Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Keep on screwin’ her, Sammy.

I am quite disgusted right now.

Democrats to let offshore drilling ban expire

Democrats to let offshore drilling ban expire

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

“The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue.”

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Republicans called that effort a sham that would have left almost 90 percent of offshore reserves effectively off-limits.

The Interior Department estimates there are 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil beneath the Outer Continental Shelf, about half of it off California.

While the ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action, it doesn’t mean any federal sale of oil and gas leases in the offshore waters — much less actual drilling — would be imminent.

The Interior Department’s current five-year leasing plan includes potential leases off the Virginia coast but probably would not be pursued unless the state agrees to energy development. And the state is unlikely to do so without Congress agreeing to share federal royalties with the state.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to make offshore oil drilling a priority if elected president. He has called for developing the oil and gas resources along all of Outer Continental Shelf and for the federal government to share royalties with states who go along with drilling.

Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has said he would support limited drilling in certain areas — possibly the South Atlantic region — if it is part of a broader energy plan to shift the U.S. away from oil to alternative fuels and more energy efficiency.

The debate over offshore drilling is not expected to subside in the first months of the next presidency — no matter who sits in the White House.

Lifting the drilling ban gives considerable momentum to the underlying bill, which includes the Pentagon budget, $24 billion in aid for flood and hurricane victims and $25 billion in loans for Detroit automakers in addition to keeping the government open past the Oct. 1 start of the 2009 budget year.

But Democrats decided not to use the must-pass measure as a battering ram to carry an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless past White House veto promises, prompting grumbling among some lawmakers. Efforts to boost food stamps and give states billions of dollars to help with Medicaid bills also fell through.

But the measure would double, to $5.2 billion, funding for heating subsidies for the poor, Obey said.

The measure also would provide more than $600 billion to fund the 2009 budgets for the Pentagon, Homeland Security Department and the Veterans Affairs Department. Nine other spending bills for the 2009 budget year starting Oct. 1 remain unfinished.

Bush had threatened to veto bills that don’t cut the number and cost of pet projects known as “earmarks” sought by lawmakers in half from current levels or cause agency operating budgets, taken together, to exceed his request. Obey said, however, the White House would reluctantly sign the measure.

Democrats have shown themselves to have all the spine of a wet noodle. They’ve got control of Congress and yet they’re still letting Republicans have their way? They’re letting the ban on offshore drilling expire even though we know that all the drilling in the world will do next to nothing to help?

Can we fire all these bastards? Something is very, very wrong when you’ve got one party that’s as red as a stoplight and the only alternative to that way of thinking has turned a pretty dark shade of pink.

With all the talk about Sarah Palin and her latest question-evasions, I thought the economy has been getting less than it’s needed share of coverage. After all, just a couple of days ago the stock market was in a crisis, the DOW dropped around 400 points in a day, AIG pretty much went bankrupt, and gold set a record for most gain in a single day by ground from around $740 bucks a troy ounce to $860 a troy ounce.

More Americans are focusing on the economy, a place where John McCain has admitted he sucks at and Sarah Palin has established herself to be incapable of balancing a budget.

So for this crisis, what is Bush’s solution? Set aside 700 billion dollars to buy shit assets without a plan to have that money paid back.

Here, I’ll let you read for yourself.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers 33 minutes ago

The Bush administration asked Congress on Saturday for the power to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the financial system and threatening the economy as negotiations began on the largest bailout since the Great Depression.

The rescue plan would give Washington broad authority to purchase bad mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions for the next two years. It does not specify which institutions qualify or what, if anything, the government would get in return for the unprecedented infusion.

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation.

Congressional aides and administration officials are working through the weekend to fill in the details of the proposal. The White House hoped for a deal with Congress by the time markets opened Monday; top lawmakers say they would push to enact the plan as early as the coming week.

“We’re going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly,” President Bush said at the White House. Without discussing specifics, he said, “This is a big package because it was a big problem.”

The proposal is a mere three pages long, but it gives sweeping powers to the government to dispense gigantic sums of taxpayer dollars in a program that would be sheltered from court review.

“It’s a rather brief bill with a lot of money,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. “We understand the importance of the anticipation in the markets, but we also know that what we’re doing is going to have consequences for decades to come. There’s not a second act to this — we’ve got to get this right.”

Lawmakers digesting the eye-popping cost and searching for specifics voiced concerns that the proposal offers no help for struggling homeowners or safeguards for taxpayers’ money.

The government must bail out the financial system “because if we don’t, it will have a tremendous impact on American consumers, homeowners, taxpayers and the rest,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in San Francisco.

But, she added, “We cannot deal with this unless this bailout helps families stay in their homes.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. said “we cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Every single American has a stake in preventing a global financial meltdown.”

The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

“The American people are furious that we’re in this situation, and so am I,” the House’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. “We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.”

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said “efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve.”

Bush said he worried the financial troubles “could ripple throughout” the economy and affect average citizens. “The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. … Over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

He added, “People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it’s important to have confidence in our financial system.”

Neither presidential candidate took a position on the proposal. GOP nominee John McCain said he was awaiting specifics and any changes by Congress.

Democratic rival Barack Obama used the party’s weekly radio address to call for help for Main Street as well as Wall Street.

Their language reflected a tricky balance that politicians in both parties are trying to strike, just six weeks before Election Day: Back a plan that doles out hundreds of billions to companies that made bad bets and still identify with the plight of middle-class voters.

Besides mortgage help and executive compensation limits, Democrats are considering attaching middle-class assistance to the legislation despite a request from Bush to avoid adding items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.

Bush sidestepped questions about the chances of adding such items, saying that now was not the time for posturing. “I think most leaders would understand we need to get this done quickly, and you know, the cleaner the better,” he said about legislation being drafted.

Treasury officials met congressional staff for about two hours on Capitol Hill on Saturday. Discussions centered on how the plan would work, and Democrats proposed adding the executive compensation limits and new foreclosure-prevention measures. Details of those changes were not available Saturday, as staff aides worked to draft them. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson conferred by phone for about 20 minutes in the afternoon, gauging how the negotiations were unfolding.

Among the key issues up for negotiation is which financial institutions would be eligible for the help. The proposed legislation doesn’t make it clear, leaving open the question of whether hedge funds or pension funds could qualify.

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow the Treasury Department to designate financial institutions as “agents of the government,” and mandate that they perform any “reasonable duties” that might entail.

The government could contract with private companies to manage the assets it purchased under the rescue.

Paulson says the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets — such as loans that are delinquent but not in default — and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept.

I understand the need for quick action in a case like this, but trying to rush through a bill of 700 BILLION dollars with only two days of debate and thus far no assurances that John Q is gonna be able to keep a roof over his head and little or no stipulations as to getting the money back aside from Bush’s word that “we’ll get a lot of it back over time”? Yeah, considering his track record I’m less than reassured.

Actually, I’m horrified.

Oh, I just loved the part about the national debt. From $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion if the bill passes. Whoopie.

In other news; 40 people in a Pakistan hotel were killed by a suicide bomber.

First thing I see when Yahoo pops on is this little gem of a story.

Bush to lift executive ban on offshore drilling

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue.

“They haven’t even held a single hearing,” Perino said. “So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress.”

Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”

The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.

Bush’s proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

“If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years.”

Congressional Democrats have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.

Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush’s father — George H.W. Bush — to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states’ tourism economies.

Surprise, surprise, an oil barron is gonna lift a ban on offshore drilling and then lay the blame on the Democrats.

“I didn’t wanna do it, they MADE ME do it!” Schoolyard reasoning from our Commander in Theif.

And Obama wants another round of checks? A wonderfully bad idea, if you ask me. Throw money at the problem and see it go straight into the oil companies’ pockets rather than actually providing a meaningful solution to the problem.

I saw this calendar in the shopping mall today, and it pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the presidential campaign of Rudolph Giuliani.

Giuliani was engaged in a giant sadistic bet. He was betting that Americans would still be so terrified of the weak terrorist threat that they would clamor to him, begging to be rescued. Save us, Rudy! Save us, Sir Rudolph! So, Giuliani sat, counting down the days, waiting for the terrorist attack that he was sure would come, to propel him to victory. Alas for Giuliani’s plans, but nicely for the rest of us, no terrorists have had the werewithal to attack. The spectre of a looming attack has proven to be just a spectre.

So it is that Giuliani’s new year has been stuck in the past, right next to Father Knows Best calendars, as at the shopping mall. Giuliani’s time is long over.

Bye bye, Rudolph.

Here at Irregular Times, we aim for substance over style.

Just this once, however, I couldn’t resist. Seeing the photo of Matt Stoller with Mitt Romney over at Open Left, I found the answer to a question that has been dogging many a political junkie this year: How does Mitt Romney keep his helmet hair just so?

Now it can be told: Hair gel. Just look at that shine. It looks like an entire tube of hair glop goes into Romney’s hair at least twice a week.

After all, what does a little thing like logical incoherence on energy policy matter to the American public, when compared to hair?

It makes Romney “Reaganesque”, see.

Since when is Reaganesque a good thing?

Since Mitt Romney is running for the United States of Hair?

Oh, the folly of follicles. Evolutionarily, we should have gone past the point of using hair as a good indication of adaptability.

Oooh. Bumper sticker idea: Mitt is Maladaptive

Mitt Romney is getting all indignant about Mike Huckabee asking a simple question about the religion that Mitt Romney says makes him fit to be President of the United States. (”Freedom requires religion!”) Well, wipe the froth away from your mouth Mitt, and answer the question.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of the Devil or not?

And now you, too, Mike Huckabee. You answer for your weird theology too.

How can you say, Mr. Huckabee, that Jesus is not the brother of Satan? God made Jesus. God made Satan. How does that not make them brothers?

Be careful, Mr. Christian Candidate. You’ve opened up the crazy Pandora’s box of religious literalism in American politics. So, now, there’s an awful lot more kooky stuff than just the relationship between Jesus and the Devil that you have to answer for in the Bible, Mike Huckabee.

Tonight I was researching various topics on paganism and ancient revivalism when I came across a Wikipedia article about a group of pagans in Greece who were trying to gain equal rights in the eyes of the Greek government. It seems that prior to 2006, all religions except Christianity, Judaism and Islam had been banned. An Athenian court seems to have overruled that.

The story regarding this can be found here (I may post a separate diary entry about this later).

When I read about their desire to be allowed to worship in the Parthenon, I looked it up on Wikipedia for clarification. The article listed pollution hazards and I found myself curious enough to read on. It seems that acid rain from the growth of Athens and the exhaust from cars has caused irreparable damage to the sculptures in the Parthenon.

Pollution is a bad thing, not only for the harm it does to ourselves and our environment but for the harm it does to our history. When historical landmarks and wonders of the ancient world are threatened by our pollution, isn’t it time to do something?

I see this and then I see conservatives calling for less restraints put on pollution control and I find it hard to believe that they could be so caviler and arrogant not to see the harm that is already happening. Is there nothing at all more important than grabbing for that extra dollar?

‘lo and behold, what do I find when I wake up and log into Yahoo this morning?

(link)

Bush vetoes water projects bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in thwarting legislation that provides money for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.

“When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region.”

The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to vacate a veto and make the bill law.

Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.

But Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness now, in the seventh year of his presidency, carried the risk being criticized for doing too little, too late or as waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The president took the gamble, making it part of a broader effort to more pointedly and frequently take on Democratic leaders.

The legislation originally approved by the Senate would have cost $14 billion and the House version would have totaled $15 billion. Bush and a few Republicans complained that the final version was larded with unneeded pet projects pushed by individual lawmakers — sending the overall cost of the bill much higher.

“Only in Washington could the House take a $14 billion bill into a conference with the Senate’s $15 billion bill and emerge with a compromise that costs taxpayers over $23 billion,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

She also said Bush vetoed the bill because it is “fiscally irresponsible” and falls outside the scope of the Army Corps’ mission.

Critics noted that the bill piles more work on the Army Corps of Engineers, which already has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of only about $2 billion to address them.

If Bush is overridden, the measure would give a green light to projects in virtually every state. It only authorizes the projects; the actual funding must be approved separately.

The authorizations include:

_$3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land;

_nearly $2 billion for the restoration of the Florida Everglades;

_nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers;

_$7 billion for various projects related to hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including assuring 100-year levee protection in New Orleans;

_hundreds of smaller dredging, wetlands restoration and flood control projects across the country.

The Congressional Budget office says the bill includes projects that, if fully funded, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years and $12 billion in the decade after that. The bill also calls for increased oversight of the Corps, requiring an outside review of water construction projects.

The veto was Bush’s fifth. Four of those have come since Democrats took over Congress in January, but this one was unusual because it also pits the president against a sizable number of lawmakers from his own party. Previous Bush vetoes include two of bills allowing expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells, and a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Last month, Bush vetoed a major expansion of a children’s health insurance program, also over objections from some Republicans. But he has far more partisan unity on that issue than on the water projects bill. It was the first time Bush went into a veto knowing it was a futile effort. This turns the tables somewhat on him, as he has been criticizing Democrats almost daily for wasting time by passing legislation they knew he would not accept.

Isn’t it funny that now that there’s a Democratic majority in Congress Bush is finally taking the packaging off his veto pen? Ain’t it also funny that Bush considers things that will cost around 14 billion over the next 14 years to help fix some badly needed things is “fiscally irresponsible” and yet I just found an article that report economists are speculating that the war in Iraq could balloon to over $1 TRILLION dollars. Whether that is true or not that same article is reporting that the daily cost is over $200 million a day.

Which is fiscally irresponsible? Adding in things to help protect American citizens from natural disasters and restore the environment for $14 billion, or continue an occupation of a foreign nation that serves as nothing but a black hole for the economy and is turning this into the most expensive military campaign in American history?

You want to be fiscally responsible? Pull troops out of Iraq and STOP GIVING TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES FOR OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS!

I really didn’t think they could be this out of touch with the American people.

GOP Rivals Argue Who’s Most Conservative

GOP rivals argue who’s most conservative
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press WriterMon Oct 22, 6:31 PM ET

Republican front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney defended their conservative credentials in the face of pointed attacks from campaign rivals Sunday night in the most aggressive debate to date of the race for the White House.

“You’ve just spent the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine,” Arizona Sen. John McCain bluntly told Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson made Giuliani his target, saying the former New York mayor supported federal funding for abortion, gun control and havens for illegal immigrants.

“He sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues,” added Thompson, referring to the New York Democrat who leads in the polls for her party’s presidential nomination.

The clashes in the early moments of a 90-minute debate prompted former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to say he wanted no part of a “demolition derby” with others of his own party. “What I’m interested in is fighting for the American people.”

Whatever their disagreements among one another, the eight rivals agreed on one issue. They took turns criticizing Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

Asked whether she was fit to be commander in chief, Romney replied, “I’d vote no.”

Giuliani said he agreed with one thing the former first lady said recently. “I have a million ideas. America cannot afford them all,” he quoted her as saying as laughter filled the debate hall. “I’m not making it up.”

McCain said Clinton had recently tried to spend $1 million on a Woodstock Museum, commemorating perhaps the most famous counterculture event of the 1960s.

“Now my friends I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event,” he said.

“I was tied up at the time,” he deadpanned, and the audience rose to applaud the reference to the five and a half years McCain spent as a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

The debate was the first since Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas dropped out of the race, winnowing the field. The remaining rivals stood on a stage at a resort 10 miles from Walt Disney World, fielding questions at an event broadcast by Fox News Channel.

The leadoff Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, 2008, for Republicans. In their most recent debate, Oct. 9, Giuliani and Romney swapped charges with each other, vying for primacy in the race.

This time they largely ignored each other. Instead, Giuliani’s lead in the nation polls, as well as Romney’s perceived strength in early voting states, made them obvious targets for McCain and Thompson.

The first question went to Giuliani, asked whether he was more conservative than Thompson. “I can’t comment on Fred,” the former mayor said.

He then added that he had brought down crime, cleaned up Times Square, cut taxes and eliminated the city’s deficits. “I think that was a pretty darned good conservative record,” he said.

Giuliani took a more conservative position on gay marriage than he has thus far, saying he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if states begin to legalize it.

Giuliani lived with an openly gay couple after separating from his second wife, Donna Hanover, and one member of the couple said at the time that Giuliani promised to marry them if gay marriage was ever legalized.

Attacked by the former Tennessee senator moments later, Giuliani fired back at his antagonist. “Fred has problems, too,” he said. He said Thompson was the “single biggest obstacle” in the Senate to legislation limiting the ability of individuals filing lawsuits to recover unlimited damages.

“He stood with the Democrats over and over again” on the issue, Giuliani added.

Thompson said he believed states should decide whether to limit lawsuits in their own states.

Republicans in Congress tried for years to pass legislation that would cap damages in lawsuits, but never succeeded before losing their majority to Democrats in 2006.

Romney was asked about McCain’s earlier claims that he had shifted positions on a number of issues to appeal to conservative Republicans.

The former Massachusetts governor responded that he was proud of his record, particularly since the state had an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature. “I fought to make sure we kept our taxes down. I fought for pro-growth strategies. I cut taxes,” he said.

Moments later, though, McCain personally turned on Romney.

“Governor Romney, you’ve been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine,” he said.

Saying he would run on his record as a conservative, McCain added, “I don’t think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you’d need is their respect.”

Coming up next, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain debate the looming threat of of a domino effect of the Red Menace. Stay tuned!

A constant question I have asked a lot of friends is “Why not re-elect GW Bush?”  It is obvious that he has all the answers.  He’s the president, isn’t he?  He has the right way to complete the job he started.  He started it didn’t he?  And he now has the background (if not the backbone) to do the job.  Plus he has the power to ignore the constitution that says that he can’t run again.  Everything is in place.  I say ‘W 2008′!  Wanna buy a bumper sticker for your SUV?

Ha!

Bush veto of child health bill sustained
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

House Democrats on Thursday failed to override President Bush’s veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children.

The bill had bipartisan support, but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority that supporters needed to enact the bill into law over Bush’s objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program now subsidizes coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most from low-income families, at a cost of $7 billion annually. About 600,000 adults also participate in the program.

To pay for the spending increase, the bill would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack.

“This is not about an issue. It’s about a value,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said just before the vote. “For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we can provide SCHIP coverage for 10 million children for one year.”

Forty-four Republicans voted to override Bush’s veto; that was one fewer than the number of GOP members who voted Sept. 25 to pass the bill. Only two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, compared with six who had voted against the bill. The two were Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

“We won this round on SCHIP,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. She said a million-dollar lobbying campaign by several labor unions and advocacy groups to turn enough Republican votes for a successful override did not work.

Bush, anticipating that the veto would stand, has assigned three top advisers, including Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, to try to negotiate a new deal with Congress.

“It’s now time for us to get to the hard work of finding a solution and get SCHIP reauthorized,” Leavitt said. “We also have a larger task, to provide every American with the means of having an insurance policy.”

Republican opponents of the bill said it would encourage too many middle-income families to substitute government-subsidized insurance for their private insurance. The bill would have given states financial incentives to cover families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level — $61,950 for a family of four.

“That’s not low-income. That’s a majority of households in America,” said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.

The bill said that illegal immigrants would remain ineligible for the children’s program, but Republicans seized on a section that would have allowed families to provide a Social Security number to indicate citizenship. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said it is too easy to get a false number, which would give an opening for thousands of illegal immigrants to enroll.

But Democrats said the bill’s original focus remained intact. States would earn bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled.

“Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. “Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty.”

Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion — half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.

Some public opinion polls indicate support for expanding the program. Sixty-one percent said Congress should override Bush’s veto of a bill expanding the program, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday. Blacks were more likely than whites to favor overriding Bush’s veto.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 976, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

(This version CORRECTS in the second paragraph `two-thirds that majority supporters’ to `two-thirds majority that supporters …’)

Yeah, here’s a surprise.

I still find republican hypocrisy rather amusing. It’d be downright funny if it didn’t harm so many people.

Oh, you went right down to Texas
With your banner near unfurled
And they told assembled buses
As they sit and knit and purled
That they couldn’t vote in straw polls
For all the money in the world
But His Troops Are Marching On!

Ron Paul, they’re setting out to screw you
As if they hardly even knew you
But if they did, they wouldn’t do this to you
Your Troops Are Marching On!

They can steal the vote in Texas
They can mock you in debates
They can try to shut you up
When you show up five minutes late
But they made their last mistake
When you they underestimate
Your Troops Are Marching On!

Ron Paul, you know that I adore you
No matter how much they all abhor you
And soon, I will be voting for you
YOUR TROOPS ARE MARCHING ON!

RON PAUL 2008! HOPE FOR AMERICA!

I’m putting this short video up tonight so that people can hear for themselves how Tucker Carlson bragged about slamming a gay man’s head against the wall. It includes the audio of Tucker Carlson speaking.

Let’s assume that the General will perform his public act of defecation on September 15.

Today being August 21, that means

THE PETRAEUS COUNTDOWN
…

25 DAYS

Petraeus Report Won’t be Written by Petraeus
James Joyner | Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The long-touted September progress report wherein counterinsurgency guru David Petraeus will tell us how the Surge is going won’t actually be written by Petraeus. And, no, it’s not just that he’s going to staff it out like he did the COIN manual he “wrote.” No, it’ll be written in the White House.

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq’s warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government. And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc…n_by_petraeus

RED DAVE

Not a great day for George. Five more dead Americans, and 57 more dead Iraqis to think about. His right-hand man resigns. Cheney reveals it was all bullshit from the start.

Sunday: 5 GIs, 57 Iraqis Killed; 37 Iraqis Wounded

Although violence remains relatively light, U.S. forces took a heavy hit on Saturday; five American servicemembers were killed and four wounded. At least 57 Iraqis were killed and 37 more wounded during the latest incidents. Also, one security contractor from Fiji was killed, two other Fijians were wounded, and an American was wounded during an attack on their convoy.

Karl Rove Resigns

“I just think it’s time,” Mr Rove said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, adding that he was quitting for the sake of his family.

Dick Cheney ‘94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

Transcript:

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

Cheney: No.

Q: Why not?

Cheney: Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

RED DAVE

(To the tune of My Bonnie — Sing it!)

My Ron Paul is gaga for freedom
My Ron Paul loves liberty
My Ron Paul makes socialists jealous
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency!

Vote Ron
Vote Paul
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency, you see!
Vote Ron
vote Paul
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency

My Ron Paul hates deficit spending
My Ron Paul likes austerity
My Ron Paul won’t raise all your taxes
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency!

Vote Ron
Vote Paul
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency, you see!
Vote Ron
vote Paul
O Vote Ron Paul’s Presidency

THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

Featuring:

PAUL WOLFOWITZ
DOUGLAS FEITH
STEPHEN HADLEY
RICHARD PERLE
ELLIOT ABRAMS
SCOOTER LIBBY
JOHN HANNAH
DAVID WURMSER
ANDREW NATSIOS
DAN BARTLETT
MITCH DANIELS
GEORGE TENET
COLIN POWELL
DONALD RUMSFELD
CONDOLEEZZA RICE
DICK CHENEY
GEORGE W. BUSH

Read how your favorite war criminal is doing. Find out their “Role In Going To War.” Find out “Where He [or She] Is Now” And get a “Key Quote.”

RED DAVE

I am sick and tired of hearing the lieberals complain about how President Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence. No, I am worse than sick and tired about it. I am angry about it. Look, you cows, it’s simple:

1. God Speaks Through President Bush. Our President himself said “God speaks through me” during his 2004 re-election campaign, and I do not believe that our Commander in Chief is a liar. Therefore, it must be true.

2. President Bush spoke about the commutations, calling the sentence “excessive.”

3. People who disagree with President Bush’s commutation are calling God a liar.

I always knew that the lieberals in charge of our media hated God, and now I’ve just proved it. If you love God, you’ll never ever vote Democrat.

Thank you, Baby Jesus, for sending us Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia.

Did you know that on the $1 coin the GOVERNMENT has printed this year, the phrase “In God We Trust” is on the edge of the coin?

The LIEberal powers that be have put our God on the edge! Just hanging on! How long can God last there?

But Congressman Virgil Goode, guided by our dear sweet Baby Jesus (good Son that He is), has sponsored legislation to rectify the situation. H.R. 2510 is a bill that, if passed, would make it a matter of law that “In God We Trust” would only be printed on the face of America’s coinage.

This is an improvement. But it occurs to me that if “In God We Trust” is put on the front of a coin, it is smothered when the back of the coin. Smothering God? God forbid! At least I hope so. I mean I hope He forbids it, not that He is smothered, in His infinite wisdom.

Yes, God forbid. I do hope so. I hope that our dear sweet massively muscled Baby Jesus will send a new message down to our Rightly Righteous Congressman Virgil Goode, mandating a Holy Writ of Amendment to H.R. 2510 that the words “In God We Trust” shall be written on BOTH sides of America’s coinage. That way, the Word of our Lord and Savior shall always be apparent.

You know, I have just about had it up to here with my fellow conservative commentators in the media. Cal Thomas refers to Connecticut voters as Taliban Democrats for picking Ned Lamont and calls them religious zealots — as if there’s anything wrong with religious zealotry! Ho hum. Our Vice President Dick Cheney calls Lamont supporters “Al Qaeda types,” which is a nice sentiment, but the use of “type” makes it seem as if Lamont supporters were born that way, when it is clearly a lifestyle choice. John Gibson calls such voters “Khmer Rouge Democrats” and says they stack skulls up in piles. Now that’s warming up a bit, but we could do better than that, I think.

The h-e-double-toothpicks with moderate, easygoing epithets like these, I say! Literally! I suggest we go for the most realistic label we can find, the destination for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge: Beelzebub himself. These Democrats are “Beelzebub Democrats,” endorsing the Horned One in their voting behavior, casting America into a lake of eternal fiery torment, and dooming virtuous God-fearing Christians such as myself to a six year term of thoroughly undeserved annoyance on the evening newscast with that Frenchy LaMont. Beelzebub Democrats it is!

You know, when I first heard that Mel Gibson had said, while being arrested recently in California, some “offensive things,” I was really really worried. I thought maybe the star of Lethal Action had said “Stem cell research is not such a bad thing” or “Gay? OK!” or “F**k, but those Buddhists really have a point there.” That would have been a level of career-destroying offensiveness, for sure.

But then I read the actual police report of Mel Gibson’s remarks while being arrested for driving after drinking the communion wine (what’s wrong with that? nothing but being RELIGIOUS!). Here’s all the nicest guy in Hollywood ever said:

“My Life Is Fucked” — Well, that’s all Jesus said, really. All our lives are “fucked,” until we accept Jesus as our personal savior!

“You Mother Fucker. I’m Going to Fuck You. You’re Going to Regret You Ever Did This to Me.” — Everybody knows these are lines from Mel Gibson’s latest film, A Trial of Faith, about a man whose wife leaves him for a chinchilla in a state with same-sex marriage, triggering a crisis of faith that involves a lot of swearing at God. But don’t worry — the movie shows in the end that God can handle being sworn at, and eventually forgives Gibson. In the meantime, come on, the Saucy Aussie was just rehearsing his lines!

“I Own Malibu” — OK, well maybe he does. That’s a good thing to know: he’s a property owner, a good upstanding citizen and all. A nice factual statement.

“I’m Going to Get Even With You” — said to the police officer, this makes sense. Mel Gibson, upright conservative Christian paragon that he is, is only telling the nice office that he’s not going to “get odd” with him tonight. No fag boy, that Mel Gibson! We all breathe a sigh of relief.

“Fucking Jews” — well, they do “that,” you know. That’s how they perpetuate their scheme to overtake all the world’s population and turn them into banking customers!

“Are You A Jew?” Good thing to know, because if so, there’s one more Jew who needs a nice New Testament sent to them as a thank you gift and chance at salvation!

“The Jews are Responsible for all the Wars in the World.” OK. So. Well. This looks really bad. At first glance. But when you consider that um, well, with the hypotenuse of the square of the Pythagorean Theorem in the second case, the smiggledy smaggle of the plumbum in green mainly takes the exclusionary clause in an unnecessarily literal manner. You know what I mean? See, no problem!

Thank you, Mel Gibson, for continuing to show the gracious goodness of Christian conservatism the whole world through. I am your number one fan, and you are my hero!

My favorite Republican Senator, Ken Blackwell, has hit the nail on the head again:

I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed. I think it’s a transgression against God’s law, God’s will. The reality is again … that we make choices all the time. And, I think you make good choices and bad choices in terms of lifestyle. Our expectation is that one’s genetic makeup might make one more inclined to be an arsonist, or may make one more inclined to be a kleptomaniac. Do I think that can be changed? Yes.

Well, he hit one nail, that’s for sure. You can choose to not be gay. I know because it is just common sense. Not even regular common sense. God’s common sense! And you can choose not to be an arsonist. And you can choose not to be a kleptomaniac. It is true because it is in the Bible! God said it, in Revelations I think, and that settles it!

But here’s the question. Can you choose not to be a gay, kleptomaniac arsonist? I ask because I wonder if that much effort is possible. If it takes X amount of effort to choose not to be gay, does it take 3X effort to choose not to be a gay, kleptomaniac arsonist? Or is it not a linear thing, X+X+X? Is it more like it would take X*X*X effort to choose not to be gay? Or is it not even an exponential thing? Could it be a logarithmic transformation of effort required? Wow, that would be a lot! They say with God all things are possible, but even this faithful Fran turns into a doubting Dorothy when thinking about a logarithmic transformation of effort!

Can someone with a divinity degree help me out with this theological conundrum? I’m asking because I have this friend who needs that kind of help and I want to let this friend of mine know about it. Thank you!

Some anonymous yahoo who writes for the blog Practically Harmless brings up the subject of “Snowflake Babies,” those cute little blastocysts who were abandoned in freezers by their mommies and daddies. Fortunately, a full 100 of these Snowflake Babies have been adopted, implanted in a loving new mommy’s uterus and born, leaving only 400,000 more to go!

I think this is a big moral challenge of our time. But the Anonymous Yahoo at Practically Harmless decides it’s better to poke fun:

The 400,000 frozen blastocysts out there (joined by 25,000 new ones every year) that are, ostensibly, going to be adopted by needy couples. Each and every one of them. Congratulations, kids; you’re frozen, in a big freezer in an embryology lab, and you don’t actually have a brain yet - or, for that matter, more than eight cells - and you can’t be seen without a microscope. But President Bush has given you a second chance.

Well, he’s sarcastic. He’s kidding.

But I’m not! OK, troops, gather up your womenfolk and listen up! We need 400,000 women THIS YEAR, right now, to save the lives of these blastocysts by donating their uteruses to grow these little blastocysts into big-time babies. Then we need 25,000 more women every year to save these little lights that have yet to shine. That’s 25,000 more pregnancies a year; 25,000 more blessings! I bet there must be tens of millions of evangelist women in the United States, and if just half of them are of bearing age, we should have no problem whatsoever in getting these Snowflake Babies born!

If you’re an interested female Christian conservative and you’re willing to give birth to a Snowflake Baby, just sign up right here, and we’ll get ‘er done! Just sign your name in the comment space below and I’ll personally hook you up with a deserving little blastocyst.

I know that there will a deluge of comments, perhaps in the tens of thousands in the first month, so I’ll be sure to get a box to hold it now!

I’m waiting now with anticipatory glee. Who will be the first of 400,000 conservative Christian women to donate their bodies to the cause?

Oh, you lieberal sillies are getting their panties in a twist again!

This time, you’re upset that our dear President George W. Bush stopped an investigation into his conduct, using the power of the government that is, of course at his disposal. He got elected, duh, it’s his government, he can do what he wants to with it!

What’s funnier than this typical liberal stupidity is their suggestion that everybody “fix” things by writing a letter to the editor, calling a Congressman on the phone, or marching in the street or something like that. But they miss the point. Nothing will ever, ever be accomplished by trying to get people to change things for the better. The liberals would do much better if they learned to pray (it’s spelled P-R-A-Y) with fervor for the changes they wanted to see happen, and then learned to wait for God’s grace to make itself evident in the world.

That’s how real change will come about. Not stupid liberals insulting other people in the media!

Idiots!

The Washington Post reports this morning that President Bush is planning to use his first veto to stop the spread of “stem cell” research. I put “stem cell” in quotes because that’s a euphemism. Really, we’re talking about baby research here. Research on babies! Smearing them out on a petri dish and watching them get fat, then putting them in somebody’s pancreas, or something.

The closet satanists over at the University of Kansas say that these babies aren’t really babies, which makes me wonder why we call them “babies” then! They say that these “stem cell” babies are just blastocysts — a clump of cells that can’t think or feel or love or be cuddled.

That’s what they said before they killed Terrie Schiavo, wasn’t it? And yet there’s a video of her smiling! That’s what made me think that maybe we could see if the blastocysts smile, too.

Well, it didn’t take me long to verify that they do smile. Just look at this picture of a blastocyst:

See it? See the smile?

What, you can’t see it? Well, let me help you out with that:

Do you see it now? This little “blastocyst” is smiling, a smiling baby!

Save the baby! Does anyone know where this photo was taken? We need to stage an intervention. And let this baby, this beautiful smiling baby, live!

Now all we need is someone to volunteer her uterus. Will you do your part?

When the first paragraph of a commie rag Washington Post article goes like this,

In the past two years, campaign and political action committees controlled by Rep. John Doolittle, R-Granite Bay, paid ever-larger commissions to his wife’s one-person company and spent tens of thousands of dollars on gifts at Saks Fifth Avenue, Tiffany and Co., and a Ritz-Carlton day spa.

you just know that the liberal media is at it again. How biased of them to write this! First of all, it’s not R-Granite Bay, it’s “Republican representing Granite Bay”! Why are they afraid to write the word “Republican”? Second of all, what’s wrong with a one-person company? A lot of people I know are self-employed, and they are good people! The Dumbocrats and Lieberals just can’t seem to get behind the notion that some people can lift themselves up by their bootstraps, or shoelaces, or stiletto straps, or whatever. Third of all, I’m sure Mrs. Doolittle is a very nice person. Why do they have to always bring in politicians’ families into the story? That’s so cruel and mean. It’s so personal! Finally, how do we know that these “gifts” were really “gifts”? Saks has some very useful items in its Housewares department that could be used in a campaign office. Tiffany and Co. has crystal, which is good for a staff picnic. And the Ritz-Carlton day spa thingy? I bet they just reserved a conference room for a staff retreat. You know, one of those things where they have a ropes course and foster togetherness and stuff. Which, HELLO, helps to win campaigns! Chuh.

Why won’t they stop attacking John Doolittle? The liberal media is so mean!

I find I keep filing my stories under “Outrages,” but my goodness, there are so many outrages in the world.

A center of Deadly Sin in the liberal Media, Vanity Fair has written a news article that I have read at great sacrifice to my personal virtue. Kind of like Job did in the Holy Book, but without those pesky, disfiguring skin sores.

At any rate, in that Vanity Fair article, it comes out that the head of the righteous defense contractor MZM, Mitchell Wade, pressured his employees into making campaign contributions to the great, great Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole (Righteous - North Carolina) and the great, great Republican Congressman Virgil Goode (Righteous - Virginia).

Now, shills for the Democrud Party are saying this all means that Sen. Dole and Rep. Goode must have been in cahoots with MZM and Wade — you know, currying favor and all that sort of stuff that the Democrybabies usually whine about. But that’s jumping way ahead of reality, I think.

A much more reasonable interpretation of these events is that Elizabeth Dole and Virgil Goode sent Mitchell Wade very kind and tasteful Christmas cards. The MZM head, being the good Christian defense contractor that he is, was probably touched by the nice cards for Jesus’ birthday, and only wanted to spread the good news about Dole and Goode to his MZM employees. That’s how it works inside the Christian part of the DC Beltway: politicians send nice Christmas cards to defense contractors, and defense contractors get their employees to cough up cash for a nice thank-you note.

The Democruds and their shills in the liberal media will never understand that kind of courtesy. Shame on them.

The Associated Press is reporting on Tom Gallagher, the Republican candidate for Florida Governor:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Gallagher, the state’s chief financial officer, owned stock in a Jacksonville development company last year when he voted to make some of the company’s land holdings a priority for state acquisition.

Gallagher didn’t tell anyone he had 4,000 shares at stake in St. Joe Co. when the Cabinet voted on the land rankings Feb. 16, 2005, the St. Petersburg Times reported for Saturday’s editions.

Gallagher’s campaign manager, Brett Doster, disclosed the information to the newspaper after it had received a copy of Gallagher’s 2005 federal tax return, which lists the stocks.

St. Joe Co. is building an array of residential and commercial developments through North and Central Florida, including a 16,000-acre piece of land that the state purchased a portion of Thursday for $10.6 million.

Gallagher bought the stocks in Jan. 2005 and sold them about three months later, with a profit of $3,716. He could have made more money had he held the stock longer. His highest sale price was about $70.25 a share. Three months later the stocks traded at about $80 per share. The stock closed Friday at $46.54 a share.

Gallagher, who is trailing state Attorney General Charlie Crist for the GOP nomination in most polls, declined to answer questions posed by the St. Petersburg Times about the stock. Telephone messages left on Gallagher’s cell phone and on his spokeswoman’s cell phone by The Associated Press after hours were not immediately returned.

This is the liberal media at its worst. Why do they always have to report on the “bad” news? Why don’t they report on the good things in the Gallagher campaign? He is working very hard and seems like such a nice man. Why be so mean to him? I think it is just because they are liberals. That and they don’t like him investing in a company called “St. Joe” because it is a Christian company that honors one of the most important men in the whole history of the Bible, Joseph of Nazareth. Without Joseph, Mary would have had to go that whole way to Bethlehem walking instead of riding on a donkey, and Jesus wouldn’t have had a father figure. Well, except for Him, of course. But my point is that Tom Gallagher had enough good sense to honor Saint Joseph in his investments, which means that he probably has enough good sense to honor all the Saints in his conduct as Governor of the beautiful state of Florida!