Real Politics

Gannongate? What Gannongate?

I've heard many liberals screaming recently that this is the liberal-victory-equivalent of Rathergate.  I concur; the "Jeff Gannon" scandal is completely overblown in my opinion.   It doesn't fit in a -gate class for the following reasons (or at least not yet):

• No false information was specifically broadcast, AFAIK.  Dan Rather tried to mislead the American people with the broadcast of libelous documents.  While it's obviously nice to have a bipartisan press core, that's not remotely possible.  And it's wrong to weed out the one conservative among a backdrop of hardcore liberals.
• The allegations of ownership of gay pornography websites and of "Gannon" (real name:  Jeff Gucker) hasn't be proven yet, again AFAIK.

Obviously, this is a developing scandal (albeit one which I think will amount to nothing); I'll keep close tabs on it.

Shocking Halftime

I'm indeed surprised to report there were no clothing gaffes (aka "wardrobe malfunctions") during tonight's halftime show.

I almost expected Paul McCartney to be pantsed!

Tee-hee!  Enough puerile comments for the night.

On The Democrats' Response

    Overall, I found Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's response after the speech to be simply whiny and long-winded.  It seemed as if they had nothing better to do than whine about how Bush "will send the country into hell"; which he won't just the same.  I wouldn't judge that it won any converts to the Democratic side, especially Pelosi's comments about the Iraq war, which were completely intended to null any affect that the voter-mother embrace moment had.

On Bush's Speech

    Several words could be used to describe President Bush's State of the Union speech last night.  I think that the most accurate ones are "focused," "heartfelt," and "surprising."
    Bush's speech was focused in several means.  For example, he elaborated on Social Security for five full minutes, and was heckled by the left upon mentioning that Social Security will go bankrupt eventually.  It's as if Ted Kennedy and his kin were in complete denial; I personally think that private accounts will serve as a good response to the pressing issues of earlier retirement and longer lives.  We need to respond early to this problem.
    Also, Bush concentrated on spreading freedom to other countries.  Although some view forcing countries into changing their governments as an evil of overseas expansion, I believe that modern day examples, such as Iraq, are quite different because unlike say, Cuba, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, we won't place restrictions but give the fledgling democracy constructive and formative guidance during its earlier years.  This is indeed an important distinction and frequently looked over by partisans firmly against the war in Iraq.
    "Heartfelt" describes the speech, but more in comparison to other State of the Unions that I've heard before.  President Bush truly, for lack of a better word, connected with the average American.  In order to propose any agenda, this is a necessary step, and I believe Bush completed it last night.  He seemed sincere and prepared.
    "Surprising" applies for several reasons.  First and foremost, that touching moment when the mother of the deceased soldier and a first-time Iraqi voter embraced.  A surprise, but indeed an important moment.  It invalidated many of the left's arguments that the Iraqis themselves despise the United States.  Also, I found it surprising that he didn't discuss the topics of healthcare and conservative social values more.  Mind you, I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative; I just expected him to talk more about social values than he did.
    Overall, a well-done speech that probably won many citizens to the President's side.

Voter Fraud in Wisconsin Did Take Place

Some commenters on several weblogs I've visited in the past few hours seem to deny that voter fraud in Wisconsin existed.  I've found proof, via Power Line:

Susan Tully, midwestern field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, became alarmed when she realized that the deputy registrar of voters in Racine, Wisconsin, was an illegal alien. To see whether her fears were justified, Tully sent two individuals from other states to Racine to register to vote.  Here is what happened:

I wanted them to specifically tell this person they were illegal aliens, but that they wanted to register to vote -- and she registered them both," she says.

There's more to be found, but I would think that this is enough fuel for the fire for now.

Hat tip to La Shawn Barber

Blogenlust Defends Camille Gage, Insults Me

blogenlust:  All You Have To Do Is Ask

Unfortunately, though, instead of using Gage's article as a starting block for a discussion on blogs and journalism, many conservative bloggers have turned to attacking Gage and impugning her credibility. Some examples are here, here, and here.  Hinderaker even went so far as to call Gage a "miscreant" and criticized her for not elaborating on who she contacted and what information she found in order to conclude that there wasn't any factual basis to the story.

Several points:

• Gage IS a miscreant.  Slander is inexcusable, especially in repeated instances; especially baseless remarks like those Ms. Gage made.
• Not naming your lesser-known sources IS suspicious.  It's two different things when a reporter draws information from "a senior White House official" and a columnist calls up "a few people."  If one doesn't name one's sources, one can make absolutely ridiculous statements.  That's the point of using sources in the first place; it gives your arguments credibility.
• It's hard to "start a conversation about blogs and journalism" when the person who begins the conversation is making slanderous remarks.  Ms. Gage's remarks aren't meant in the least to be constructive; they're meant to question the credibility of Power Line.
• Illegal voter registration is a problem, and an issue that's being employed by certain parties.  Many liberals are calling the right's moves to investigate suspicious voter registration "racist" or "discriminatory," which they're not in any way; they help to protect the rights of those who do have the right to vote.

That concludes my arguments against "blogenlust's" case.  Oh, and thank goodness for ref="nofollow;" this way, I don't boost blogenlusts's PageRank.

Reid and Pelosi Refuse to Join Kennedy In Calling For a Set Withdrawal

The Washington Times | Reid, Pelosi reject Kennedy's calls for set withdrawal

This by no means should be treated as a bipartisan move.  Reid wisely noted that history teaches us that setting timetables really does not help:

As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there. And it doesn't work well to do that...

One should not consider this to be a change of position on either's part, especially Ms. Pelosi.  To do so would be to succumb to the recent attention that Democrats have called to their moves to the right or center.  A sagacious remark like Mr. Reid's should be considered truly meant or significant only if it comes with no visible reward for the speaker's political party; although Mr. Reid may have spoken of his own volition, the remark was politically motivated.

Other thoughts:  Power Line