The Democrats' "Southern strategy"

No doubt about it. The Democrats have a Southern strategy.

Only this Southern strategy doesn't seem to be about winning voters
over to their side. Instead, anything or anyone from south of the
Mason-Dixon line is fair game for ridicule, belittling or outright destruction.

In the judicial nominations battle, one only need be a white Southern
Republican male to win a one-way ticket to obstruction, the "racist"
label and a filibuster. Need examples?

Charles Pickering, a federal judge from Mississippi who was to be elevated
to the circuit court. Despite his record as a champion for civil rights, having
testified against the Grand Wizard of the KKK and fighting for fairness in
sentencing, and appointing the first black staffer for the GOP in Mississippi
and oh, yes, serving on racial reconciliation board.....despite having Charles
Evers, slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers' brother vouch for his fairness
to all races....the Democrats managed to demonize Charles Pickering as
favorable to cross-burning punks.

Please.

Luckily, the President saw fit to defy the slander and the smears and
recess appoint this decent man. He is now retired and fighting to reform
the judicial nominations process. A good man who deserved far better
than he got.

And how about Bill Pryor? Again, a Southern white Catholic male. He
stated his personal beliefs without hesitation in his hearing. "Abortion
is an abomination." It was a stunning statement in light of the usual answer
that is given. There was silence in the room as the Democrats tried to
take in what Pryor was telling them. His personal beliefs would not guide
his decisions on the bench....only the Constitution would play that role.

But good heavens, thought the Democrats. So they set about calling
him an extremist, anti-woman and too influenced by his religion.

Balderdash.

Finally, Pryor was confirmed to the circuit court and guess what? The
sky hasn't cracked in half and fallen, either.

The list goes on and on with Southern male judicial nominees and the
Democrats' attempts to smear them and obstruct their confirmations.

So let's turn to candidates, shall we? Look at any campaign in the South.
Any campaign. And if there is a Southern GOP male in it, chances are
good that the word "racist" will rear its ugly head.

Just ask George Allen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601654.html

He's had a long, long political career, correct? So why is it only when he
gets some traction in the bid for the Presidency and when the Senate
majority hangs in the balance that these ridiculous charges bubble up
from the murky shadows of the political mire? Anyone find that too
convenient by half?

This strategy deployed against George Allen could be called the "Southern
strategy with a Mark Fuhrman twist." If one is truly truthful, there is
probably not a person alive on planet Earth who has not uttered the
so-called "n-word."

They might have been singing along with lyrics to a hip-hop tune. Or
they might have said it in a sociology course. They might have been
in a play. Or a lawyer in a courtroom for OJ Simpson. They might have
been reading aloud from a newspaper or a book and quoted the dreaded
n-bomb. They might have been using the word as an example of what
not to say. Who knows?

But the idea that Democrats are electing a political crucifix for George
Allen based upon hearsay from decades ago when one of their own,
Senator Bobby Byrd, used to LEAD the KKK at the rallies and the
cross-burnings, is soggy with hypocrisy.

And the "macaca" crime that Allen committed? Come off it. I really
seriously doubt that he knows Indian slang words or whatever remote
language this needle in the haystack was drawn from.

Even the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee has had a
turn at the Southern strategy: http://www.cnn.com/2003/
ALLPOLITICS/11/01/elec04.prez.dean.confederate.flag/

May I remind folks that it was the Republican party, not the
Democrats that fought for civil rights? That were the abolishionists?
That voted for women's suffrage? Democrats would like you to forget
that little factoid, but it is God's honest truth. There is a delightful
new film that documents this apparently not-taught and conveniently
forgotten history --
http://www.err-video.com.

This new Southern strategy could have remarkably damaging
consequences for the Democrats. At some point, it will become
tiresome to the millions of good, decent, hard-working Southerners
to constantly have to defend themselves simply because of their
geographical location. Alienating Southerners and playing to
stereotypes would seem to be counterintuitive to a winning strategy.

So maybe I should just let the Democrats continue to fight this new
Civil War. Good luck with that, gentlemen.

Sure. Make certain the PEOPLE are unarmed.

A new gun ban at the Indiana statehouse won't apply to lawmakers, the AP reports. LINK

Isn't this precisely what the Second Amendment is all about? So that we might guarantee our freedoms and protect ourselves from tyranny, our founding fathers gave us the ballot box, the soapbox, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

And yet, it seems that once again, wild-eyed leftists and those dizzy with centralized Politburo power at the Indiana statehouse are grabbing guns from the people but exempting themselves from the laws that govern the rest of the rabble.

Please.

It is clear that a faction of the "what's Left" has reared its ugly head.

You may, however, be wondering what I mean by “the Left.”
The Democrat party of today is made up of the Old Left, the New Left and the What’s Left. And it’s the What’s Left that you’ve got to look out for.

You know who they are:
-- the pro-abortion fanatics and the radical feminists
-- the atheists who file lawsuits attacking the Pledge of Allegiance & the Ten Commandments
-- the environmentalist, tree-huggin', animal rights extremists
-- the "one world" globalists who worship at the altar of the United Nations and International law
-- the militant homosexuals and the anti-miltary, hippie peaceniks
-- the racial agitators who believe that we are all created equal but some are equaler than others.
-- the union bosses and the socialists posing as journalists & college professors
-- the government bureaucrats & the tax-and-spend junkies who create their jobs, and
-- the Hollywood elitists - air-headed actors and singers who think we care what they think
-- the pornographers who fund the leftists who won’t be happy until every Bible in every child’s hands is replaced with the latest copy of Hustler magazine.
-- and of course, the gun grabbing trial lawyers and their willing accomplices in the Congress, statehouse and courthouse who won’t be happy until they disarm every last citizen…...down to the last BB gun and paint ball marker.

As my grandfather so eloquently used to say, it's a mell of a hess.

Happy Constitution Day!!!

Ok, actually it was yesterday (Sunday, Sept. 17th). On September 17th, 1787, 55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts gave an interview on the Constitution to Brian Lamb on CSPAN last month and it is excerpted in today's Washington Post.

It is a good thing to remember what we are fighting for, eh?

For those who would like to read the Constitution in honor of this anniversary, here it is.

Dumb, dumb, dumb move

Shame on the twelve no-show senators (REPUBLICANS Graham, DeWine, Grassley, Kyl, and Sessions and seven Democrats) for guaranteeing that several judicial nominees now won’t reach the floor before the election. Perhaps they concluded that since Judge Boyle has already been waiting 15 years to get his vote (i.e., since 1991 when he was first nominated for the 4th Circuit), he won’t mind waiting a bit longer. Given that the Republicans could lose Senate seats this November, the odds that the President’s best nominees to the Court of Appeals will be confirmed are now slim to none.

Here’s the transcript of yesterday’s aborted Judiciary Committee executive meeting.

Chairman Specter: “It’s 9:30. Will all the staffers of the absent senators please notify your principals to come to the mark-up. We have a very extensive agenda. Notice has been given that we’re going to focus on Mr. Smith and Judge Boyle this morning. Both have been voted out of committee in the past. … So will you please notify your principals to arrive and if we do not have a quorum by 9:45 we will adjourn.”

Chairman Specter: “[Gavel.] It’s 9:40. We have four senators here, all Republicans, would the staffers of absent senators notify their principals to please come to this judiciary executive session. If we do not have a quorum, as I said before, by 9:45 we’re going to adjourn.”

Chairman Specter: “It’s 9:45. We have six senators here. We do not have a quorum. Let me thank Senator Hatch, Senator Cornyn, Senator Coburn, Senator Brownback, and Senator Durbin for coming. The responsibility is heavily but really on the majority party to produce a quorum – the more senators that we have, there’s, people are very, our leadership and our caucus and the President are very anxious for us to report these nominees out. There’s no reason we couldn’t have reported out Mr. Smith today and moved ahead with Judge Boyle. … If people want to be on this committee, I’ve said this before, this is a highly prized committee, fascinating issues, lots of visibility, if people want to be on this committee, they ought to come, they ought to be on time. [Gavel.] We’re adjourned.”

FREE THE DOG!!!

Bounty Hunter Duane "The Dog" Chapman has been arrested and could be extradited to Mexico for the capture of Andrew "The Rapist" Luster.

TRULY unbelievable.

This cannot happen, folks. Cannot happen. Turn up the volume if you are as livid as I am.

I agree -- Let's send the dude to Gitmo for a visit....

Giles has it right. (We are all still in the Twilight Zone.....)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=i_need_a_shot_of_cuervo,_a_big_doobie_
and_the_liberals_to_pray_for_me&ns
=DougGiles&dt=09/10/2006&page=full&comments=true

Five years ago today.....

Barbara K. Olson Memorial Scholarship Fund
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003

Judicial issue, back?

Perhaps the folks in the Senate will take heed to the Wall Street Journal piece today, begging them to return to some kind of sanity going into the midterm elections......

Perhaps the following partial transcript from Senator Specter's appearance on Fox is a hopeful one, signalling that the judicial nominations fight is afoot again.....hope springs eternal.....


http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=2918a697bc973c04af3ac8db8185b26a
CHRIS WALLACE: it's a month of of work before congress adjourns for the election, there are a number of key issues to be resolved. For more we turn to the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, arlen specter...

WALLACE: Senator, let me turn to judges, and I hope you'll be just as frank on this one. The president renominated five conservative choices for the federal appeals court. We have them up on the screen there. Is there a realistic chance that any of these five will be confirmed in the month before you adjourn, or is this really more about politics and firing up your conservative base?

SEN. SPECTER: Now, chris, you asked me to be brief and responsive. Now you want me to be frank, too? I will be frank with you. I think it's tough, very candidly. But the president has resubmitted those names, and i'm chairman, and we're going to handle them in regular order, and they're all going to be on the executive calendar for next thursday. We're going to move -- we're going to move right ahead. Nominee smith is embroiled in a controversy between a couple of states. I think we can get him confirmed. Mr. Wallace is far back in line, but he's entitled to a hearing.

WALLACE: Let's put up his picture. This is michael brunson wallace. He's no relative. The american bar association found him to be unanimously not qualified. Senator, again, being frank, doesn't he have a pretty steep climb to confirmation?

SEN. SPECTER: I think he may have a steep climb, but let me remind you about the constitution, chris. I know you're concerned about the constitution. Constitution doesn't say the american bar association confirms. Constitution says the senate confirms. And we'll consider what the american bar association has to say. We'll consider what a lot of people have to say. And then we're going to consider him in committee. Is he a lock to be confirmed? Absolutely not.

WALLACE: And let me ask you about one other controversial nominee, and that is judge terrence boyle. There have been allegations, as you know far better than i, of a conflict of interest, that he ruled in several cases involving companies in which his family held stock. Doesn't that nomination, senator, have big problems?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, i think it does have big problems. When you have a judge who has ruled on cases where there were stock of his own involved, yeah. He has given an explanation, that they were minor, that they were oversights, but there are a number of them. But let's consider that. Again, it's a matter of an evaluation and a matter of judgment, but i think that judge boyle ought to have an up or down vote in the senate. Chances are candidly, chris, he'll be filibustered, but so far as i'm concerned as chairman, i'm going to move them right along one at a time and let the full senate make its judgment....
http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=da296f36b56d14c13a5505442b6614a9