Tom Harkin, gang banger or mere……………

…………. pandering enabler? On May 23 of this year, Texas Senator John Cornyn submitted an amendment to the CIRA so as to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals. The text of the amendment is readily available.

Today, Tom Harkin voted nay on the Cornyn Amendment. Sen. Harkin voted to allow armed illegal aliens, who are convicted felons, and, of course, actual terror affiliates, to enter the United States. Tom Harkin wants to prevent the Attorney General from prohibiting a terrorist, whose identity is known only through some form of ultra secret intelligence, from entering the United States.

By today’s vote, Sen. Harkin, now in his fourth decade of degrading American security, certainly should give the reader something to contemplate the next time you board a plane.

Rudy and John and Fred! Oh my!

The Real Sporer is not often surprised but today I received a bit of unexpected news. After sitting in the Polk County Courthouse during a trial all day, I returned to find my telephone ringing off the hook ……… and it wasn’t about the trial.

Of course, I too am baffled at the logic that would lead to the conclusion that the Ames Straw Poll would not have benefited their respective candidacies. Under what circumstances could speaking before the largest gathering of Republicans in the history of the party, not the Iowa Republican Party but the entire national Republican Party, before a global television audience in the first state to actually vote for nominees, not help a candidate?

The people who attend the Straw Poll not only almost all attend the caucuses but they are the precinct leaders who drive the caucuses. The 30-40 thousand attendees in Ames this August are going to have five months to ponder the Giuliani/McCain absences.

It will be difficult for Iowa Republicans to forget the following from the Giuliani state chair Jim Nussle:
“Certainly, if you're part of the party you want to raise as much money as possible, and making the straw poll significant is to your advantage. So there's a reason why they would do it. Others, candidates, who want to use it as a way of making their own candidacy legitimate, will want to make sure their participation or their position at the straw poll is significant. So I understand why people are trying to make the this significant.”

The problem with Jim’ Nussle's logic is the first sentence-“if you’re part of the party”. The question that immediately comes to mind is of what party is the Giuliani campaign a part? Does Jim think that a huge turnout of non party voters will appear at the caucuses and swamp the regular Republicans who usually attend the caucuses? While possible, such an unprecedented occurrence would appear highly unlikely. Far more likely is that the confluence of both resentment and disinterest will simply dismiss the Giuliani campaign by caucus night. The entire Nussle statement is even more dismissive of Iowa Republicans so it is difficult to imagine that the Giuliani campaign is seriously intending to compete in Iowa. So don't be surprised when you hear more of the same as the Caucuses grow more imminent.

The McCain decision is both more and less surprising. A McCain Iowa pullout has been long anticipated by much of conventional wisdom. The Senator crashed in Iowa in 99/00 and burned many bridges in the process so a willingness to embrace the first good excuse to avoid our state isn’t all that shocking.

But McCain seemed to be taking Iowa more seriously this time around. His Iowa team is top flight, with a long history of success all over Iowa. I have been personally assured that McCain is sticking it out to the caucuses by high level McCain people, people in whom I have complete trust. However, can we trust the McCain Washington people to tell the McCain Iowa people the truth? That remains to be seen. The McCain exit was certainly more graceful, and he has the benefit of being able to blame Giuliani but in the end he will conspicuous by his absence and every other candidate will spend every day between now and January reminding the Iowa voters of the McCain 99/00 experience-essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The ultimate problem that both Giuliani and McCain have demonstrated by today’s action is the dismissal of the importance of the Republican brand. They aren’t just running for President, they are running to lead the Republican Party. Regardless of what they say, dismissing a party event of the magnitude of the Straw Poll sends a bill board sized message that both candidates feel that party leadership is not a particularly significant aspect of their campaign strategies. Should either receive the nomination they may well find themselves wondering why the same Republicans they rejected fail to rally to them when they do need Iowa’s seven electoral votes.

Of course, in the next seven days Fred Thompson’s formal announcement of participation in the Straw Poll would put this all in better perspective.

WHO DO YOU THINK WON-NEW POLL

With the third GOP Presidential debate now history we here at the Real Sporer are curious who you, the reading public, thinks won Round 3. We have a new poll to the left so please express your opinion.

The results on the least loveable celebrity poll were not even competitive. Rosie O’Donnell had---77% of the vote in a four way race.

GOP Debate Round 3 Review

We rate each debater on a scale of 1-30. The ratings are based in part on presentation, part on content and part on the stage management of the occasion. In alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. Sam improved from the second debate. He got more time and made more aggressive answers. His best answers were again on the life issue. His weakest moment was the microscopic distinctions he was trying to draw between his immigration position and McCain’s. However, he also seemed to be less hawkish on the war-and remember, most Rs are hawks.
1st debate-25; 2nd debate-21; 3rd debate-23

Jim Gilmore. Again, tracking similarly to Sam. The Governor got better, and made a series of always smart answers that represent a thoughtful and insightful public servant. I felt he missed an opportunity on the conservationist question. Gilmore was a tad less aggressive and he looked better in doing so.
1st debate-24; 2nd debate/21; 3rd debate-24

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy came off very well tonight. He seemed vigorous and Presidential. There were times that he really soared-the Abe Lincoln moment was great, and his repeated attacks on Democrat signify that he desires to lead the party. His attack on the breathtaking injustice of the Scooter Libby situation and later on the dishonest reportage about Iraq were great moments. He also reached the political no-party voters on the greenhouse issues.
1st debate-21; 2nd debate-27; 3rd Debate-28

Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee must have really offended the Canis Lupus in a previous life. Huckabee had almost no chance to discuss the biggest issues but abortion and….evolution? However, his Iraq commentary was his most Presidential moment of the campaign, and his intro was the funniest line of the night. Gov. Huckabee also did a great job of explaining the need to be more humane to all people as a the logical consequence of a culture of life and the distinction it draws with the savagery of Islamofascism and jihadism.
1st debate-25; 2nd debate-27; 3rd debate-26.

Duncan Hunter. We finally saw a little more personality and even a couple of smiles from Duncan. His answer to the women who lost the brother in Iraq was compelling and intelligent. His complaint that W was slow walking the fence for political purpose was kind of silly, hell the federal government cannot do anything fast or well so why should the new border fence be any different.
1st debate-23; 2nd debate-24; 3rd debate-25

John McCain. John holds his own in every debate. He improved yet again tonight. He seemed by far the more spontaneous and sincere tonight, although his closing statements did seem forced. His support of the war and response the audience questions were both forceful and sincere-which provide him with a great TV moment that will receive a ton of replay-a huge example of a single valuable hay maker. His defense of the immigration bill was not sharp. He poses a question-show me your plan-has an obvious answer-that has a rather obvious answer but one does get impression that he, like W, sincerely believe this is the best solution that will pass Congress and hence beats the status quo. He also articulated a kind of strange position on English as the official language.
1st debate-23; 2nd debate-24; 3rd debate 27

Ron Paul. He just should pass on foreign policy questions. I swear to God he’s sound’s like the people who fought against US involvement in WW2 before Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, I almost never disagree with him on anything else. He improved a lot tonight-and definatelhy did not leave himself open to a devastating counterpunch like he did in the last debate.
1st debate-21; 2nd debate-20; 3rd debate 23

Mitt Romney. Mitt also improved quite a bit from the second debate and tied John McCain for second. Romney had a great answer to John’s question about a better immigration plan-enforce the current laws. Mitt’s non-verbals are great and when stands he seems Presidential. Mitt did a great job on the inevitable LDS question. Mitt also just seems so much more optimistic than the other candidates during these debates, the talent of the great salesman.
1st debate-25; 2nd debate-24; 3rd debate 27

Tom Tancredo. His personal attack on the President was unseemly but quite sincere, which mitigates some of the bitchiness of it. His answers on immigration are impassioned and quite on target. He also showed some creativity on the environmental question-set the market in motion and we will clean up the world. I cannot remember the exact words but he closed the first immigration question on a pretty xenophobic note, which is taking a good idea just a tad too far.
1st debate-21; 2nd debate-22; 3rd debate-22

Tommy Thompson. Finally a health question and the real Tommy Thompson explodes onto the scene with a plethora of ideas on better health. He doesn’t defend his Iraq plan that forcibly, although his emphasis on requiring the Iraqi government to vote on us staying. The sharing the oil revenue is Ws goal already so not really going out on a limb there. Tommy needed better timing on his introductory remarks but otherwise tonight was by far Tommy’s best performance.
1st debate-21; 2nd debate-21; 3rd debate-23

The ratings neither reflect my personal support for a candidate nor a belief as to the ultimate nominee. We have a very long way to go before that decision is made and the nominee might not even have been on the stage. But it is fun for an old debate nerd to play judge again.

RUDY WINS......EARLY RETURNS

We will give a more thorough critique later tonight but the early return is Rudy looked the best tonight.

GOP Debate........Round 3 kicks off!

All right, kick off time!!! This should be a good one if Wolf brings it like he did with the Ds.

Rep. Jodi Tymeson defends education..........

………………. and takes the Dems to task for their payoff to the ISEA. Jodi submitted the following for publication.

"Iowans have always been proud of our “local control” school districts and local standards, but it’s time we looked at the fact that all other states have statewide standards, and they are outperforming us on national measures.

The 2006 Legislature, with the House controlled by Republicans, set statewide graduation requirements. We also set a goal that 80 percent of high school graduates would complete the ACT core curriculum. But don’t get your hopes up for higher education standards with the current Democratic-controlled Legislature and Governor’s office.

Unfortunately, in 2007 Democrats eliminated the goal that 80 percent of high school graduates would complete the ACT core curriculum. Last session, Rep. Phil Wise (D-Keokuk) proposed an amendment to set higher standards that was rejected by his fellow House Democrats (47-49). All 43 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted for higher standards.

Refusing to set tough statewide standards wasn’t the only thing “accomplished” by the 2007 Legislature. Teachers were given a big pay raise without any additional expectations. In fact, Democrats removed a provision in current law that limits low-performing teachers to a cost of living (COLA) raise. That removal effectively means a master teacher and an ineffective teacher get the same pay raise negotiated by the union. Speaking of the teachers’ union, they certainly aren’t lobbying for higher standards. Not only did they watch Democrats repeal higher standards, they supported Governor Culver’s veto of a provision in the teacher pay legislation that would reward good teachers statewide by moving them up a career ladder. This veto dashed the hopes of parents that student achievement would be one of the various factors considered in moving teachers up the ladder.

Iowans shouldn’t be surprised. The Iowa Department of Education has proposed “model” core curriculum (not as tough as ACT core) and Democrats, after voting to repeal the ACT goal implemented by Republicans, passed a law that “encourages” school districts to adopt the “model” curriculum. “Model” and “encourage” are not words that demand higher standards and performance.

Educators at our colleges and universities will tell you our students are not prepared well enough for higher education or the workplace. We need to raise the bar on expectations instead of removing the bar. Iowans should contact their legislators and demand higher standards in education."

Thank you Jodi for reminding the Iowa voters that our K-12 schools do not exist to provide a jobs program for educators but rather that educators exist only to educate students.

GOP Debate-LIve Blog Coverage

The Real Sporer will have live blogging during the GOP debate tonight. Everyone is invited to participate and share your thoughts on the winners, losers and, of course, the best lines of the night.

See you tonight.

Another Real Clear Politics Milestone for The Real Sporer

Our coverage of today’s Sunday morning talk shows was not only picked up and linked by the nationally prominent political news website, Real Clear Politics for the third consecutive Sunday, but also was awarded a blogger’s turkey with all three highlighted programs linking to a Real Sporer review.

Check out this shameless self promotion at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog_coverage/

Thanks to the readers and the contributors of the Real Sporer and the editors of Real Clear Politics for the honor.

Democrat Debate Recap

First, let me applaud Wolf. The Canis Lupus employed the format well, ensuring that there were opportunities for clash on a number of issues. I think we saw why Fox and CNN have audiences measured in multiples of MSNBC’s. CNN and Fox are simply far more prepared for significant news events.

Biden seemed the most mature and realistic. He sounded smart and well grounded. Joe balanced his run to the hard left with at least an attempt to utilize real facts as a basis for his beliefs. He’s kind of like our Mike Huckabee, only not nearly as cute, in that he looks great in these debates but hasn’t yet obtained any major traction in the polls.

Edwards reached for the hard left and the hard left control Iowa and New Hampshire. The MoveOn crowd will be unable to forgive Biden’s vote on war funding, and he refused to apologize for it. Edwards hit every left wing hot button, AIDS, genocide, homosexual rights, etc…. Every kind of victim was highlighted in Edwards’s presentation and that is exactly what his target audience desires. I think he solidified his lead in Iowa and is stepping forward in New Hampshire. However, he has no chance in South Carolina. Look for Biden to gain down south. In doing so Edwards provided us with a hell of a lot of TV material should pigs fly and John Edwards be the Democrat nominee.

Evita did nothing to hurt herself. She was manly in the defense of her vote to go to war in Iraq. There is something about her that is just so harsh and lacking in personality that she seems lacking in humanity. Maybe it’s the glares, the looks of pure annoyance and the uncontrollable interruptions when it isn’t her turn to speak. The left wing crazies found nothing in Evita’s presentation tonight that would make them leave Edwards. However her nonsense about “I didn’t read the NIE”, “I didn’t know Bush would really go to war” makes her seem shallow and indecisive, which helps BHO. How could such a brilliant mind have been so outsmarted by a dullard from Texas? I don’t think she gained or lost support tonight.

B. Hussein Obama also mostly marked time tonight, which isn’t what you need when you’re in second place. Obama usually just echoed Evita, including treating her with an entirely unnecessary degree of deference. Obama seems to lack policy debate polish. BHO doesn’t track hard enough to the left and he frequently deviated from Edwards, which actually hurts him in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, BHO could win South Carolina and some other large southern states where black voters are disproportionately represented in the Democrat primary and where is more conservative social views will distinguish him from hard secularists like Edwards and Evita. This guy is young and might get their nomination. We’ll need to do more than satire his name if he does.

Richardson is becoming tragic. This guy has been a good diplomat, one those envoys that Hillary said she’d use that W hasn’t-except of course that W sent Richardson to North Korea twice and Sudan once. Richardson was a centrist congressman and has been a centrist governor. Watching him lurch left is so unnatural that he just looks foolish. Boycott the UN if they fail to support US policy in the Sudan? By the way, has he been the governor of New Mexico? I wish he’d just get out of the race so W can send him back to Sudan to tell them that W’s big Texas boot is getting ready to come down on their little genocidal cess pool. Tonight might have been the death blow for Bill.

Chris Dodd? What can be said? He rarely answers a question, and frequently digresses into the hinterlands of reason. I can only imagine John Kerry and Chris Dodd discussing who should cater the Ted Kennedy First 24 Hours of Sobriety Roast, the double speak would make a conversation for the ages would it not, with neither participant having a clue as to what they decided.

Senator “Mike” Gravel is certainly the most honest and least wiley of the Democrat gang. He’s kind of a remnant. The only guy old enough to remember the heady days when Democrats defunded the war in Vietnam as set the stage for the Vietnamese and Cambodian genocide and the Cuban occupation of so many Central American and African countries (at least that’s what the Cubans say). You’ve got to love this guy.

Dennis Kucinich is truly and genuinely and quite literally either a Jihadi plant, which I doubt, or the most naïve person in politics, of which I am almost certain, on planet earth. Kucinich is sincere………………..sadly.

These guys give me confidence that 2008 won’t be all that bad after all.

Dems on Display

Wolf just blew the whistle on the Democrats' Second Debate. This should be most interesting.

Sunday Talk Review-CBS, Peter King Shines

The immigration was the issue of debate between Peter King and Ken Salazar. King overran Salazar.

King drives home the fundamental objections to the compromise bill, beginning with the fundamental problem that it dilutes already existing immigration law. King proposes enforcing current employment laws and shutting down the border. Such approaches, King argued would dry up the jobs, sending many current illegals home, and make unlawful entry and re-entry more difficult. Ultimately, King concludes this would allow the market and the government to properly fix the need for migrant labor and get control over its importation.

Salazar response was to make the choice between a Planet of the Apes type round out and mass deportation and doing nothing, which didn’t respond to King’s argument that enforcement would reduce the numbers of illegals through attrition, obviating the need for mass deportations. Salazar indicated that the payment of fines and other penalties defeat the notion of amnesty, which is true in a technical legal sense.

King looked good and was as feisty as I had hoped. We need more guys like Peter King.

Sunday Talk Review-NBC, Consultant Round Table.

Russert’s first topic, has “Fred Thompson waited too long”, was answered by Fred in a video that preceded the panel discussion. Fred says he’s middle of the pack without spending a dime, and that says he hasn’t waited too long. Matalin, Shrum, Murphy and Carville all agreed with Fred.

Carville’s first remark was an accusation that Republicans are racist misogynists. Some things never change. You have to give the guy credit, he is smart. Carville accurately predicted all the spate of soap opera like books about the twisted Clinton relationship will have no effect on her candidacy-people have heard it all before. Matalin agreed, and warned us to not become complacent in the belief that smearing Evita and Bubba is sufficient for victory. He also had the greatest advice for young men in bars, go ugly early. Lost some Dr. Pepper laughing at that one, especially with his wife sitting next to him.

Russert also pushed hard on Matalin and Murphy to admit that Republicans are some monolithic ultra-conservative splinter party that would reject Rudy Giuliani out of hand. Both rejected the premise.

Perhaps the most interesting issue was the Shrum/Carville take on Obama. Russert showed a brilliant quote of Obama’s about the Bush/Clinton/Gingrich/Gore fights having occurred in an Ivy League dorm in the 1960s. Talk about a perfect way to express a time for page turning. Even the two Democrats on the program recognized the coming power of the B. Hussein Obama’s campaign.

Shrum predicted a close Democrat primary that wouldn’t be decided immediately because three candidates could do well on Tsunami Tuesday. The large number of super delegates will certainly make for an interesting struggle for state party control if the sun rises in the West and Shrum is right.

Carville and Shrum certainly removed any doubt, as if it still existed, that the Democrats only principle is a hatred of George W. Bush. Murphy reaffirmed a point I have been making hard for months, we have a huge advantage if we pick the right guy who pursues a clear, principle driven ideological agenda and forces the choice between the liberal vision of American nihilism and the conservative vision of security, liberty and prosperity. Matalin closed out the discussion on the Democrats’ Achilles Heel: people want to talk about the day after Bush and the Democrats vision of defeat, retreat and redistribution.

Sunday Talk Review-Fox News Sunday where Newt …………..

………….Gingrich again demonstrated that he is simply the smartest and most articulate politician in the United States. While obviously exaggerated for political purposes, his criticisms of the second term Bush Administration arose from legitimate premises.

Gingrich described the need to take a series of small but smart steps on immigration as he rejected the false choice of doing nothing versus the current compromise plan. He also discussed the need to address fundamental issues where there is already a large public consensus. Newt cited two examples: English as the official language of government, supported by around 82% of the voting public; and, fundamental earmark reform, supported by 85% of the voters.

Newt also makes it clear that his view of the future is guided by an understanding of the past. As a historian, Newt knows the mistakes that others have made and has reviewed how success has been historically achieved. Gingrich speaks in many ways like the professor he once was. While not particularly warm, Newt’s Socratic dialogue also makes it hard for the audience to come to any conclusion but Newt’s. I’m guessing there will be no presidential debates if Newt is our nominee.

Newt sounded like a candidate. There may even be an announcement day. Newt announced that he is going to have a two day conference on Sept. 26-27. The focus of the conference is a discussion of public policy and real practical solutions to problems that confront America, large and small. Since not even his worst critics deny that Newt is a real serious policy guy so the conference will undoubtedly be heavy on substance. My instincts tell me that Newt is going to find a way to webcast all or part of the conference for maximum exposure.

The consensus of the Fox panel seemed to be that Newt would not run but would endorse Fred Thompson, which would be huge for Fred. That would be in an interesting pair, Newt's brains, Thompson's hound dog likeability. Hm...................

Sunday Talk Review-This Week and ABC plea for ………..

………. a parallel reality. The show began with a surprise guest, John Miller of the FBI/DOJ arrived to talk about yesterday’s victory over some home grown terrorists, Stephanopoulos began the show by asking a series of questions designed to minimize the threat posed by terrorism in the United States, including citing some dispute in the intelligence about the number of Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States so as to imply that the threat was exaggerated. Even if true George, how do you think that happened. There sure seemed to be a lot of them on September 11, 2001.

The interview with the President of Iraq was more of the same. Stephanopoulos repeated several versions of a single question-the war is unpopular in America and what are you, the Iraqis, going to do when we leave? To what end? Why weren’t questions asked about what was actually happening on the ground, the growth of the Iraqi armed forces and the development of more political infrastructure and reconciliation? President Talabani did make it clear that the Iraqi Parliament will not recess this summer-which really would be a slap in the face of the American public.

Stephanopoulos lifted the enthusiasm level when master appeaser Jack Murtha’s well tanned visage appeared on the wall monitor. Murtha, who might be the most vile American politician since Jefferson Davis (then Secretary of War) and Vice President John Breckinridge worked to appease southern slavery and then southern secession fwhen appeasement failed during the late 1850s and early 1860s. Murtha doesn’t really acknowledge the existence of questions; he just repeats lines like an actor. When asked why troop reduction to around 100,000 was insufficient he replied “you’ve got to supply the troops”. When asked why the “Korean model” wouldn’t work, the answer “you’ve still got to supply the troops.” The best insight into the psyche of this worst of all possible Americans (ok, Adam Gadahn is worse, but only marginally) came when he boasted about his power to control 4000 earmarks in the appropriations process in response to having been asked if threatening a Republican member’s funding projects if that member didn’t support Murtha’s defeat at any price agenda. John Murtha makes John Kerry sound patriotic.

There was a highlight. Sam Donaldson, whose vicious attacks on President Reagan’s intelligence and competence were the high (or low) lights of the pre cable news era of television news, said that Presidents like President Reagan don’t come along very often. Sam, you have no idea how right you are and we’ll accept your apology in whatever form you chose to make it.

Plot Foiled-More Crow on the Menu

Today yet another major terror plot was foiled. I'm sure everyone reading this will have, by now, heard of the scheme of some relatively home grown admirers of Al Qaeda to detonate all of the fuel tanks and lines leading into New York's JFK International Airport.

We've now listened to almost six years of Democrats and their running dogs in the media complain about how the President fights the WoT allowing nothing to interfere with the incessant stream of criticism and complaint. It's been almost six years since the last mass casualty terror attack and W just saved New York.

So the next time you caterwaulers layover at JFK, eat at whatever exclusive First Class airport hospitality club of which you are a member, try the crow sandwich and take a moment to thank W that the place is still standing to serve it to you.

Keep up the good work Mr. President.

Presidential Debates-Real Time at the Real Sporer

We will be live blogging during both the Democrat and Republican debates this week. Both are on CNN and begin at 6:00 p.m. Dems up first tomorrow night (June 3) and we play on Tuesday (June 5). There may be mystery guests during the debates. So step up, support your candidate.

Sunday June 3 Talk Preview

Fox News Sunday-Fox

Republican bashers will certainly enjoy Newt Gingrich’s topic, have the President and Karl Rove destroyed the Republican Party. While the immigration debate is raging, it will end just as soon as we all realize that whatever any of us think, the Democrats have made it pretty clear that they actually want Balkanization of the United States. I suppose most Democrats admire the multi-cultural egalitarianism of their socialist ideal, the Soviet Union.

Fox also will have a very interesting feature on public perception of the various candidates’ honesty and sincerity. I wonder how Evita scores on this one.

Newt is the biggest name by far on the Sunday scene tomorrow a.m. Newt is also the smartest and most articulate politician in the country, but is he electable? Appearances like tomorrow are helping to answer that question. (♠♠♠½)

Meet the Press-NBC

Democrat Tim Russert will feature Bob Schrum promoting his new book-“How to Avoid Winning A Campaign”. Shrum is Democrat that isn’t worth scouting; he is a sound bite machine with a long history of failure.

The truly odd couple of Mary Matalin and James Carville are, however, worth watching. While Carville is the archetype of the “Big Lie” theory of propaganda his propaganda and aggression is successful in our brave new world of an uneducated population and fracturing society. Matalin is a pretty good boxer herself and this Administration needed to unleash her and about a dozen like her after the last election.

Mike Murphy, John McCain’s 2000 campaign manager and long time Republican strategist will also be on hand.

The 2008 coverage will be interesting. Although none of the guests are particularly significant to policy all have some insight for politicians. Obviously Carville will shed no small amount of light on how negative Evita is willing to get. (♠♠♠)

This Week (with George Stephanopoulos)-ABC

Featured guests of the former Clinton White House political operative include Jack Murtha and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Unfortunately the two primary guests will not appear simultaneously so there is little or no chance that anyone will refute Murtha’s usual spew of factually and contextually challenged defeatist rhetoric. Murtha’s rhetoric so closely mirrors an Iranian and Al Qaeda broadcast that you wonder exactly who inspires whom. To think Hitler called Chamberlain and the Petainists “useful idiots”.

Talabani will undoubtedly receive a more hostile reception, although the Iraqis do have some hard issues that need resolved and I would like to hear where they are on the highway of greater self sufficiency. Some of those questions are implicated in the Democrat talking points so we may get to hear them tomorrow. (♠♠½)

Late Edition-CNN

Wolf has an unusually uninteresting line up as well. Elizabeth Edward (wife of) and Tagg Romney (son of) are the two headliners, if the word applies. Do we really care about the candidates families? Let’s be honest, has any reader’s vote ever been affected by a spouse or child of a candidate, except, of course Evita Clinton. Even that is somewhat misleading because Evita’s affect was to make Bill Clinton somehow sympathetic and his philandering understandable if not altogether forgivable.

John Edwards is, of course, following his instincts and exploiting his wife’s terminal illness. It’s the only thing sympathetic about the woman; she is otherwise a hate filled and dark personality. The Real Sporer cannot even opine as to Tagg Romney-although I strongly expect he will find something good to say about Dad Mitt, eh?

The back seat guests are Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California)Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama). Neither really should be expected to say anything new or different. Both have been on the Intellegence Committee so I hope either Wolf or Shelby will bring up the lies of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and the Democrats who embraced and repeated those lies.

The lack of news makers hurts Wolf’s hand this week. However, CNN has a great line up of political analysts and consultants, a cast of thousands so to speak, and they are all on the air tomorrow. That will add some value to the later half of the show. (♠♠)

Face the Nation-CBS.

CBS apparently hasn’t posted the preview of tomorrow’s edition of the long running Democrat talk show. I suppose the fear of losing their broadcast license and being fined millions of dollars for unreported in kind campaign contributions prevent CBS and its tanking ratings from publicly acknowledging that it’s news division is a semi-official publication of the DNC. They certainly don't respond to the market, which is telling them they need some Republican audience.

Rumor has it that Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar (D) and Rep. Peter King (R) will appear. Although neither is a real national celebrity there is potential for an exciting dialogue. King is pretty fiery and Salazar pretty laconic, but new on the scene, so maybe we’ll draw some blood in this one. Bob Schieffer is pretty much the last journalist at CBS News so there will be fireworks if the King and Salazar appear simultaneously. However, neither is particularly powerful in their caucuses and no news will be made on this one. (♠½)

Real Clear Politics and the Real Sporer June 1

Thanks again to our audience and our correspondents for earning us another national link on Real Clear Politics today. Our coverage of the Mitt Romney event was the topic in the latest national link.

Crow will be the entrée de jour at ……………….

………….. the next National Press Club dinner. I just can’t wait to see Joe Wilson in a frog suit, white gloves included, serving it.

How recently it seems that Joe and his own Hot Spouse, Valerie Plame, were the lionized heroes of the left. The Nation Magazine and the Fertel Foundation had just awarded Joe the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling-an award that I suspect was invented for him. The hard left Vanity Fair described the captivating luncheon:

“[o]n a sunny Wednesday in mid-October a mixture of journalists, lobbyists, and the odd politician were sitting down to plates of cold salad in a stuffy dining room at the National Press Club in downtown Washington, D.C., when Valerie Plame (Wilson), wearing a sharp cream pantsuit, entered the room. The occasion was a lunch given by The Nation magazine's foundation and the Fertel Foundation to present the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling to her husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Wow, almost like Camelot. The problem, Joe Wilson was a monumental liar. Today, the Jay Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee released the complete text of its investigatory report on Wilson, affirming and amplifying it’s earlier conclusions that Wilson’s story was largely fabricated and that his findings not only confirmed the literal truth of the President’s State of the Union language, but made it more, rather than less, likely that Saddam was trying to buy enriched uranium “yellow cake” in Niger.

The larger issue is the shameless dishonesty of the Democrat politicians who have known for years both that the substance of Wilson’s article, and his subsequent testimony before Congress, was perjured and that Plame was not a classified agent at the time she, not the Vice President, recommended Wilson for the Niger job, another now unambiguous lie of Wilson and Plame’s. What conceivable good faith explanation could support the use of such utter lies, not differences of opinion, but factual lies, to undermine public morale during a time of war? If the exploitation of Wilson and Plame’s lies do bespeak a willingness to say or do anything for political power, nothing could. The question is, will this White House at long last fight back at the currish pair?

Why on earth doesn’t Pat Fitzgerald indict Wilson for perjury? Providing false information to federal law enforcement agents? Releasing classified information? The predicate facts are all present on the public and congressional record and with far greater clarity than supported the vast expenditure of public funds in the Libby witch hunt.

The Big Lug Hits the Road

We here at the Real Sporer had our eye on Democrats yesterday. One of our undercover Real War Correspondents secretly drop in on the Gov. Chet “the Big Lug” Culver as he took his dog and pony show to Council Bluffs. Our very own Don’t Run With Scissors filed the following short report of Gov. Lug’s trip to the Missouri yesterday.

Culver moved the Capital for a Day to the Western Historic Trails Center in Pottawattamie County We had to endure lame jokes from Mike Gronstal (I realize this is redundant because he is a joke). A crowd of about 100 people, including well known democrats from Mills and Pottawattamie Counties waited and waited and waited for Culver to arrive. At about 2 PM (an hour after the scheduled start time) Kevin Concannon, Director of Health and Human Services delivered a short speech to fill time and then Matthew Schultz, Council Bluffs City Councilman, introduced Culver. The honor fell to Matthew as Mayor Tom Hanafan is out of town. Culver read an official proclamation declaring the Capital had been moved to Council Bluffs for one day.

He then proceeded to read his opening remarks. I can't believe he had to read things like "It is so nice to be here this afternoon". The theme for the day was "Promises Made -- Promises Kept" and I had some good questions ready for Culver since he made a point of billing the afternoon as getting to know what the people want and to answer their questions. To my dismay he didn't take questions from the floor...you had to fill out a special form with name, address, phone etc and write your question or concern on it and hold it in your hand and stand in line and wait. Of course there was limited time since Culver was so late arriving. So my questions went unanswered.

Good try, Don't Run. We need to have questions ready every time the Dems come near-questions for which I feel they won't have an answer. Never known to be quick on his feet, the Big Lug and a few of the lug nuts were not in Council Bluffs to learn what people want, that’s why the hire pollsters, but rather to tell the people what the Democrats want them to know.