According to Richard Adams, Hillary lost the nomination on Feb. 6. Here’s his reasoning behind his opinion:

We didn’t know it at the time, but February 6 was the day when there began a big blank gap on the Clinton campaign calendar. Because her team of battle-tested veterans failed to plan for much of anything after Super Tuesday. We now know that the Clinton campaign blew so much of its cash on the February 5 multi-state primary that it had little left in the tank for what was to follow, forcing the candidate to loan herself $5m and spend valuable time last night on television trying to raise more.

Mr. Adams makes several valid points, one being that they blew alot of their “cash on the February 5 multi-state primary.” I suspect that they initially thought that she’d wrap up the nomination that night.

I’d argue, however, that Hillary lost the nomination before the first ballot was cast. I’d submit that she lost the nomination at the debate debacle at Drexel. That’s the night Hillary went from inevitable to roadkill. Yes, she won primaries after that but those were more islands of hope in a turbulent sea than anything else. Here’s the Politico’s account of that fateful night:

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says. (continue reading post »)

Isn’t that a splendid headline? It’s the first thing that popped into my head after reading the headline to this AP article:

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps

Here’s what they’re talking about:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.

“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will go unremarked upon by the court,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national security project. “In our view, it shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits.”

The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping. A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.

The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

This is a major win for the intelligence community and a huge setback for the ACLU and their fellow litigants. The impact of Tuesday’s ruling is that there’s another legal precedent that says warrantless surveillance isn’t illegal. That’s the predictable outcome if you believe that the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches.

There’s a lesson to be applied to this year’s election. This lawsuit’s path through the judiciary shows the difference between activist judges and strict constructionist jurists. This all got started when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the NSA’s intercept program violated people’s First Amendment rights of all things. Once it got to the 6th Circuit, though, Diggs-Taylor’s ruling was toppled, setting up a potential hearing in the Supreme Court.

Anna Diggs-Taylor is a Carter-appointed judge with strong connections to the ACLU. For that reason alone, she should’ve recused herself from this case. Failing to do that, she should’ve been removed from this case.

Now that her ruling has been overturned and all their appeals options used, we can get back to surveilling terrorists and hopefully preventing future terrorist attacks.

Technorati Tags: ACLU, Anna Diggs-Taylor, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Activist Judges, Strict Constructionist, SCOTUS, NSA, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Ed Rollins is an old pro to GOP politics but he’s starting to sound a little incoherent. In this Washington Post article, he compared Huckabee hanging around to Reagan fighting Gerald Ford all the way to the convention:

Meanwhile, Huckabee’s campaign manager was gleefully proclaiming the possibility that the former governor could force an all-out fight at the Republican National Convention this summer. “It’d be great fun,” Ed Rollins said on CNN.

Rollins said in an interview that Huckabee is staying in the race out of an obligation to voters and because he believes in following the rules that have been laid out.

The veteran campaign strategist compared Huckabee’s long-shot bid to Ronald Reagan’s attempts to defeat incumbent Gerald R. Ford in 1976. Reagan lost that effort, but it paved the way for his conservative revolution four years later.

With all due respect to Mr. Rollins, that’s one of the silliest comparisons I’ve ever heard from a political operative. In 1976, Reagan kept the delegate count extremely close, to the point where there was still some doubt about who’d get the nomination. At the time, some reports said that there might be as little as 20-30 delegates separating Ford from Reagan. Both men could make credible claims that they could win the nomination. That clearly isn’t the case this year. (continue reading post »)

It’s been awhile since I’ve fisked a Pelosi statement so this is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that. Here’s the text of Pelosi’s statement on FISA:

“All Members of Congress fully understand and support our responsibility to protect the American people and the need for the President, the Congress, and policymakers to have the best possible intelligence to fight terrorism.”

That’s BS. Instead of starting the debate on the Senate bill that passed with strong bipartisan support, Pelosi’s Democrats instead held a hearing on whether Roger Clemens had used HGH and anabolic steroids. Instead of debating the Senate bill, they took a vote that said former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten were guilty of contempt of the House.

“On Friday, a surveillance law insisted upon by the President last August will expire. Today, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted to extend that law for three weeks so that agreement could be reached with the Senate on a better version of that law. The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result.”

That’s BS, too. Here’s the truth: (continue reading post »)

Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats left Washington, DC for their district’s comforts without passing the FISA reform bill. In fact, they didn’t even debate the Senate bill that passed with 68 votes two days earlier. Pelosi’s collection of irresponsible legislators should be tarred and feathered in their hometown and national press every day that they aren’t in session. Investors’ Business Daily has started that tar and feathering with this editorial. Here’s the key paragraph:

Congress has had nearly seven months to renew and update this vital law. Yet just look at what the House of Reprehensibles was wasting its time with last week, when it should have been working night and day on FISA.

They didn’t stop there:

The Senate-passed bill that Pelosi and House Democrats consider less important than wedding receptions and steroids abuse got a bipartisan majority of 68 votes in the Senate last week. Much of it was written by a liberal Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The bill gives U.S. intelligence agencies “the tools they need to track down terrorists,” as Rockefeller noted. It also provides retroactive immunity to telecom carriers being sued for assisting in the terrorist surveillance program.

Firms such as AT&T (NYSE:SBT) (NYSE:T) , Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) and Verizon (NYSE:VZC) (NYSE:VZ) face lengthy litigation, and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, spearheaded by the ACLU all because they helped save lives.

As Rockefeller, a foe of most of the president’s policies in the global war on terror, pointed out, “The companies believed their cooperation was necessary, legal and would help stop future terrorist attacks.”

Pelosi’s bunch care more about collecting campaign contributions from their nutroots crazies than they care about preventing the next terrorist attack. (I’m not saying that they don’t care about national security. I’m simply saying that their actions show that they just put a higher priority on collecting the crazies’ campaign contributions than on national security.) (continue reading post »)

About a month ago, I sent an email to Sen. Coleman concerning the Iraq War. This week, Sen. Coleman took the time to send me this email explaining his thoughts on what’s been accomplished this past year & what still needs to be accomplished. Here is Sen. Coleman’s email in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Gross:

Given your interest in Iraq, I thought I would take this opportunity to share with you my observations about the latest developments in that country and the region.

I recently returned from my fifth visit to Iraq. As always, I was deeply impressed with the incredible sacrifices Minnesotans in uniform are making there every day. They should make us all very proud.

While in Iraq from January 4-6, I participated in wide ranging discussions with military commanders, diplomats, and senior Iraqi political officials concerning the role of the U.S. in Iraq and the necessary steps the Iraqi government must take toward reconciliation. We have a lot of important decisions to make in the next six months about our military presence in Iraq. General Petraeus has already said that we could reduce our troop presence to pre-surge troop levels by early summer, and we need to look at the longer term as we get close to that time period.

The main message I took away from my time in Iraq is that tangible progress was made during 2007. Violence and casualties are decreasing. The Iraqi government, along with Iraqi citizens, are taking more responsibility for their future and hope is returning to the shattered country.

I also spoke with a number of Minnesotans during my visit. One of them, a soldier from Prior Lake, said something that really stayed with me. He said, “Everybody thinks I fight all day over here. But I help kids, I build roads, I spend time with Iraqis. I’m more of a social worker or construction manager than anything.” A year or two ago, it would have been hard to imagine a soldier in Iraq describing his day to day operations as “social work” instead of combat.

2007 ended with hope in a country that hasn’t had it in a long time and I believe 2008 can and should end with the U.S. military moving toward a secondary, “overwatch” role. The security gains we have made as a result of the surge have laid the groundwork for Iraqis to step into the leadership role required of them. We need to continue to push them in that direction as we move off the front lines and into supporting responsibilities. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, President Bush tried getting Ms. Pelosi and her minions to pass the FISA reform bill. Instead of taking their responsibility seriously, they left for vacation. Here’s President Bush’s statement:

Good afternoon. This Saturday at midnight, legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised. It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.

Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They’ve had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.

Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.

Now it’s the House’s turn to act. It is clear that the Senate bill would pass the House with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can put partisanship aside, and pass a good bill. There’s no reason why the House cannot do the same, and pass the Senate bill immediately. (continue reading post »)

Peter Wehner has an op-ed in the WSJ that talks about what John McCain needs to do to win in November. Here’s one of the points in his 5-point plan:

Third, turn Mr. Obama’s strength into a weakness. Right now Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a figure who floats above politics. His allure is based on inspiring but vague calls for hope and unity. This airy appeal can and needs to be firmly strapped down to the policies Mr. Obama would put in place. This requires defining Mr. Obama’s invocation of “change” for what it is: orthodox liberalism.

Mr. McCain, meanwhile, can be the man of substance, specific policies and reform. Presenting himself as that man, however, won’t be easy. In the past, Mr. McCain has shown a lack of interest in economic and domestic issues. But it is essential now for his success. His policies need to be creative, aimed at everyday concerns, and show intellectual rigor. Remember that among the GOP’s greatest electoral successes in recent decades (Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980 and the Republican capture of Congress in 1994) were based on philosophical contrasts. Pale pastel campaigns (George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996) are a road to defeat.

In my discussions with other conservatives, I’ve maintained that ‘The Fours’ are a great lesson for running winning campaigns. When I talk about ‘The Fours’, I’m referring specifically to 1984, 1994 and 2004. What ‘The Fours’ had in common is that each of those campaigns were highly idealistic.

When Reagan ran for re-election, he laid out a vision of America as the “shining city on a hill.” He re-iterated his ideals, saying that the Soviet Union had to be defeated, that taxes had to be kept low and that America had to stay strong economically and militarily. (continue reading post »)

While the Barry Bonds travesty played out, people kept saying that there wasn’t proof of him using steroids. That lame defense just came to a crashing halt. Here’s the details:

SAN FRANCISCO — Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids in November 2001, just a month after hitting his record 73rd home run of the season, U.S. prosecutors said on Thursday.

The allegation came in a legal filing in his steroid perjury case that referred to Bonds’ long-time trainer, Greg Anderson.

“At trial, the government’s evidence will show that Bonds received steroids from Anderson in the period before the November 2001 positive drug test, and that evidence raises the inference that Anderson gave Bonds the steroids that caused him to test positive in November 2001,” U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello wrote.

The U.S. government made the assertion in a document that asked a federal court to reject Bonds’ motion last month to dismiss the charges that he lied about past steroid use.

This isn’t a shocking revelation. Anyone who had watched him go from being a skinny youngster to where he is now knew that he’d been taking steroids. In fact, people have been saying for years that Bonds’ single season homerun record was the direct result of steroids. Just look at his stats. If you eliminate his record-setting season, the best he did was 49 home runs in 2000. In 21 full major league seasons, he hit 40 or more home runs 8 times: in 93, 96-97 and 2000-2004. It wasn’t a stretch to think that he was using steroids during his record-breaking season. (continue reading post »)

As I posted earlier, Republicans walked off the floor when Democrats refused to debate the FISA bill. Here’s Michele Bachmann’s statement about the GOP Walkoff:

American’s safety must come before partisanship

(Washington, D.C) Today, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) released the following statement after Democrats allowed the Protect America Act to expire:

“It is unconscionable that with America’s security on the line, the Democrats chose to spend Congress’ time on pointless partisan posturing. As a member of Congress, I serve no higher duty than to help keep our friends, families and loved ones safe. The Protect America Act has been a critical part of the effort to prevent, interrupt and foil terrorist attacks. Yet with it set to expire in just two days, the Democrats refused to work with Republicans to reauthorize it.

“The Protect America Act provides vital updates to the original 1978 FISA provision, allowing law enforcement and intelligence services to meet the threat posed by the enemies of today. For over six months House Democrats have refused to bring a comprehensive, long-term FISA bill to the floor.

“Even the Senate passed a bipartisan reauthorization bill. And the President cleared his schedule to ensure that terrorist chatter wouldn’t slip through the cracks while our intelligence officers awaited these important surveillance tools.

“But the Democrats were more interested in establishing commemorative weeks, honoring groups and taking cheap shots at Administration officials. About the most substantive thing they had planned for today were technical corrections to a 36-year-old fungicide bill. And so I joined my fellow House Republicans in walking off the floor today in protest.

“America’s safety must come before partisanship. Democrats need to work with Republicans to pass long-term FISA reform. I hope that today’s Republican action will help propel a FISA bill onto the floor so we can get back to the business of protecting the American people.”

If that isn’t bad enough, Democrats now are prepared to let the Protect America Act lapse: (continue reading post »)