Update on Elian

It's almost a certainty that a six-year-old boy cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

I speak, of course, of Elian Gonzales, the then-six-year-old refugee whose mother gave up her life so that he could live in the United States. Almost certainly, it cost Al Gore enough votes in Florida's Cuban community to swing the state --- and the election--- to George W. Bush.

Of course, the Clintonistas --- including at least one attorney who had represented Clinton in the impeachment proceedings --- made sure that Elian was returned to the tender loving care of Fidel Castro, to become little more than an instrument of Castro's agitprop.

I turned past the story when I saw it on 60 Minutes on Sunday, but apparently, Duncan Currie had the stomach to watch the entirety of Bob Simon's report on Elian's life in Cuba since his return, and writes a brilliant article on it for The Weekly Standard.

Of the many crimes of the Clinton Administration, this was perhaps the most despicable.

More on Earnie Porta

I should have mentioned it earlier, but the Potomac News finally got around to running a story on the Title VII lawsuit against Earnie Porta. It appeared one week after allegations were first brought to the attention of the paper by Prince William County Republican Committee Vice Chairman Michael Wooten.

Porta offered the same non-denial denials offered in the blogosphere, apparently hoping that no one would notice that he changes the subject from a claim for hostile work environment and retaliation (upon which the plaintiff prevailed) and sexual harassment (which was not even brought or pursued).

Today, another story appears today, about Republican Delegates asking Porta to drop out of the race. Unfortunately, with typical Pot. News accuracy, it makes reference to a "sexual harassment lawsuit," and includes a photo of Democrats in a "spontaneous" protest at McQuigg's office, calling for more socialism. Whether they were union thugs brought in from Maryland was not reported. And little Ricky Coplen, County Democrat Chair, apparently doesn't know the difference between "character assassination" and "character identification."

I wouldn't expect Porta to drop out. Heck, when he gets his clock cleaned in November, I expect him to announce for the Democrat nomination for President!

Fascinating Exchange with Harry's Primary Campaign Manager

I've had the most fascinating exchange with Harry Parrish's campaign manager over the last two days. Fascinating. It seems to have been provoked by my temerity in using the "Hitlary" to refer to the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock, and then dare to point out the similarities between her socialist/totalitarian agenda and the National Socialists, as well as play on the similarities between her first name and der Fuhrer's last. The point of my little bon mot is, of course, that while there are many on the far Left who freely compare Republicans to Hitler and frequently invoke his name, it is their ideology/agenda which has far more in common with der Fuhrer than anything ever proposed by any Republican of whom I am aware (excepting, of course, so-called "moderates").

Anyway, here it is, in the order in which I received and responded. It is lengthy, but anyone desiring a window into the mind of a supporter of a tax increaser who claims to be a Conservative, and an individual who claimed that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention" (emphasis added), is invited to read, and be astounded.

At 01:17 AM 9/30/2005, you wrote:

I am responding to your remarks regarding "Hitlary" in the NLS blog because, unlike you, I really don't believe that the majority of the people who visit and participate in these blogs that are designed for intelligent discussion really want to be subjected to personal attacks and pissing matches, which seem to be your stock in trade. I will, however, be happy to respond publicly if you insist because, unlike you, I don't believe that I'd be the one who would come out looking like an idiot.

It amazes me how you, in your zeal to bluster your way out of a faux pas (equating Hillary to a fascist rather than a socialist), arrogantly try to rewrite history rather than admit you misspoke. I'm no fan of Hillary's...on the contrary, you'd be pretty close to the truth in describing her as a socialist...but what I found most interesting about your post was, in attempting to justify your position, you enumerate points which I found to be far more in tune with you and your fanatically extreme allies.

For instance, "Both embrace interposition of the State into the most intimate of family relationships." What, exactly, do you call a Constitutional Amendment which defines the nature of marriage??? My conservative credentials were first established, probably before you were born but most certainly before you were out of elementary school, when we fought the battle to wrest the Virginia Republican Party away from the Linwood Holton liberals and bring the conservative dems into the Republican Party (an effort led, in part, by Dick Obenshain, who was a friend, btw). I was a unit chairman of YAF (if you're too young to remember, that stands for Young Americans for Freedom) and a member of the conservative Virginia "Team." We conservatives, in those days, believed strongly in limiting government interference in the lives of the citizenry. We were also strong Constitutionalists and believed that amendments to that revered document should only be applied in the most extreme circumstances and never by imposing upon the personal and private lives of the individual (yes, we believed in individual and states' rights). We believed that government should balance its checkbook (tax cuts, yes, but only with commensurate cost cuts) and, at every opportunity, reduce the debt which we are passing on to future generations. Abortion, in those days, was an issue of states' rights and, for those of us opposed to the act itself, a condemnation of the use of our tax dollars to perform such an egregious act, but one that was, and is, of a very personal nature (God gave man...and woman...the right to choose right from wrong. Got'em kicked outta the Garden of Eden, afterall). I guess that's considered a "pro-choice" position nowadays, by right wing radicals. I'm still the same conservative that I have always been.

Today's so-called "conservative" (of which you are representative) believe that the Federal Government should impose it's will upon all people and all States in all things (marriage amendment, among other things); you believe that it is correct to take away the rights of the individual in the name of security (Patriot Acts, Homeland Security [interestingly enough, that is the English translation of the name of the NAZI secret police]); you believe in tax cuts regardless of spending cuts, on both the State and Federal level, the future be damned (I'm primarily referring to the Fed. tax cut); and our so-called conservative Republican Majority in both the Senate and House have shown themselves to be bigger porkers than the Dems ever were. Yeah, Dick Obenshain must be spinning in his grave to see what conservatism has become.

Now, you say "Both embrace the politics of resentment." Well, what do you think you and your fellows do constantly. I've seen this "if you're not 100% with me, you're against me" attitude displayed by you and the rest time after time over the past few years...never so blatantly as I did in the Primary Election in the 50th District. Your people (most of whom were from outside of our district) in the 50th utilized intimidation tactics including, but not limited to, threats, merely because somebody who happened to be a conservative had the nerve to support Harry Parrish. Not isolated incidents either. Lies, misrepresentations, intimidation...a daily occurrence throughout the campaign. I know that your motto is "the end justifies the means" but that's not very Christian, now is it?...and sounds a bit fascist to me.

In terms of rewriting history, you should perhaps go back to it and check out what happened to homosexuals under fascism. They, as were the mentally ill, socialists, and political opponents in general, were persecuted just the same way as were the Jewish people. THAT is the fact. You don't really think that Roehm was openly homosexual, do you? Besides...Hitler had him and his entire staff massacred in 1934 while they were in a staff meeting. Maybe he found out (sarcasm alert). Actually, the reasons were more complex than that, but perhaps you should look it up for yourself.

If there is anybody out there hatemongering in the political arena today, it's you and those of your ken. It is YOU, and others of your ilk, who want to impose your values (rather, lack of them) and beliefs upon all others, here and abroad. Who made you God?

Anke Cheney

Since I was traveling on Friday, and out of town all weekend, it took me until Monday at about 10 a.m., to respond:

Anke,
It is a truly entertaining experience to open my mail and find, in an e-mail seething with resentment, one full of "personal attacks and pissing matches," one which embraces them as a "stock in trade," one which dismisses my "allies" as "fanatically extreme," and one which states that I'll "come out looking like an idiot," the accusation that I am the one promoting the "politics of resentment."
If the length of your piece didn't demonstrate a rather significant expenditure of effort, I might simply dismiss it as slapstick. More's to pity that I cannot.
It's really too bad that you fail to recognize that constitutionalizing protection of marriage as it has been defined throughout history --- necessitated by the effort of a fringe element to change the meaning of a simple word --- is somehow an effort to "interpose[] the State in the most intimate of family relationship." It would be funny, if it didn't bespeak a woeful ignorance of exactly what is going on out there. Would I prefer to eschew cluttering up the Constitution with such an amendment? Certainly. Am I willing to stand idly by while life-tenured federal judges impose their values via "emanations," "penumbras," and other assorted shadowy excuses for legal reasoning? Not hardly.
What is interesting in this sense is your discussion of abortion. Your comments indicate that you and I agree that it is not a constitutional issue, though we might disagree if, upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Commonwealth should make it illegal. Your comments leave open whether your brand of "conservatism" means that you are satisfied to leave on the books a constitutional monstrosity which, in the words of one commentator, is "not constitutional law, and barely pretends to be."
And I am uncomfortable (and expressed that discomfort publicly) about the name "Homeland Security" and, indeed, the need for creation of yet another Cabinet post. Less so about the "PATRIOT Act," which at worst is a pale reflection of the restrictions upon civil liberties typical in war time (it doesn't compare to those in World War II, for example). Unfortunately, it seems that you have made the mistake of believing the caricature of the far Left as to its provisions and effect.
As for your discussion of marriage, "Conservative" doesn't mean quiescence in the face of assault upon values pre-dating our constitutional order, at least for me. That you seem to suggest that such efforts equate with Nazi genocide (of which I am well aware, BTW; Roehm was a notorious homosexual, not an "open" one, and the reasons for the "Night of the Long Knives" purge were political, not based upon his homosexuality) demonstrates just how radical you truly are. A commitment to "individual and states rights" an excuse for allowing perversion of the Constitution to validate perversion, and to provide additional protections for perverts. Adequate protections lie in the Fourth Amendment to allow them to practice their perversions behind closed doors; adequate provisions of contract law permit virtually all of the benefits that they seek. It is when what used to be the "love that dare not speak its name" becomes "the love that will not shut its mouth," demanding societal license and approval, that "Conservatives" must get off their lazy posteriors and act.
And the fact that your Conservative credentials pre-date mine is nothing more than a function of age. Sadly, your other comments belie the notion that with age comes wisdom.
Yes, I know what YAF is, or was, and was even a member for a time, after the last purge, if I recall correctly. And I founded a chapter of the Federalist Society, hosting and shepherding around Atlanta Clarence Thomas (don't know if I can call him "a friend," as if that has anything to do with anything), among others.
It is therefore odd that you would claim the "Conservative" mantle with regard to your support of a lawmaker who, so far as I know, has never embraced spending cuts, but is what Fred Barnes rightly calls a "Big Government conservative." But then, you seem to know so little about economics that you fail to recognize that, in the best supply-side tradition, the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush have increased Federal revenues, just as those signed by President Reagan did. Were it that they were accompanied by dismantling of the Liberal welfare state.
As for my faux pas, you may declare it as such as much as you like. But in doing so, you merely shed light on your woeful ignorance of political history and political ideologies.
Finally, as for the 50th District race, I didn't participate in it, save for a few Internet comments about the sleazy tactics of the campaign that you managed. "Lies"? Oh, Anke! You have demonstrated that the campaigns denials as to involvement in the charges against Steve Chapman were nothing but lies. To paraphrase Robert Duvall's character from "True Grit," I'd call that pretty bold talk from a demonstrated liar! You may dismiss Steve's supporters as you like, if it helps you sleep at night, but the fact that he won 45% of the vote in his first campaign demonstrates that Republican dissatisfaction with Harry runs deep. "Threats"? Please, be specific. I know of none, but, as I said, I didn't participate in the race, and I would love to know just what it is that you consider a "threat." "Threats" of criminal prosecution, perhaps? I'm sure it's just precious.
It is too bad that you confuse "articulate" and "well-informed" with "extreme." It is the type of name-calling that is most closely associated with the far Left. But it is, of course, easier than engaging in reasoned and well-informed debate, and is usually the tactic of those who lack the tools to do so.

Very truly yours,

About four hours later, I opened my mail to find this gem:

At 02:07 PM 10/3/2005, you wrote:

I hardly think that my email was "seething with resentment," as you say. Actually, you might say it is more seething with contempt for you and those who think like you do. I happen to believe that people of honor and integrity, regardless of their beliefs, can come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world, if allowed. I happen to believe in the spirit of open-mindedness and occasional compromise because, unlike you, I have NEVER believed that any one person can be 100% right about all things at all times. I, unlike you, believe in tolerance because, unlike you, I do not believe that I know God's mind and everyone else is going to go to Hell just because they don't believe like I do. I, unlike you, am ALWAYS ready to listen to another opinion and put myself in another's shoes because the one thing that I know for sure is that no person, myself included, is always right.

This is what scares me about what you and others have done to the conservative movement. You've taken the heart out of it...there's no room for those wonderful values such as honor, integrity, open-mindedness, and tolerance. In your world, people are either with you or they're against you...there's no room for compromise, or even disagreement. You toe the line or you are with "them." I saw this starting in the early '80's in Prince William County and kept it out of the conservative campaigns here until I "retired" from politics (a long story that I would happy to relate, if I were relating it to an open mind). You're really not interested in doing the right thing...you're only interested in the power to compel everyone to do everything your way. It's sad...and scary...

Anke Cheney

Well, an occupational hazard is an almost manic inability to require the last word, so I responded about 100 minutes later:

Anke,
Your arrogance is truly astounding. And here, I thought it was an occupational hazard in my profession. It's almost as astounding as your serial contradictions.
You confess that you are "seething with contempt for you and those who think like you do," making a distinction without a difference between contempt and resentment (which apparently arises from the fact that someone other than you sets the GOP agenda), and arrogantly presuming that you know how I "think."
Don't kid yourself: you've never troubled yourself to learn how I think, so please spare me your pretensions of omniscience (which sound strangely like an expression that you think you are God, but ... never mind). You profess that you "believe in the spirit of open-mindedness and occasional compromise," but them condemn me as someone who "believe[s] that any one person can be 100% right about all things at all times." Truth be told, I've never met anyone who can, and I've only ever heard of One. Neither have I ever met any one person who can be 100% wrong about all things at all times, though you seem to ascribe that characteristic to "[me] and those who think like [I] do."
The truth is the matter seems more to lie in the fact that -- while you protest belief that you "people of honor and integrity, regardless of their beliefs, can come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world, if allowed" -- you refuse to "come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world" with Conservatives like me. Disparaging the "honor and integrity" of myself is certainly easier than dealing with me, but those few who ever have challenged it have always found it to be a losing proposition. Indeed, too frequently in dealing with "people like you," I have found that "honor and integrity" are malleable. One example would be in the YRFV in the early Nineties, when an election was stolen by those who had to keep chartering material (which determined votes) secret to prevent the truth from coming out. Another would be Harry's campaign's protestations of non-involvement in the Chapman indictment.
If it makes you feel any better -- though I doubt your actual openmindedness, as compared to the principle to which you so desperately cling -- I "believe in tolerance," and distinguish it from "acceptance." I "do not believe that I know God's mind," and unlike those so quick to condemn devout Christians who happen to be Conservatives, don't caricature them as people who believe that "everyone else is going to go to Hell just because they don't believe like I do." And as people who have troubled themselves to know me -- the best man at my wedding, for instance, know that "I ... am ALWAYS ready to listen to another opinion," to debate an issue, and to alter my opinions when their bases become untenable. Perhaps you truly believe that you "know for sure is that no person, myself included, is always right," yet I know of no occasion when you have ever confessed error.
It's truly laughable, if not so tragic, that you seem so "scared" that people with whom you disagree are actually accomplishing Conservative goals. You apparently confuse the "heart ... of it" with the notion that one should accept anything. What that has to do with "honor" or "integrity" is a mystery, since those I know in the Conservative movement are among the most honorable, and demonstrate the most intellectual integrity, of any I have ever known. They don't make broad and uninformed accusations like "In your world, people are either with you or they're against you...there's no room for compromise, or even disagreement." Indeed, that is absurd; most frequently in politics in PWC, I have noticed that it is individuals who advocate less Conservative policy prescriptions who most frequently want to stifle debate, or avoid it entirely, probably because they lack the ability or basis for defending their ill-advised positions. You dismiss all those who don't happy to agree with you as having a "closed mind," and won't even relate the story of your retirement from politics because you imply that I lack an open mind. "[N]ot interested in doing the right thing"? Did you just happen to miss it when I was excoriated because I gave Democrat Lee Stoffregen credit for trying to keep a campaign promise, however ill-advised? Or when I defended Steve Keen for having the integrity to resign from the Republican Committee because he couldn't keep his word to support a Republican nominee in the ensuing election?
Your caricatures demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of the people you excoriate. But unlike you, I won't assume or ascribe to you the motive that "you're only interested in the power to compel everyone to do everything your way." But to borrow a phrase from you (in part), "It's sad." Not "scary," but certainly pathetic.

Very truly yours,

I guess insomnia set in, because this name-dropping missive was apparently sent while most of us were sleeping, in the best Internet tradition:

At 02:17 AM 10/4/2005, you wrote:

Jim, your last reply gave me pause for thought. You are certainly right about one thing...I guess I really don't know you. What I know about you is largely from what I have heard you say in Committee meetings and what I have read of your thoughts in the blogs. You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack rather than a debate. You're not always "right on" with your facts either. That aside, you also don't know me. Maybe we should try to sit down and talk...we might both find it valuable. Actually, it was your references to the YR split in several of your blog posts that I read tonight which makes me most interested in listening to your perspective of things. Also, that you say you are interested in bringing the Republicans together. That suggests a willingness to welcome other viewpoints into the Party rather than drive them away.

Perhaps I should tell you a little bit about myself. I did, in fact, found the Prince William County Young Republicans in 1975. I also founded and sponsored numerous Teenage Republican Clubs around the County in those years. We had, countywide, more than 500 YRs and TARs and could, with very little notice, field a MINIMUM of 50 workers at any given time. It was one of the top 10 stories of the Journal Messenger in their New Years edition of 1977. We were a strong State Federation in those days...and strongly Conservative. Our core group included the likes of Jade West, Ray Legeunes, Jim Gilmore and Kathy (Coe) Royce (Coombs), among others. Morton Blackwell was peripherally involved (he sometimes hosted our "retreats" and we worked with him). I was originally assigned, and succeeded, in taking over the 8th Congressional District for the Team in Virginia, wresting it away from a liberal, and ineffective, Alexandria YR Club. It was my YRs and TARs (18 before next election, of course) who provided the swing vote which took the Republican County Committee away from the likes of Annie Snyder and Gill LeKander, who were happy to keep the group only large enough to meet in a phone booth because they could then just take turns running things...and never get anyone elected. This was the beginning of the growth of the Republican Party in Prince William County. [I turned the YRs in PWC over to Megan Lott in '82 or '83...can't remember exactly when]

I was a member of the VA "Team" in those days. Super secret then...doesn't exist now. It died out about the time of that YR State Convention which created the split. You can thank Jay Timmons and his bunch for that, as well as the split. I heard about what they were planning too late to do anything about it, except go to the convention in the hopes that I could talk some sense into those boys (I had long been out of the YRs). Until then, the YRs had been a very powerful element of the RPV. No decisions were made without YR involvement and YRs were highly respected among Republicans statewide. That ended virtually overnight. I'll be happy to fill in the gaps if we should ever sit down and talk.

This is only a portion of my political resume. I "retired" from politics in 1985 (I actually started in CRs in 1969) and came out occasionally when something extreme was about to happen (I would get the "call" that someone was trying to pull the Party apart with slating, instruction, or some other divisive nonsense) and I would step in, do my thing and retire gracefully again. I became somewhat active again during the School Board elections in 1993 because my children were in school at the time and I was concerned about the school system. My solution was to elect myself a School Board. I helped recruit and I designed the campaign plans for 6 of the 8 candidates for School Board that year. Everything I did was behind the scenes, as was with some subsequent operations in the County in which I played a role. The only exception was Harry's campaign.

Harry Parrish is one of the few politicians who could ever have gotten me fully involved in a campaign at this stage of my life. I've lived in Prince William County almost my entire life and have known Harry Parrish for most of my adult life. I never met a more honorable or worthy man (with the exception of Dick Obenshain) in my entire life. I didn't (and don't) always agree with him, but nobody should always expect to agree with someone 100% of the time (my opinion, of course), so that doesn't make me think less of him. Steve Chapman, on the other hand, is quite a different story. The truth will out and a lot of those people who think he has been wronged will be sitting down to a banquet of crow. My original post on Bacon's Rebellion was a reaction to the quote from Steve of "trumped up charges"...this was a last straw for me. I'm going to make sure that the truth gets out. This is another issue that I would be happy to discuss with you at any time and at any length that you wish. I get the feeling that you really only know what you have read in the media about it or, perhaps, heard from the people who put him up to it in the first place. I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred.

If I have been wrong about you Jim, I'd be the first to admit it...but nothing that you have said previously (other than my not knowing you well personally) cause me to doubt my original opinion. That doesn't mean that I believe that I'm wrong. I hope that I am, actually. You were the one that started attacking me personally in the blogs so you shouldn't be surprised that I think badly of you at the moment.

Anke (maiden name Wiechmann) Cheney

One of my bad --- or maybe good --- habits is to decline to suffer the insults of those pretending like, or perhaps really so arrogant as to really believe that, they really care about me because they want to disabuse me of my erroneous ways. So I couldn't help but reply with this at about 2:10 this afternoon:

Anke,
Unless your getting a sense of guilt over the fact that you're practicing exactly what you claim to be condemning (and that's about all I know about you), I really am not sure what purpose that this is serving, since you keep throwing out these unsupported and unsupportable aspersions ("What I know about you is largely from what I have heard you say in Committee meetings and what I have read of your thoughts in the blogs. You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack rather than a debate. You're not always 'right on" with your facts either."), even ending on a personal attack, and an accusation.
You state that I was "the one that started attacking [you] personally in the blogs so [I] shouldn't be surprised that [you] think badly of [me] at the moment." It's no wonder you made your above-quoted comments, since you seem to believe that I attacked you personally.
What I said was that "shame -- like guilt -- is only appropriate for one's own actions. Therefore, I am not surprised that you feel ashamed." I did so in response to a post in which you: (1) stated that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention" (here's a news flash, Anke: "reporting them when they came to our attention" is "[some]thing to do with the charges against Chapman"!); and (2) engaged in a blunderbuss attack upon "Chapman and his dishonorable tactics and lies," without ever identifying them. I then noted that you confirmed what Harry had denied (the campaign's prior knowledge of the charges), and your later comments demonstrate that Harry was either oblivious or lying (neither of which is a credit to him).
Of course, in none of these do I "attacki[] [you] personally in the blogs." Methinks you doth protesteth too much.
And in fact, what you "know about" me seems rather more derived from what you've heard said about me in Committee meetings by those who oppose me, and what you have read said about me in the blogs.
And I'm the one who "tends toward a personal attack"?!?!?! Please! I defy you to identify one occasion where I ever engaged in a "personal attack" (as opposed to a political attack), or got my facts wrong (one those rare occasions when I have, I have promptly corrected them). Putting a moniker like "marty's oversized melon" on a website is a "personal attack." Dismissing an opposing opinion as wrongheaded or recognizing an ulterior motive driving an action is not.
And your conclusion that my "interest[] in bringing the Republicans together .... suggests a willingness to welcome other viewpoints into the Party rather than drive them away" is mistaken. I am not interesting a political party which is merely a vehicle for personal political power. I am interested in a political party which stands for and advocates a set of principles, and draws people to it by the power of those ideas. Yep, that's right. I'm from the "ideology first" wing of the party. A willingness "to debate an issue, and to alter my opinions when their bases become untenable" is hardly a willingness to "welcome other viewpoints," especially when those viewpoints are contrary to the fundamental principles of the GOP. Your suggestion otherwise suggests that you --- contrary to protestations --- don't actually hold there such fundamental principles exist.
As for your comments about YRs, Jade and Ray (LaJeunesse, BTW) are both friends; Ray is my boss, as the Foundation's Legal Director; Megan is a long-time friend. I don't know the others to whom you refer (Annie Snyder is a familiar name, though I never met her).
I came in after the split to which you refer, when the continuing effects (believe it or not, by '93, having kicked out HS students, the aliens had to bring them in to pad their vote) resulted in the formation of VYRs. I was the only candidate elected from the Conservative slate, when the Virginia Beach/Alexandria types pulled their candidate against me for First Vice Chairman. Alas, when I wouldn't betray my friends for the bone that had been thrown to me, I was cashiered a year later, in a meeting scheduled for the same day as the 11th District GOP Convention. Apparently, the aliens didn't understand what it was to have YR leaders who were actually involved, respected, and running things at the local level (my recollection is that, in '94, I was Rules Committee Chairman).
As for Harry, I don't begrudge you or anyone else for supporting him. In fact, I personally like Harry. He contributed to one of my campaigns for School Board, and my visit to his office was like a flashback to my childhood, as my grandfather was an oil distributor. That he's "honorable" or "worthy" may (or may have been) true. There are plenty of honorable and worthy people out there (George McGovern comes to mind) who I would never vote for, though, because their positions are wrong-headed.
What I do reject and condemn is the dishonesty of the campaign's denial that it was involved in the charges (whether those charges were true or not). Harry ran that campaign, or it was run on his behalf. Promoting the bringing of criminal charges was nothing less than a move of desperation, a desperation apparently well-justified, given Harry's ability to win only 55% of the GOP primary vote.. Nothing you have said here or elsewhere is anything but confirmation that Harry was either: (1) aware of and intimately involved in the smear campaign against Steve; (2) oblivious to what his own operatives were doing; or (3) initially oblivious to it but later endorsed it, because he didn't fire Kenny Klinge. None of those three possibilities reflect well on Harry. And given the resume that you put forth, and the people whom I respect with whom you have worked, it is disturbing that you would be a party to it.
You repeat the comment that "I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred."
Please do.
By all means.
I'm still waiting, and this is the second time that you have referred to, but not enumerated, them.
As I understand it, Steve's campaign was run primarily on the tax issue. It is a mystery to me as to what "intimidation" could have occurred (except, of course, the filing of criminal charges against Steve), and to my knowledge, the only "misrepresentations" which occurred was Harry's laughable or pitiable (I'm not sure which) suggestion to some that his vote had actually been for tax reductions.

Very truly yours,

However, our friend Anke just doesn't seem to get it, and then resorts to the very name-calling and attacks that she attributes to, and purports to condemn in, me. Therefore, she responded with this little love note at 5 this afternoon:

OK...'nuff said...you are indeed the jerk I thought you to be originally. So ends this string and the olive branch is withdrawn.

A. W. Cheney

Naturally, I couldn't allow Sister Anke to labor under the misconception that her serial insults constituted an "olive branch," so I responded with this:

Olive branch!?!?!?!

Let me count the ways:

"You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack...."
"You're not always 'right on" with your facts either..."
"nothing that you have said previously ... cause me to doubt my original opinion ..."
"You were the one that started attacking me personally in the blogs...."
"you shouldn't be surprised that I think badly of you at the moment...."

Lady (and I use the term generously), you have got one outrageously distorted view of what an "olive branch" is. Even ignoring your perpetual and serial insults, I've given you three opportunities to spill all of this supposed "dirt" that you claim to have on Steve ("I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred."), yet you've offered nothing but broad and unsupported slanders.
So I ask again: What is "the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which [you] had previously referred?
Your failure to answer heretofore seems to come down to the fact that Steve Chapman had the temerity to move into a district and challenge and nearly beat a politician who has been there so long that he's forgotten the values of the people who sent him there, for whom people are now voting out of mere habit, and who you happen to (for now, at least) respect and support.

It's indeed ironic that you call me a "jerk." You know from whence you speak.

Very truly yours,

So, there it is. Multiple opportunities to spill the dirt, and no facts; just slanders. I'll be sure to post anything else (that is, if anything else comes across after I post this) that Sister Anke sends, for your reading enjoyment.

Hilarious Post on RaisingKaine

It's nice to know that there are things that you can depend upon. The far Lefties over at Raising Kaine are all agog over Rahm Emmanuel's appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press. In it, he laid out a five-point agenda to address the "Republican Culture of Corruption," the latest buzzword to come out of the DNC's talking points memo.

I guess "sleaze factor" was just passe, and might have been confused with the Clinton Interregnum.

Wow! That's impressive! Democrats see (unproven) corruption in Republicans (proven corruption in a Democrat President is ignored) and offer .... more Socialism!

Boy, there's a fresh agenda.

More Evidence That TaxLovers are Democrats

It seems that retiring Delegate Jim Dillard (RINO-Fairfax) has endorsed Democrat Dave Marsden over Republican Michael Golden, over the tax issue.

Despicable.

UVA Junior Ignores Medical Realities

As I tell my son when they're sick, my degree is in law, not medicine.

But having observed twenty-five years of AIDS politics (I even remember its other acronym, GRID, for "Gay Related Immune Deficiency"), and having vivid memories of the effort to suggest that it would soon be a disease rampant among non-IV-drug-using heterosexuals, it's nevertheless amazing that there are still efforts to deny that, at least in the United States, it remains a disease primarily spread by people putting into their bodies (or parts of their bodies) things that don't belong there. It is more difficult for women in the United States, generally more healthy than their African counterparts, to get it, and it is almost impossible for a man without other "social diseases" to get it through heterosexual conduct.

Usually, medical professionals deal with facts. As a result, there is and remains a long-standing policy against accepting blood donations from men who have, since 1977, engaged in "sexual contact" with other men or another man. Other restrictions are imposed against those who: (1) have used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by a doctor; (2) have taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977; (3) have had sexual contact within the past 12 months with anyone who has done so; (4) had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months; or (5) have, in the last 12 months, been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail or prison for more than 72 hours.

Nevertheless, some genius and advocate for the radical homosexual agenda at the University of Virginia advocated last week removing this restriction, claiming that it is based upon "discriminatory concepts and outdated statistics."

Well, yeah. It is based upon the "discriminatory concept" which discriminates based upon behavior. 'Fact is, most of us "discriminate" every day. I don't choose to associate with alcoholics, racists, criminals, child abusers, those who are "hygiene-challenged," many Democrats, and other undesirable types. Some don't associate with smokers. Strangely, the author does not take up for the other categories of discriminatees listed above.

Of course, most of the piece is nonsense. Homosexual activity remains among the most frequent and effective means of transmitting the AIDS virus. But for the supporters of the radical homosexual agenda, concern over the "feelings" of those who "desire ... to someday be included in this affirming activity" is more important than insuring the safety of the blood supply.

As for me, I'm also old enough to remember Ryan White, who died of AIDS contracted from a transfusion with tainted blood.

An article like this really motivates one to want to go out and look for a candidate that would defund "The University."

The Conservative Firestorm Over Harriet Miers

Given the nature of the real job, I am reticent to comment upon Supreme Court nominees. While I doubt that anything I ever say here will have any kind of impact in any case that I might get to the Court (and I've filed more than a few cert. petitions; even had one granted), the possibility exists, and where the profession is concerned, discretion is truly the better part of valor.

That does not preclude me from commenting upon Conservative criticism of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. As noted by Norm at One Man's Trash, "Over at Sic Semper, both Old Zach and Lighthorse Harry are unleashing their fury at the President and the seeming inability of conservatives to stand up for principle these days." Neither does Chad or a number of commenters hold their fire at Commonwealth Conservative.

Let me first say that I have no inside knowledge of Miers. Never met her. Never heard her speak or saw her at a Federalist Society Convention (something which is or maybe should be de rigeuer for any Bush nominee). Never even saw her name, 'cept in news reports. Even Chief Justice John Roberts once appeared on the right side of briefing in a case that I litigated (that's a public record). So I really have no way of assessing her record. And there is some legitimate concern about whether the President inherited the Bush gene that causes squishing.

With that having been said, I wonder whether Conservative criticism --- not mere concern --- is justified. Perhaps Fred Barnes said it best last night, when he noted that, to believe the concerns on the right have merit, you have to believe that the President either picked a moderate, or truly doesn't know whether she is dependably Conservative, for the Supreme Court: (1) after filling the appellate court benches with rock-ribbed Conservatives; (2) after having fought for them and in some cases, renominated them; (3) after publicly noting that his model Supreme Court Justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; and (4) after having worked with this woman on a daily basis for more than a decade.

If a Justice Miers disappoints, then Conservative criticism should be withering, for all the good it will do when she has life tenure. But we simply don't know enough to know whether that will be the case, and --- on this issue at least --- this President has earned the trust of Conservatives.

Sorry, but I just don't think that this concern is well grounded. The President has heretofore demonstrated absolute commitment to reigning in the federal judiciary with Conservative appointees. While watchfulness and skepticism is always the rule where politicians are concerned, and Justice David Souter is precedent for suspicion of any nominee without a paper trail, this President's record on this issue demonstrates that he is worthy of some faith that his nominee will fulfill Conservative expectations.

Perhaps something will come out to cause me to change my mind on this. But thus far, I haven't seen it.

Hilda Goes Negative

Well, given her thus-far lackluster campaign, it's hardly surprising that Hilda Barg has gone negative against Jeff Frederick. Denizens of the blogosphere know that far Lefties have spent weeks trying to wrap the guilty-until-proven-innocent Tom DeLay around his neck, and now Hilda has gotten in on the act, too. And the Youngs were push-polled months ago, with lots of innuendo against the "shadowy" Council on National Policy (of which some of my best friends are members).

Today, on FX, I saw the first ad. It wasn't very good, with a lot of nonsense about "all that Hilda has done for the community." Oddly, it failed to mention sprawl and higher taxes. But then, it immediately segued into an attack ad against Frederick.

I guess that's perhaps one reason why you can't download and view it from her website.

Richard Cohen Gets It Right

When I was a columnist writing for the Potomac News, I had two standards I tried to meet with each column (aside from accuracy, which is a given). I tried for at least one belly laugh and one "Damn right!" in each column. The frequently kind comments of friends --- and opprobrium of enemies --- allowed me the vanity of thinking that I succeeded on more than a few occasions over the seven years that I wrote it. And just occasionally, someone from across the aisle, even someone I criticized on other occasions, would demonstrate the honor and dignity to quietly approach me and pay my the high honor of saying that I had been fair to them.

Successful columnists --- more successful than I --- will occasionally surprise you. Among the reasons I read the Washington Post (aside from the Sunday coupons) is the fact that among an almost-uniformly Leftist editorial page, one or two reliably Democrat columnists will sometimes get it right. The frequently wrong Richard Cohen is one of them.

In today's column, he takes up the cudgel for free speech. The subject? Well, it was really two-fold. First, he notes the hypocrisy of the far Left in Congress, embodied by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Second, he discussed the firestorm of criticism surrounding Bill Bennett's Thursday remarks on his talk show.

Pelosi has apparently cast aside the constitutional presumption of innocence regarding allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is, in the words of Pelosi, representative of the Republican "culture of corruption." Never mind that DeLay is indicted, not convicted, or that his persecutor ... er, prosecutor, has a history of political prosecutions against Republicans and his Democrat political enemies. Nope. Cohen notes Pelosi's strange failure to give DeLay the presumption of innocence. 'Course, events may demonstrate that the only thing that DeLay may be guilty of is being the most effective House Republican Leader in recent memory.

Cohen then turns to Bennett, who rejected the notion of opposing abortion on grounds of economic utility, and was accused of racism for referencing --- and rejecting as "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do" --- the notion that abortion could be supported for some because statistics can be used to demonstrate that black males commit a disproportionate share of crime. Cohen notes that it is Bennett who is owed an apology by his critics.

I don't know if I'd go that far. At least one serious Black woman that I know says that she was offended by Bennett's comments, and her opinion is not one that I take lightly. But Bennett's history as a champion of equality before the law and of fighting the pathologies that plague some of America's predominately Black communities (conceded by at least one who nevertheless criticizes him, Juan Williams) would seem to demonstrate that the critics of Bennett are opportunists and race hustlers of the worst sort.

In any case, Cohen's column is worth a read.

Adventures in Sycophancy

The boys and girls over at Too Conservative are fantasizing again about a Chairman Sean victory in the primary for Lieutenant Governor. Never has so much been said about someone who spent so much but accomplished so little of the Conservative agenda. Get over it, guys and girls.

NRA Endorsement for Virginia Attorney General

It seems that the National Rifle Association's political arm has endorsed Creigh Deeds in the race for Attorney General.

This may be the only race in which Democrats were smart. Deeds must by to the right of McDonnell on this issue. My dim recollection is that McDonnell may have supported one-gun-a-month, or has other foolish surrenders to the gun grabbers.

Hope it doesn't hurt him too much. However, I did support Steve Baril for the nomination, much to the consternation (well, OK: mild and good-natured rebuke) of many of my Conservative friends.

Democrats and Double Standards

When Jeane Kirkpatrick got the attention of President Ronald Reagan, it was through an essay entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards."

Perhaps some day I'll write a lengthy piece about Democrats and double standards.

One of the best right now is the whiplash caused by reading Democrats on 51st Delegate District Democrat nominee Earnie Porta, and Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Here's what Raising Kaine has got to say about Porta:

The bottom line here is that Earnie Porta - like all Americans — is innocent until proven guilty. And, in this case, it looks like he’s completely innocent of any wrongdoing. So why is Michele McQuigg, as Porta asks, “resorting to these types of despicable campaign smear tactics?” Fascinating.

But, of course, Earnie Porta was adjudicated "guilty." What about liable don't the boys and girls at Raising Kaine understand?

But then there's the case of Tom DeLay. Here's what Raising Kaine had to say about the presumption of innocence to which Tom DeLay is entitled:

[T]he question here in Virginia for Jerry W. Kilgore and his campaign team — led by Scott “Max Cleland is an Osama-Loving Traitor” Howell — is not WHETHER the DeLay/Frist/Bush daily scandals will hurt them but HOW BADLY.

Never mind the standard Democrat lie about Max Cleland (he was defeated because he elevated the interests of a Democrat interest group over national security concerns); nice double standard, boys and girls.

Isn't it interesting how Democrats stand by their adjudicated wrongdoers, while attacking Republicans for wrongdoing which just happens to be alleged by Democrats?

Roberts Confirmed

Sitting in a hotel room in Sacramento, I note that fellow Hoosier John Roberts has just been confirmed, as Chief Justice of the United States, by a vote of 78-22.

UPDATE: Not a single one of the despicable 22 --- all Democrats --- should ever be treated as a serious candidate for President of the United States. If any one of them is ever elected President, Republicans should guarantee opposition to his or her Supreme Court nominees

Not Quite "The Game," but....

Thanks to Old Zach at Sic Semper Tyrannis for bringing my attention to this great article on the impending "Fracas in Farmville" (actually, seven miles south) on Saturday.

I hadn't recalled that this was lopsided in our favor. Two years ago, this one was stolen from H-SC on a bad call on the last Bridgewater drive. H-SC was (wrongly, in my partisan opinion, but I saw the play, and it was a bizarre call) called for roughing the passer on 4th and ten with under two minutes; Bridgewater was able to score to take its first lead of the game, and there was inadequate time left for H-SC to score again. It was a high-scoring game.

If you're there, look for the new tan Montana on the Hill, just past Hampden House. The Youngs will be tailgating, with a traditional pitcher of Bloodies. Denizens of the blogosphere are welcome.

BTW, "The Game," for the unanointed, is the traditional last game of the regular season, between Hampden-Sydney and Randolph-Macon or, as we like to call it, "the coeducational experiment in Ashland."

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, the final score was 31-24, with Bridgewater coming out on top. I wish that I could say that it was otherwise. A great game, it cannot be said that this was one decided by the officials. It was, sadly for the Tigers, a game in which their opponent's performance was superior to theirs. If some solace can be taken over this loss, it is in the fact that it was decided by the efforts of the players, not by the mistakes of the officials. Congrats to Bridgewater.

Another Democrat Double-Standard

Well, it seems that the boys and girls over at Raising Kaine are rendering their defense of Earnie Porta.

I appreciate that they've posted Porta's very carefully-worded response. It quite effectively demonstrates that there's a "there" there, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

Please note that being "absolved ... of personal liability," doesn't mean that he was absolved of liability; judgment was entered against Porta, as one can discover by checking the opinion and the docket sheet. Moreover, it is my understanding that the trial transcript detailed Porta's actions in helping create and perpetuate the hostile work environment.

BTW, whatever happened to that old Democrat standard (utilized for the "October Surprise" investigation) that the mere seriousness of the allegation is enough? Were this woman's complaints not "serious"? Or does that standard only apply when the allegations are lodged against Republicans? Of course, here, it's not "allegations"; it's a judgment, vacated after an appeal was filed upon settlement. That's the record. And horn-dog Earnie can neither evade those facts nor those set forth in the trial transcript.

Day 5 ... and Counting

Yesterday, I posted about the judgment entered against Earnie Porta for sex discrimination in the workplace. I also asked why the Potomac News hasn't written about it yet, four days after being tipped off.

Well, it's another day (day five) and still no reporting by the Pot. News.

We're waiting.......

Another Question on Earnie Porta

Why hasn't the Potomac News done a story on this? According to one source, they've had the story since Friday last.

Shades of Luke West, i.e., giving aid and comfort to Democrats. Arnaud de Borchgrave once wrote a novel about such activities: The Spike.

Oh, but I forgot: Managing Editor Susan Svihlik was a "Goldwater Girl."

Just like Hitlary.

Developments on Earnie Porta (51st District Dem)

Well, Chad got it posted first, and Mitch posted early this morning but it seems that bubble has burst on the Earnie Porta run for the House of Delegates. The Democrats have chosen a positively Clintonista type as their nominee against Delegate Michele McQuigg in the 51st District.

After a five-year court battle, a jury awarded a former Georgetown employee $90,000 in compensatory damages and back pay and $1 million in punitive damages … when it found that her supervisor at Georgetown’s Office of Treasury Services sexually harassed her during her employment there.

Monica Estes was the university’s cash manager in the Division of Financial Affairs from 1993 to December 1996, when she was fired. According to a transcript of the trial proceedings, the jury found that Estes was “subjected to a sexually hostile work environment” and was “discharged in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.”

According to her lawyer, Debra Katz, Estes’s supervisor, Earnest Porta, maintained a “locker room environment” in the office and increased the harassment when Estes complained to university officials. Ultimately, Katz said, “a series of reasons were manufactured” to fire her.

Delegate, hell! It has not yet been confirmed that Porta will soon be announcing his run for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States.

UPDATE: Chad has waaaay too much time on his hands. Here's the link, courtesy of him, to the actual decision of the United States District Court for the District of the District of Columbia. It's a .pdf file, so don't even bother hitting the link unless you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Only in the Post

Far left "journalist" I.F. Stone once commented to the effect that the Washington Post is a great paper, because you never know on which page you'll find the Page One story.

Don't know if this falls into that category, but a story today discusses the soon-to-be elected head of "Change to Win," the group of unions that has broken with the AFL-CIO. In it, Thomas B. Edsall notes that "The AFL-CIO, under the leadership of George Meany, was tilting rightward, refusing to endorse Democratic presidential nominee George S. McGovern."

I had to laugh. Only in the Post would someone say, with an apparently straight face, that a refusal of a traditional Democrat ally to endorse a far Left nominee was "tilting rightward."

There's a huge difference between "tilting rightward" and tilting so far Left that you fall over and break your left wrist, dislocate your left shoulder, and suffer scrapes and bruises to the entire left side of your body.

Not that Tom Edsall can tell the difference.

Stealing a Page from Our Playbook

It seems that Rick Coplen and his buddies in the Prince William County Democrat Committee have stolen a twelve-year-old page from the Prince William County Young Republicans' playbook. Waldo mentions it over here.

Gotta say, I love Waldo's headline: "Dog Bites Man."

At least, when we did it (at a debate in 1993, against David Brickley) we were honest enough to give Dave a (low) passing grade on getting elected School Boards. The pass was because he did it. The fact that his grade was low was due to the fact that he should have been able to do it years earlier, more successfully, and without burdening the locality with a referendum to approve it as a member of the then-Democrat majority.

'Course, as to the substance, PW Democrats are out to lunch. As usual.

John Marshall Article in Washington Times

Yesterday was the 250th anniversary of the birth of the Great Chief Justice, John Marshall, and two of my favorite college professors had a nice tribute piece in the Washington Times.

Managed to beat George F. Will by a day, too.

Worth a read. David Marion taught the best course on Constitutional Law that I ever took. Including law school.

Nice Article Today on High School Classmate

It's always nice to see a friend succeed, and there's a very flattering article in the hometown newspaper on high school classmate Don Eckrod.

Kudos to Don and his colleagues, and thanks to classmate Kathleen Dunkelberger for bringing it to my attention.

Hilda Barg's Campaign Violates HOA Restrictions

Driving home last night, I noticed a "Hilda Barg for Delegate" sign on the lawn of one of my neighbors.

Don't know, and kinda doubt, that it's this guy.

Nevertheless, it's a clear violation of existing restrictions in that little piece of heaven known as Montclair.

I guess Hilda's minions have the same respect for rules that she does for the taxpayers' money.

Chairman Sean on the Warpath

I believe that this is an article from the Gainesville Times, forwarded to me on the Prince William Taxpayers' Alliance listserve. What's interesting is Chairman Sean's remark. It strikes me as a bold statement from a guy who tried to claim that he was a Conservative, after raising taxes on the average County taxpayer by about 50%, and after never requiring County 'crats to write a budget within existing revenue. Bitter much, Sean?

And one wonders whether the "fraud" is not a group which is headed by his former campaign manager. If Chairman Sean's definition of "what services ... citizens require" motivates the goals of AFP, then it is the "fraud." Most of the "services" to which Chairman Sean refers, and that he has refused to limit, are simply vote-buying welfare schemes.

New anti-tax group moves into county

By Tara Slate Donaldson
09/23/2005

There's a new anti-tax group in Prince William County and while it's still a small organization, its organizers are promising big efforts in the drive for tax relief.

Americans for Prosperity, a national organization, launched its Prince William branch earlier this month as part of its expansion into Virginia.

The organization seeks to bring fiscally responsible government to Virginia, said state director Rob Whitney, who stressed that the non-profit group is bipartisan.

"Just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you're not going to spend money," he said, pointing to state Senate Finance Chairman John Chichester (R-28th), who conservative Republicans blame for recent tax increases. "Party does not necessarily link you to a certain fiscal ideology."

The primary goal of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is to pass a Taxpayers Bill of Rights in Virginia. Such a law would require a voter approval for any tax increases. It would also limit the amount of revenue that the state government can spend each year and it would require voter approval for those limits to be increased.

Whitney said that such a bill had been introduced in Virginia before but had been voted down in the Senate Finance Committee. "Big shock," he added.

This year, he said, AFP plans to get identical bills introduced into both the House of Delegates and the state Senate. He said that Staunton Del. Chris Saxman (R-20th) is likely to carry the bill in the House. Saxman is the chairman of the state's Cost Cutting Caucus and an initial supporter of the Virginia branch of the AFP.

"There's never been a unified move in the legislature," Whitney said, explaining that the organized push for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights will likely meet with more success than the various contradictory bills usually introduced each year.

Whitney was joined in the Sept. 12 kickoff meeting by seven residents who stopped in to learn more about the new group. Several of those present are members of the county's existing anti-tax group, the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance. Bert Buscher, Gainesville District chairman for the Prince William County Republican Committee, pointed out that the two groups seem to duplicate each other's goals.

Rick Hendrix, chairman of the Taxpayers Alliance, was also at the meeting and he explained that the alliance is a PAC while the AFP is a nonprofit.

"AFP has more money," he joked.

He said it's important to have both organizations because there are many county residents who agree with anti-tax principals but, because of the rift between the Taxpayer Alliance and the county's mainstream Republican organization, won't join the alliance.

That point was underscored by Sean Connaughton (R), chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, who is constantly at odds with the Taxpayer Alliance.

Connaughton said he supports the AFP and may consider joining. In fact, he said, he encouraged his former campaign manager, Whitney, to take the job as state director for the group.

The difference between the two organizations, Connaughton said, is that "The Taxpayer Alliance is a fraud."

"It looks down the wrong end of the telescope," focusing only on the tax rate without regard to what services and infrastructure citizens require, he said, contrasting it with the AFP.

Americans for Prosperity, he said, wants to make sure "governments stay focused on delivering core services and that they do so without unduly increasing the tax burden."

Denny Daugherty of Gainesville, a member of the Prince William Taxpayer Alliance, said during the AFP meeting that the two groups have very similar goals but function on different levels.

The alliance, like its counterparts around the state, has a local focus while the AFP can reach voters and legislators on a statewide basis.

"What we haven't had in the past ... is a statewide organization," Daugherty said of the alliance. "We were effective in communicating with our local delegates but there were 95 other delegates."

The AFP is aiming to change all that. The group launched its Virginia chapter in the last days of August and followed up quickly by hosting small organizational meetings, like the one in Prince William, throughout the state. In addition to Prince William, groups are now being organized in Virginia Beach, Charlottesville, Harrisonburg and Roanoke.

For more information on Americans for Prosperity, or to join, visit http://www.americansforprosperity.org or call Whitney at (703) 969-9302

Roberts Gets Out of Committee

It's time (well, really, past time) to declare war on the far Left.

Soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee today by a 13-5 vote.

My old friend Leonard Leo, speaking to the three Democrats who broke partisan ranks, had a nice quotation: "We're supposed to think the Democrats are being magnanimous? Give me a break."

LG Debate

Chad Dotson has a good rundown on the debate between the respective candidates for Lieutenant Governor --- Republican Bill Bolling and Democrat Leslie Byrne --- here.

Give Leslie credit: she listens to her master's voice, and spouts the usual union lie ... er, line, on Right to Work laws.

Never mind the many other special privileges granted to union bosses, and the fact that far Left politicians (like her) "freeload" (to borrow a word) off of the involuntary monies exacted from employees and spent by union bosses.

Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave....

Jim Riley over at Too Conservative has a great takedown of the response of someone claiming to be former Harry Parrish primary campaign manager responding to the news that the indictment against Parrish primary opponent Steve Chapman has been dropped. The individual posts as AWCheney at both Bacon's Rebellion and Virginia 2005 Elections (Not Larry Sabato). Since there is an Anke Cheney active in PWC GOP politics, I cannot help but assume that this individual is posting under her own name, and is who she says she is.

Jim rightly notes that this response is positively Clintonian, and gives lie to Harry's pretense of ignorance when the charges were initially brought. Indeed, that response contains a great deal of nonsense that Jim doesn't address, but reflects the bitterness of so-called "moderates" who demonize any Conservative who dares to engage them on the battlefield of ideas.

One thing that Jim doesn't address is this comment "For the first time I, as a lifelong Republican and Conservative in the Commonwealth of Virginia, have felt ashamed to be a Republican or a Conservative!"

Now, I've been around for about 15 years in PWC politics, and I don't ever remember anyone confusing Anke Cheney for a Conservative.

But that having been said, I would suggest that shame -- like guilt -- is only appropriate for one's own actions. Therefore, I am not surprised that she feels ashamed. Given her affiliation with the Parrish primary campaign and its campaign of slander, she should go with the feeling.

Republican Women vs. Democrat Women

I've always said that our women are more attractive than their women. Neal Boortz has documentary evidence, demonstrating that I didn't say it just to curry favor with Mrs. Young.

Tip of the hat to Shaun Kenney, who found this before I did. No excuse, really; when I started this project, a link to Neal's website was the first thing I put on the blogroll.

Where Does He Go to Get His Reputation Back?

The title is a reference to a famous question asked by President Reagan's first Labor Secretary, Ray Donovan, after his acquittal on corruption charges.

It seems that the felony indictment against former GOP House of Delegates candidate Steve Chapman for voter fraud has been dropped, and trial on the remaining misdemeanor charge pushed back until 22 March, 2006.

I commented on the shamelessness of Delegate Harry Parrish and his campaign's links to these charges here. Note the carefully worded non-denial denial of Harry cited in today's Potomac News: "Parrish said at the time that the first he'd heard of his opponent's indictment was from reporters." Of course, that doesn't address the issue of the charges brought to Democrat Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert, and the fact that Parrish operative Kenny Klinge --- acting on behalf of the candidate, if not with his knowledge --- was behind them. Harry never answered the question as to whether Klinge was acting with his knowledge and approval. Since he was not fired, such knowledge and/or approval should be assumed.

One now wonders whether Harry's Dem opponent, Donald Shuemaker, will have the wit to point out the sleaziness of Harry's and/or his campaign's attacks upon his Republican rival. Voters won't have too long to wait, however, as there is a debate scheduled for tomorrow night before the Prince William Committee of 100.

How many others owe --- or perhaps will owe, depending upon the outcome of the minor charge still pending --- Steve Chapman an apology?

Hurricane Katrina -- Democrat Fundraising Device

Well, it seems that the Poodle is using Hurricane Katrina as a fundraising device. You can read the actual comments here.

Remember the 2002 controversy about President Bush and images from 9/11? If you don't, here's the CNN story. And here's what the Socialists ... er, Democrats, had to say about it. Here's three Socialist, ... er, Democrat relatives of victims of 9/11, otherwise known as the Jersey Chicks, expressing their outrage. Buzzflash called it "photo profiteering."

And here's what these "mainstream media" and far Left sites had to say about John Kerry's attempt to profiteer over the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina:

It seems that if you Google "Kerry" and "Katrina" on the Jersey Chicks' site, most of what you come up with is fawning articles by Nation editor Katrina vandenHeuvel over the candidacy of John Kerry for President. CNN has no mention of Kerry's fundraising appeal. Buzzflash is silent.

Socialist Texan Molly Ivins has an article entitled "Happy Media Accountability Day!" It's subject is "Project Censored," which "offers a list of the [10] stories the mainstream media missed," things like "Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government" [No. 1], or "Iraq Coverage" [No. 2: because far Lefties didn't like the way it was covered], "Distorted Election Coverage" [No. 3: same reason, because a far Lefty's study of exit poll data wasn't given credence over the actual vote totals in Ohio], "The Real Oil for Food Scam" [No. 6: AKA: "It's all a Vast, Right Wing Plot to discredit the UN"], and "Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood" [No. 7: those poor dears; being a busybody in a war zone carries dangers].

Add John Kerry's exploitation of tragedy, Molly. Or is the far Left demonstrating its hypocrisy yet again by giving one of their own a pass for behavior for which they savaged a Republican President?

Is "Blue in the Commonwealth" for Real?

Interesting. Just posted a comment over at Blue in Virginia (see link to the right), and it indicated that it had been posted three hours earlier.

Is this just an error? Or does it mean that "Blue," who represents himself as a high school kid in Richmond, is actually misrepresenting himself, and is actually something else, somewhere else (and in the Pacific time zone)?

Maybe it's nothing, but if this little anomaly indicates that he is misrepresenting himself, then this is yet another reason I despise anonymity.

UPDATE: Well, Blue finally visited (and is obviously doing so too infrequently), and saw my little post. He responded thus, which I am putting in the body of the post in the interest of fairness:

Yeah...i had it set on Pacific time by accident.

Good find, but I'm afraid you're wrong. I'm not a political operative pretending to be a student at James River High School in Midlothian. I actually AM a student at James River High School.

Wow...

More Evidence on the Decline of America

When I was a kid, I started reading the newspaper when I was about ten years old. My parent had divorced, and my grandparents let us live in their old home in Northumberland, Pennsylvania (they had just moved). My grandfather subscribed to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and didn't stop the subscription. I was the only one who read it in the house.

My own son is now nine years old, and it's stories like this one that make me glad that he's expressed no interest in reading our major local newspaper.

Potts' First Campaign Ad

Russ "Chamber" Potts is out with his first (and perhaps only) campaign ad, and I suspect that more people will see it through the blogosphere than on television. After all, he managed to get perhaps all of his voters in the commercial itself.

Most disturbing is Potts' claim, at the outset, to be an "independent Republican." Give it up, Rusty. This claim is despicable, in light of his rejection of the Republican nominee, and even the Republican nominating process, which he declined to enter, probably because he didn't have a prayer of winning it.

Whatever Potts is in this race --- liar; scalawag; traitor --- he's not a "Republican."

The Return of the Great Prevaricator

Bill Clinton is back in the news, and not just for raising money to aid victims of natural disasters.

Now, Slick Willie is breaking with tradition, and attacking his successor.

Yet another demonstration that the Great Prevaricator is all class.

The Problem With The New Pledge Ruling

As I've listened to the visceral screaming --- from all sides --- on yesterday's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, I can't help but be fascinated.

It's an interesting case, personally. I had a case in front of Judge Lawrence Karlton. Interesting fellow. Generally cordial, even though I knew he wasn't ideologically predisposed towards my position. Very demanding. Once made me feel sorry for an opposing counsel. Not easy to do when opposing counsel is a union lawyer.

But in reading his decision, it's also quite clear that --- all due respect (Judge Karlton once stopped me after saying this, noting that it was unnecessary and, besides, he knew I was next going to tell him why he was wrong) --- the court in Sacramento got this one wrong.

Without addressing the merits, the court suggested that it was bound by the Ninth Circuit's prior decision in the Newdow case. However, the Supreme Court had reversed Newdow, stating that he lacked "standing" to pursue his non-custodial daughter's claim. Under that circumstance, the panel's earlier decision became a legal nullity, authority for precisely nothing. The district court therefore clearly erred by treating it as controlling authority.

It will be interesting to see whether the Ninth Circuit reverses on this rather elementary ground, or addresses the merits. Having already improperly addressed the merits of Mr. Newdow's noxious argument without insuring that the proper forms were observed, it would seem imprudent for the Court to do so.

Time to Take Off the Gloves

Senator Orrin Hatch was the guest on C-SPAN this morning, and took quite a few calls.

One point that he made was that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both were confirmed by overwhelming margins (85+ votes). That they were Liberals was beyond question. However, Republicans recognized that they were well-qualified for the job, AND that Bill Clinton (Damn it!) had won the presidency, and was entitled to nominees of his ideological stripe.

Nevertheless, Democrats won't concede this fundamental principle, and give every indication that they are going to vote against Chief Justice-designate John Roberts because he refuses to pledge his support for Democrat litmus-tests on abortion, reverse discrimination, and other parts of the far-Left agenda that can't win at the ballot box, and therefore have to depend upon activist courts for their enactment.

Republicans Senators should really lay down the gauntlet on this one. George Bush won the presidency. Twice. The second time, with a majority of votes cast (something that Clinton never did; remember, when he made his appointments to the Supreme Court, he was a 43% President). If Judge Roberts is confirmed with fewer than 80 votes, Republican Senators should promise that any Democrat nominee who fails to satisfy GOP litmus tests will not receive ANY Republican support.

If Democrats can't support Roberts, then the GOP should promise to apply the same standards as Democrats. Democrat shamelessness should not provoke GOP appeasement.

A Real American Tragedy

It's truly tragic that one of the most beautiful and talented women in movies is such a screaming, anti-American airhead.

Here's the quotation, in which she attempts to talk about a substantive article:

"I totally agreed with it. I feel like we're really in trouble. I just had a baby and thought, 'I don't want to live there.' Bush's anti-environment, pro-war policies are a dis. . . ."

Interestingly, the author of the piece found it inappropriate:

Well, you can guess the rest. Her speech is deeply felt and not unintelligent, yet entirely predictable and ill-suited to these pages, where analysis of American domestic affairs is confined to the highly partisan manoeuvrings of Brad and Jennifer.

Hall of Famer for Governor?

Thanks to Chad over at Commonwealth Conservative, I was reminded today of wonderful news from the Old Sod --- the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania --- where former Pittsburgh Steeler and Hall-of-Fame receiver Lynn Swann is considering a run for Governor against incumbent Democrat Ed Rendell.

I'm one of those who believe (sorry, Chad) that football is now the quintessential American sport. One of my biggest thrills professionally was the opportunity to represent some of the Washington Redskins a few years back, even though I've never been particularly enthusiastic about the burgundy and gold. I grew up in Central Pennsylvania during the glory days of the Steelers' dynasty. Lynn Swann was an important part of that dynasty. Who can forget his four acrobatic catches against the Dallas Cowboys in one of the Steelers' four Super Bowl victories?

Well, it turns out that Swann is a Republican, and it appears, a conservative Republican at that. He was a staunch supporter of President Bush last year.

I heard something said about my home state some time ago, and it's a valid observation: "Pennsylvania has got Philadelphia on one end, and Pittsburgh on the other. In the middle is Alabama." It's a valid cultural and political observation, since only the margins in the two major cities (with the exception of a few pockets like Harrisburg and Scranton) put Pennsylvania in the "blue" column during the last two presidential elections. Indeed, if memory serves, the margin in Pennsylvania in 2004 was smaller than the margin in Ohio.

And as for central Pennsylvania, as I've frequently observed to my assistant, I grew up in an area that was so lily white that, to be a racist, you had to hate the "Polacks" [for the terminally humorless out there, this is the use of irony to make a point, and overstatement for emphasis] My high school did an almost all-white version of "The Wiz." It wasn't as though we discriminated in casting, as there was one black student in the production. She was the only black student at Shikellamy High School in the early Eighties.

Lynn Swann as gubernatorial candidate has a unique opportunity to dispel some racial myths and racist sentiments, demonstrating to even the most marginally thoughtful among those who harbor racial animus that we're all in the same boat together, and that the color of one's skin is not a legitimate or even useful basis for judging one's fellows.

One cannot help but wish him well.

Light Blogging

Apologies to readers (both of you) for the light blogging of the last few days. Was in Anchorage on a case, and then went to Hampden-Sydney for last weekend's Alumni Council meetings and to see the football team kick the snot out of Gettysburg College, 56-40. Sadly, couldn't root for the Lutherans on this occasion.

A Winner!

Thanks to Chad Dotson for declaring your Intrepid Correspondent this week's winner of his caption contest.

Given the quality of the competition, I am truly humbled. My current location makes me particularly fond of entry #67.

Site Change

Remember the whole Jim Bakker/Jessica Hahn scandal?

Lewis Grizzard, of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, suggested that the appropriate punishment would be to put him naked, hands tied, in a locked room with a pork chop tied around his neck.

And four pit bull bitches with extreme PMS.

I'd like to do the same with spammers.

Because of a number of spam comments, which I have deleated, I have been forced to add "word verification" to comments, making it (slightly) more difficult to comment here.

I apologize for the inconvenience, Gentle Reader.

Forrest Gump

At the risk of stepping on Chad Dotson's toes, I just caught the end of Forrest Gump on TNT, in one of its three-day marathons.

If you're not choked up by the poetry of this fine performance by Tom Hanks (with other great performances by Mykelti Williamson, Robin Wright Penn, and Sally Field, a breakthrough performance by Gary Sinise; and a very young Haley Joel Osment), you have no heart.

Who's to Blame for Problems with Katrina Recovery?

One problem with being in Alaska is that all of the Sunday talking heads shows are on waaaaay too early.

Apparently, the main theme today (other than the death of the Chief Justice) was playing the blame game on Hurricane Katrina. There have been plenty of complaints about the federal response, or lack thereof, or problems therewith, coming mainly from congressional Democrats, and the Democrat Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans. A lot of it seems to be gratuitous Bush-bashing.

Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday probably got it about right. While there are certainly elements of the Federal response after the disaster which are worthy of criticism, it would seem that blame the scope of the need for response can be squarely attributed to local authorities. Not enough resources to evacuate those who stayed? Thanks to Shaun Kenney for this link to 250 submerged New Orleans school buses.

Could someone explain to me how George W. Bush was responsible for moving them out of harm's way so that they could be used for evacuation? Can you imagine Rudy Guiliani whining like the Mayor of New Orleans?

It seems to me that the Federal role is, by its nature, limited. Moreover, it was the responsibility of local authorities to evacuate the residents before the storm hit, to the extent that it wasn't the responsibilities of those individuals themselves.

And it seems to me to be a mistake to make rescue and recovery a function of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS has enough responsibilities for anticipating, preventing, and recovery from intentional attacks upon the Nation. Making it responsible for similar activities in response to natural disasters strikes me as confusing its mission.

To his credit, I caught Mickey Kaus talking to Larry Kudlow, and Kaus did not join in the chorus. It's pretty bad when a denizen of the blogosphere is more reasonable than elected Democrat politicians.

Gas Prices

Alaska is always a fascinating place. I've had the privilege of litigating a number of cases here over the last ten or eleven years.

One thing has been consistent: gas prices have always been higher than at home in Virginia.

Driving around tonight, I noticed that gas prices were a dollar a gallon cheaper than they were this morning, when I drove to Reagan National Airport to catch my flight.

Imperfect, to be sure, but it certainly causes one to conclude that someone on the East Coast is gouging consumers.

Death of the Chief Justice

In Alaska, for an oral argument, and came back from dinner to learn that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has gone to his reward.

I'm reminded of the Justice (can't remember which one) who, when asked if he was going to retire, commented that he was appointed for life, and would serve out his term.

Conservatives have lost one of the stalwarts on a Court increasingly out of touch with the country, and sometimes, the Constitution.

I have a single, very fond memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist. When I was admitted to practice before the Court in 1992, he made it a point to personally welcome by name each of the three attorneys who had appeared in person to be sworn in. It was a nice touch, particularly since most attorneys admitted to Supreme Court practice will never hear their name uttered by a Supreme Court justice again.

RIP

On "Kristina"

Was listening to C-SPAN on the way into work today. Brian Lamb's guest was an old acquaintance of mine from Third Generation days, John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal.

Not surprisingly, the discussion was mainly on Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. At one point, the comment was made about the name of the storm, and how the Nation's Kristina vandenHeuvel was upset because her name was associated with such misery, and that she expected some "Right Winger" to make the association. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg did.

That's just not fair. It's only vandenHeuvel's socialist/Marxist agenda which is associated with unremitting misery of the kind being suffered in the Gulf Coast.

Senate Dems Soliciting Confirmation Questions

Thanks to the boys and/or girls over at NoVA Squishes ... er, Too Conservative (and spare me the protestations, guys; at least I've changed the moniker to recognize your extra-PWC character), here's a link to a Senate Democrat website that invites the reader to submit their own questions for Judge Roberts in his impending confirmation hearing.

I've submitted two already:

1. Do you believe that a President who commits a felony (e.g., perjury) in order to evade liability for his private actions is entitled to special privileges shielding him from liability?

2. Do you believe that former recruiters for the Ku Klux Klan possess any authority in constitutional interpretation?

Feel free to add your own questions below.

Pot. News Watch

Could someone please, PLEASE!, tell the Pot. News, that national elections are held in even years, not odd ones. Senator George Allen's re-election race is in 2006, not 2007.

In its lead editorial today (sorry, no link; they're slow over there), the Pot. News starts out by noting that:

Gov. Mark Warner confirmed this week what many political pundits had predicted. He will not challenge U.S. Sen. George Allen in 2007.

(emphasis added). Later, it makes the same mistake:

By not challenging Allen in 2007, Warner has taken the path of least resistance toward a challenge for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

(emphasis added).

Once might be a typo. Twice seems careless.

UPDATE: OK, the link is here. And apparently, my old friends at the Pot. News don't come here. The mistake remains.

An Appropriate Legislative Response to Katrina

The pictures coming out of the Gulf Coast are heartbreaking, and it appears to be a human disaster of proportions this nation has not seen in decades, if ever. One wonders whether New Orleans will ever --- or should ever --- be restored to its former glory.

As I recall, one legislative response to the infamy of 9/11 was permitting taxpayers to convert unused vacation into a one-time charitable donation, without complicated tax consequences.

I hope that some forward-thinking Members of Congress would quickly introduce and pass similar legislation to promote private magnanimity in the face of this disaster.

Washington Teachers Union Prosecution

Congrats to law school classmate James W. Cooper (Emory '89L) on his victory as part of the team prosecuting officials of the Washington Teachers Union for looting the union's treasury. The Washington Post story is here.

Perhaps its my built-in biases, but why is "the biggest public corruption prosecution in the District in recent years" on page two of the Metro Section?

I think it was I.F. Stone who once commented that what makes the Washington Post a great newspaper is the fact that you never know on what page you'll find the Page One story.