Sunday stuff

If you can't get along with Sean Casey, you're not going to get along with anyone.

Said Casey, "I tried to be nice to the guy, but he was mean to me. I felt like putting a fence in front of my locker and putting up a sign that said, 'Keep that negative attitude on your side of the clubhouse.' "

The Political Teen has video of Howard Dean on Meet the Press this morning. Hard to watch but still pretty funny.
Here is the transcript if you can't stomach watching him. Near the end there was this exchange regarding avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders.

DR. DEAN: Well, a Democratic socialist--all right, we're talking about words here. And Bernie can call himself anything he wants. He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat that--he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and the money that gets involved. And he actually has, I think, some good points about campaign finance reform. The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time. And that is a candidate that we think...

MR. RUSSERT: So you'd support him?

DR. DEAN: We may very well end up supporting him. We need to work some things out because it's very important for us not to split the votes in some of the other offices as well.

So, did Dean just say that there is no difference between an avowed Socialist and Democrats? Might be most honest thing he has said.
National Review Online brings our attention to this article from Wendy Long in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It addresses the canard put forth by liberals that they're only filibustering "extremist" judges.

They claim it's because these judges, such as Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas and Justice Janice Rogers Brown of California, are "extreme."

If that were true, you can count on it: Left-wing interest groups and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee would be clamoring for a vote; they'd want Republicans on record as having supported such "extremists" in the next election cycle. Surely in 100 hours they could expose these judges as extremists, get the support of mainstream America, and send the Republicans packing.

Truth is, Democrats are hiding from a debate, and hiding from a vote, precisely because these highly qualified judges are the mainstream. They are intellectual stars on the courts where they now sit. They have the overwhelming bipartisan support of the citizens of their states, the American Bar Association, the bench and bar, and newspapers across the political spectrum. For example, even the Washington Post endorsed Judge Owen after President Bush nominated her to the Fifth Circuit, and the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Judge Brown in her latest California Supreme Court election.

If their contention is "extremists" shouldn't be on the federal bench, then how do the explain Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Read this and decide if she is mainstream?

Saving the best for last, I urge you to visit A Large Regular today. His post examines the war in Iraq from a different perspective and pays homage to the Marine Corps. Semper fi!