EDITOR OF REDSTATE
Morning Briefing for February 10, 2010
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
Today, Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund is launching a money bomb for Marco Rubio.You need to understand specifically why it is important that this be a success.DeMint is under massive and sustained attacks from establishment Republicans for daring to challenge the hand picked candidates of the Washington GOP crowd. These people think you and DeMint are a joke. These people think that you cannot beat them at what they view as their game.They blame Jim DeMint for pushing Arlen Specter to the Democrats. Even the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal attacked Jim DeMint for endorsing Pat Toomey. But now Toomey is beating both Specter and Sestak in the polling.Then there is Marco Rubio, the target of the present money bomb. The Republican leadership in Washington flocked to Charlie Crist. They launched “on background” attacks against Jim DeMint in Roll Call for daring to step out of line and back Rubio.And all the while they said DeMint could not win. He could not raise the money. You would not give the money. And the conservative effort would fail.That is why it is important to support this money bomb. That is why it is important to give what you can. Show Washington that Jim DeMint and conservatives across America will take back the Republican Party from the leaders who support compromising with Obama on national health care, who support bailing out automakers, and who support plans like TARP.If Jim DeMint fails, it will be seen as our failure.Please click here for the rest of the post.
So sayeth White House deputy national security adviser John Brennan, at least. Funny how that never occurred to him and his fellow Democrats when George W. Bush was in the White House. Someone needs to be taken out behind the woodshed. Consider Brennan’s whining and bellyaching about being called out for sucking at his job.Please click here for the rest of the post.
One and a half cheers to the NY Times for the article “Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel,” which admits to some of the scientific and ethical problems facing the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. But the Times being the Times, while it lays out some of the damning facts, it omits key damaging details (especially regarding the egregiously amateurish nature of the IPCC’s errors regarding the Himalayan glaciers) and otherwise spends the rest of the article trying to explain away Dr. Pachauri’s problems, with hilarious results.The most hilarious of these is the Times’ effort to instruct you, the reader, on why there’s no financial conflict of interest in payments received by Dr. Pachauri from various businesses with interests in the panel’s work.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Let’s journey back to February 2007. At this time, the U.S. was approaching its 4th anniversary in Iraq, the military death toll had passed 3,000, and Iraqi civilians were caught in the middle of a furious sectarian battle that had been kicked into overdrive by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.General David Petraeus had just been tapped to take over Multinational Force-Iraq, and was ramping up a “surge” in troops there in preparation for the implementation of his counterinsurgency doctrine in the theater — a comprehensive overhaul of Iraq war strategy that would ultimately prove to be incredibly successful. Democrats in the House had just passed a non-binding resolution condemning the “surge” in troops (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called this a “symbolic victory in the fight over the Iraq War,” despite the fact that the Senate version of the resolution fell 4 votes short of cloture. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries”).This was the setting for perhaps the most insidious move of Jack Murtha’s career, if not his life: the design and introduction of what he called a “Slow Bleed Strategy” designed to deprive soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Iraq of the supplies — bullets, armor, etc. — they needed not only to push forward in Iraq, but to keep themselves alive while there. The rationale behind Murtha’s aptly — if appallingly — named Slow Bleed Strategy was that, if the supply chain to our troops in combat could be forced to dry up, enough of America’s warfighters would be killed in action that President Bush would have no choice but to “redeploy” our military men and women out of Iraq and back to America.Please click here for the rest of the post.
People are policy and while much attention has been focused on the profusion of buffoons and poltroons Obama has installed at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level positions in his administration, the real work of radically changing the character of our government has been entrusted to anonymous apparatchiks.Some of these have bubbled to the top and have resignd: green czar and self identified communist Van Jones, UN financial reform guru and part time identity thief Jide Zeitlin, performance czar and tax cheat Nancy Killefer. Safe schools czar and pedophile apologist Kevin Jennings remains on the job as do others.Today, however, we may have won one small battle in the war to keep the adminstrative machinery of the nation out of the hands of people who are opposed to our system of goverment. Obama’s nomination to fill the a vacant seat on the National Labor Relations Board has fallen to a bipartisan fillibuster.Please click here for the rest of the post.