of Kate Michelman, who had this to say about Alito's partial dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood:

When he ruled that a Pennsylvania law requiring women to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion was not, quote, an undue burden, there was no sense that a woman like me ever existed or even mattered.

Earlier, Michelman had told of her own brush with abortion regulation in the dark days before Roe v. Wade. She discovered she was pregnant after her husband left her, and decided to abort the child. She did not have to resort to coat alleys and back hangers, but the law did require the approval of a panel of physicians, who first subjected her to an intrusive interrogation. Nor was that the end of it:

I was awaiting the procedure when a nurse arrived to tell me that state law imposed yet another humiliating burden. The government required me to obtain my husband's consent. I was forced to leave the hospital, find where he was living, and ask him to give me his permission.

Michelman's linking this tale to Alito's opinion in Casey is highly misleading. The regulation that Alito voted to uphold did not require a husband's consent, only notification. Further, as we noted in November, as a practical matter it didn't even require notification. It mandated only that the wife sign a statement asserting that she had notified her husband--or, in the alternative, that she could not locate him. Unlike the regulation that actually applied in Michelman's case, this one would have imposed no burden whatever on her.
Michelman's assertion that Alito's opinion reflected "no sense that a woman like me ever existed or even mattered" is false as well. In fact, Alito expressly distinguished a situation such as Michelman's from that faced by a woman whose abortion was governed by the Pennsylvania law in question:

Taken together, Justice O'Connor's opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing "severe limitations," rather than simply inhibiting abortions " 'to some degree' " or inhibiting "some women." . . .

In this case, the plaintiffs . . . did not prove that this provision would impose an undue burden. Section 3209 does not create an "absolute obstacle" or give a husband "veto power."

Michelmanic mendacity is all too common on the "choice" side of the abortion debate. Consider this, from a Sunday New York Times editorial:

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal--which it appears he might well do.

Even with the weasel words "appears" and "might," this is a false statement. As we noted last week, the poll question was misleading. There is zero chance that Alito or any other Supreme Court justice will "vote to make abortion illegal." That is a decision for legislators, not judges.
The Harris poll pops up in another Times editorial today, and this time the paper gets the law right but misstates what the poll asked:

Judge Alito's assertions that he will keep an open mind on Roe are little comfort. With nearly 70 percent of Americans saying in a recent Harris poll that they would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote against constitutional protection for abortion rights, he was not likely to say at his hearings that he would do so. Few nominees would be so brave or foolhardy.

Of course, if public opinion were really so solidly in favor of legal abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade would be unproblematic for those who support it. After all, democratically elected legislators would not be so brave or foolhardy as to do away with a legal right that 70% of the people support. It's reasonable enough to say we need the Supreme Court to protect the rights of unpopular individuals from the will of the majority. It's preposterous to say we need the Supreme Court to insulate popular policies from the democratic process. All of which leads us to think that, although only a small minority of Americans believe that abortion is murder and should be always illegal, the American public is considerably less pro-abortion than the Times would have us believe.
A report in the San Francisco Chronicle shows what some "pro-choice" advocates think of the Constitution:

Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations--attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?"--have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.

Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.

"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Uh, maybe because the right to free speech actually is in the Constitution? Why should anyone respect fake constitutional rights if these people refuse to respect real ones?

Alito take it all!

A short video tribute to Alito's strong showing in the Judiciary committee (with a bit of satire throw in). Bandwidth problems? Try .mov. or of Google Video

Looks like we crashed the AudioBlog server :).

Here's the manual link (.mov)

LOL - Nothing more to say.

J-Deb points to an interesting old-meets-new-meets-old connection and I just had to laugh:The Corner

Abramoff Scandal - Details

Per FEC records here is the list of monies received by Republicans and Democrats by Abramoff:
source

UPDATE: To clarify, these donations include donations from Abramoff directly and from groups that he represented.

The federal trouble he is in seems more closely linked to the latter. Right or not, many of these sources are seen "tainted".

For example, John Thune received $2000 during the 2002 cycle from Abramoff and his wife directly while Democrat Bernie Thompson received $3000 from Indian tribes that Abramoff represented.

Let's be clear on three points:

1) This is, as Rich Lowry noted, a Republican scandal
2) But Democrats are still liable for the coming impact
3) Republicans are cleaning house... will the Dems follow?

Recipient

Democrat Republican