Texas Student Booted From School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt

There are a couple problems with this article "Texas Student Booted From School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt." First, the headline does not match the facts. The student was booted from school for wearing a political shirt period. Whether the child was supporting Edwards, Clinton, Giuliani or a conservative candidate was not the problem the issue was any shirt with a political theme is prohibited as potentially disruptive to the learning environment. The next problem is the article is it quotes the kid's dad demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension.

“It’s a First Amendment constitutional right that people have fought and died for and I don’t know why he should give it up just because Waxahachie thinks it would be okay or neat for him to do so,” Paul Palmer said.

Sorry, Mr. Palmer, but the First Amendment does not say what you imagine it does. For future reference, here is what it does say:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Huh, what do you know, nothing in the Constitution prohibiting schools from having dress codes.

Lastly, the article says the parents are considering a lawsuit, demonstrating that Ambulance Chasing John is definitely the candidate for them. I wonder if they are even aware of the irony.

Hillary Clinton: I'm not a lesbian

Breaking news!

During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine's news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, "How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you're a lesbian?"

"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say."

Well, I'm glad she cleared that important matter up. She should have refused to answer such a question. I'll go a step further and say someone who is of presidential stature would not even have agreed to an interview with a publication that caters to a tiny segment of the population based solely on sexual preference.

Is Giuliani one of the 5 best known Americans?

While in England this week, Rudy Giuliani made a fairly outrageous claim.

"I'm probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world," Giuliani told a small group of reporters at a posh London hotel as onlookers gathered in the lobby to gawk at actor Dustin Hoffman, who was on a separate visit.

Huh? Ask a thousand Europeans at random to name 10 Americans off the top of their heads and he would be named even five percent. Tom Cruise, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, George Bush, Oprah, Harrison Ford and dozens of others would come to mind before the former mayor would. I doubt he is even one the 5 best known Americans in America. Whether we like it or not, our entertainment obsessed population is much more aware of athletes, actors and musicians than politicians.

Americans with Disabilities Act - A bad idea may expand like your waistline

Last week I criticized the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as lousy feel good legislation that has grown to mandate many requirements not envisioned when initially passed. One aspect I did not address was the very definition of a disability. On the surface it seems like a simple thing. A disability should be fairly clear cut. Paralysis, blindness, deafness, loss of a limb, etc. However, when there is the possibility of growing government involvement in our lives we should always expect the worst. The ADA is no exception. The area of mental health has seen the greatest expansion of the ADA as anything from not paying attention (ADD) to being a drunk (alcoholism) can be classified as a disease rather than a personal failing. What brought this to mind today is comments from a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson called Wednesday for obese Americans to be brought under the protection of the Americans for Disabilities Act.

"This is an issue of basic civil rights," said Richardson. "There are no federal laws that protect obese Americans from discrimination in the workplace, school, or anywhere else. This must change."

Great. Just what we need - another protected class. What a nanny state clown.

NYT continues slide into irrelevancy

The stock of the New York Times (NYT) slipped to a ten year low yesterday as the share price follows their journalistic integrity's steep decline. The newspaper company is facing declining circulation and reduced advertising income for a couple reasons. First, in my opinion, no decent American would be caught carrying that rag and secondly businesses have to be leery of being associated with an organization so committed to working against our country. Here is the latest example. Several paragraphs into a New York Post article regarding Sen. Hillary Clinton's behavior during senate hearings, they note that the Times not only agreed to publish Moveon.org's disgusting attack against General Petraeus but they actually gave them a discount rate for the full page ad.

Meanwhile, the Times' own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.

To the tune of more than $116,000.

MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.

So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee - or to Hillary herself?

OUCH.

Hsu and other friends of Clinton

A story unfolded in the last week or two about a major Democrat fund raiser named Norman Hsu. Turns out Hsu was a fugitive from justice and appears to have gotten his money through an illegal ponzi scheme. While Hsu donated to many Democrat candidates, the bigger angle to the story is he was a big bundler for Sen. Clinton's campaign. Clinton has now returned the money raised by Hsu. However, the damage is not undone quite that easily. The Hsu issue matters primarily because it brings renewed focus on the fact that her husband was plagued by allegations of illegal foreign donations and other scandals. Yesterday, it came out that the Clinton campaign was warned about Hsu months ago. Despite the earlier warning, their initial response to reports of Hsu's criminal activity was this statement: "During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them." As a side note, while she wouldn't consider questioning the integrity of someone willing to fork over cash, she had no problem questioning the integrity of a four star general who gave testimony that the far left didn't like.

Another friend of the Clinton's is in the news. Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is advising the campaign on foreign policy. Yes, the same Sandy Berger caught stealing and destroying documents from the National Archives to ensure the 9/11 Commission wouldn't have a chance to review them.

It is impossible to read minds or to fully understand how someone else reached a decision, but I have to view Clinton getting within 100 yards of a discredited character like Berger as a sign of arrogance. You only make that move if you are so confident of winning that you think the fallout can't make a difference.

Fred is in the race (I guess)

Fred Thompson has joined the crowd running for the Republican presidential nomination. The title of this post includes an "I guess" because even though I was watching the Tonight Show to see his announcement I must have fallen asleep during the monologue. That is a problem with using a late night TV appearance to enter the race.

For those of you who joined me in sleeping through the announcement, The Corner at National Review Online has posted video clips of the show.

2nd GOP Debate

I watched more of the second debate than the first. As much as I'd like to pretend it was only because FOX handled the debate better than MSNBC, truth is it was as much a product of a weak slate of TV shows tonight.

I could say a bunch of stuff about the various candidates, but no one will remember much about this debate. The one thing that will be remembered about this debate is Rudy Giuliani won. He owes that perception to the lunacy uttered by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. If Paul hadn't said the stupid stuff he said then Giuliani wouldn't have had the chance to jump down his throat with both feet. Basically, Paul claimed 9/11 was America's fault and Giuliani rightfully got indignant and in not so many words told Paul to shut up and go home. I'm not a supporter of Giuliani on most issues, but his stomping on Paul like an offending insect clearly will be the only thing remembered from this debate.

First GOP Presidential Primary Debate

Eight months before the first state primary is held, the ten announced candidates for the Republican nomination for president will hold their first debate tonight. Don't bather watching. It is extremely unlikely that anything said tonight will be remembered more than a week from now. It is being held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. So you can expect each candidate to emphasize how some policy they espouse would be embraced by the 40th president. The one thing I'd love a candidate to do is to make mention of how their willingness to submit to questions from a stark raving lunatic lefty like Chris Matthews differs from how the Democrat candidates recoiled in fear at the thought of a debate moderated by Britt Hume.

Dick Cheney for president?

Here is an opinion piece discussing the idea of Vice President Dick Cheney running in the 2008 election. I like Cheney and think he would be a better president than the great majority of those currently running. However, this is a case where my opinion of the potential candidate really doesn't matter. This VP has been demonized to such an extent that I don't see him having any chance of being elected. Just one example of how Cheney has been treated is the fact that the only picture anyone has seen accompany any article involving Cheney is this one with him looking like he is snarling.



Beyond the fact that I don't think he would have much chance of winning there are a couple other reasons this is useless speculation. First, Cheney has stated very emphatically that he is not running. Secondly, he has had a series of medical problems and he would be better off stepping down from the public stage and just enjoy being a husband, a father and a grandfather.

Separately, the floating of this idea (much like people pushing Fred Thompson to run) is an indication of conservative dissatisfaction with the current choices.

Obsessing over the candidates families

There are many problems for the media in covering political campaigns which now stretch nearly 2 full years. A reporter can only examine the candidates navel so many times. That leads to going further and further to give background on the candidates and their families. The argument can be made that the family is fair game to a certain extent as they can exercise considerable influence or cause embarrassment for the potential future president. In that regard, I understand reporting on the continuing question of whether Sen. Clinton's brother received payment for facilitating a pardon for some crook when the senator's husband was president. However, there are limits to what should be considered germane to the campaign. I ignored it last week when the Washington Post dedicated barrels of ink to a story about Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather being a polygamist (which was old news anyways). Now, the Baltimore Sun has gone even further down Sen. Obama's family.

According to the research, one of Obama's great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 census in Nelson County, Ky. The same records show that one of Obama's great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.

When you have to go back more than two great-great . . . you lose any chance of the conduct being relevant. I'm not in Obama's camp, but vote for or against him based on his proposals for the future not based on what some distant relative did in the past.

The only good thing about this article is it provides an opportunity to mock the stupid idea of reparations.

Tom Vilsack drops out of 2008 presidential race

Before most people were even aware he was running, Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. This is somewhat surprising as I expected the recent in-fighting between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama would encourage second tier candidates to hang in longer.

Thursday's links and comments

A few more articles about 2008 presidential candidates and non-candidates that some people want to see run.

Hillarymania by William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley is a very smart guy with a great vocabulary, but read this paragraph and tell me whether he used the word traducing correctly.

But she not only married him, she stood by him athwart scandal after scandal. This is taken as fidelity of a singular sort, and it is exactly that. But does such fidelity imply a surrender to relativism? The adage is: I am for Harry through thick and thin. But being a faithful Mrs. Harry is a feat of personal durability not always admirable. If Bill had been caught traducing not Monica, but the local bank, would Hillary have been expected to stand by him?

That is one thing I like about his writing - it makes me reach for my dictionary.

Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times has a column titled "Why are black lawmakers already jumping on Clinton bandwagon?" My initial reaction to the title question was maybe they agree with her on certain issues or maybe they feel she has a better chance of winning and want to be on the winning side early. I was dismayed that the question would be asked in that manner. Is the author presupposing that black lawmakers should automatically support Obama? It will be interesting to watch how the dynamics of race and gender play out in the months leading up to Democratic primaries.

Maybe there is another reason for the early endorsement. From The Hotline we get this article "An Endorsement, And A Consulting Contract."

Yesterday, Jackson confirmed that he had decided to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton, less than six days after his public relations firm, Sunrise Enterprises, agreed to a contract with Clinton's campaign worth at least $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections - a total of $210,000.

A few days before that, Jackson was deep in negotiations with Steve Hildebrand, a senior strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's campaign. On the table was a contract worth in excess of $5K a month, beginning on 3/15/07. Separately, Obama was personally soliciitng Jackson's endorsement.(ed. sic)

"It's not about money," he said. "Quite honestly, I've turned done more money from some of the other candidates." Jackson said that when he told an official for another campaign about his Clinton endorsement, the official offered to "double" whatever Clinton offered him. Jackson told the official, whose name and campaign affiliation he declined to identify, that he was offended at the thought that his endorsement was bought.

Regardless of whether you are talking about politics or an athlete leaving Kansas City to play in New York, when they say "It's not about money," you know for sure it's about the money.


Mallory Factor writing in the The State states the case for Gov. Mark Sanford running for president.

McCain acts to soothe his online critics. Too little - too late.

From CNN: Schneider: Giuliani's got the 'Big Mo'

Jennifer Rubin of The American Spectator examines "Rudy's New Social Conservatism."

Rudy Guiliani - Presidential candidate

Rudy Giuliani announced the start of his campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination for president this week. Unlike most of the other declared Republican candidates, Giuliani has considerable executive experience. He served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and is more well known for his eight years as mayor of New York City. There are several articles this weekend regarding his candidacy.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's article titled "Rudy the uniter" is generally favorable and attempts to ameliorate Giuliani's more liberal positions.

Les Payne of News Day pens a very negative editorial, America should shun the authoritarian Giuliani, which is closer to what Giuliani should expect to see more of if he garners the nomination.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune writes of "Rudy Giuliani: Running against Hamlet." This article gives us a glimpse of what we will see a lot of in the next couple years - namely a rehashing of his past in a way where every success is accompanied by a "yeah, but." Here is one example:

His sterling performance after the attack overshadowed mistakes by his administration that complicated efforts to cope with it. The mayor had insisted, against much expert advice, on putting his emergency command center in the World Trade Center--the city's most obvious terrorist target. On Sept. 11, 2001, when it was most needed, the command center became a useless pile of rubble.

Here is another poking at his earlier accomplishments as U.S. Attorney:

As U.S. attorney in the 1980s, he had two Wall Street brokers arrested and handcuffed at their offices, for maximum public humiliation. But he later had to drop the charges against one of them, and the other pleaded guilty to only a single minor count. Several of the other convictions he got in his Wall Street campaign were thrown out on appeal.

Some conservatives are rushing to jump on the Rudy bandwagon out of a mistaken sense that he is only the candidate capable of beating Sen. Clinton in the general election in November 2008. I strongly disagree. These early assaults on his reputation and character will seem tame if he gets the nomination. I admire Giuliani post 9/11 performance and I have been to New York city enough to understand the how big an accomplishment he achieved in cleaning up that city in his eight years as mayor, but none of that will matter in the long run. He has several major hurdles to overcome. First, his well known liberal positions will lose him some votes of conservatives who won't bother voting at all if the Republican seems to have the same position as the Democrat candidate. Secondly, as mayor he stepped some toes to get things done and in doing so made he enemies with long memories. Most importantly, it is likely he will square of against the junior senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, who would be the first female to be nominated by a major political party. Sen. Clinton can count on the votes of some a percentage of women who voted for George Bush (and some who didn't vote at all in 2004) just because of the novelty factor. Giuliani's very public history of adultery and his ugly divorce will only add to the likely larger than normal gender gap.

No offense intended to the mayor and his supporters, but we have to be able to do better.

Duncan Hunter - Presidential candidate

One of the presidential candidates with low name recognition has received some notice lately. Duncan Hunter was favorably profiled in a couple of articles recently. I don't know if he will attract the financial backing necessary to be competitive, but from what I've seen of him, he warrants a second look.
USA Today article by William M. Welch
From Townhall.com we get the "Conservative Case for Duncan Hunter In 2008" by John Hawkins.

If you're looking for someone who can represent the conservative wing of the Republican Party in 2008, California Congressman Duncan Hunter fills that bill far better that any of the top contenders who have already gotten into the race. Here's a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that's the case.

I'm not endorsing any candidate this early in the process, but we could do a lot worse than Hunter (for example the current favorites).
Official campaign website: GOHUNTER08