Post-Democrat Collusion in Maryland?
Stephen Spruiell turns over a big rock in Maryland politics, exposing likely collusion between a Washington Post reporter and the figure behind one of the most sought after online identities in the state, an anonymous rumor-monger known only as "MD4Bush." The gist is that "MD4Bush" concocted a rumor campaign ostensibly aimed at exposing dirt in Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's personal life, and used that rumor to two effects. O'Malley, btw, is a Democrat and is one of the state's Republican governor's chief rivals. One purpose of "MD4Bush's" actions was to blunt the rumor itself by trying to put it in the mouth of a state Republican operative, and the second was to tarnish Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich by connecting the spreading of the rumor to his office. And it worked, thanks to the Post's collusion with "MD4Bush," who turns out to be a paid Democrat operative. Read Spruiell's story--he does a good job of laying out the facts. Kudos to WBAL radio for keeping on the story for more than a year now. WBAL's reporting has played a major role in exposing the Post reporter's actions in working with and helping to conceal "MD4Bush's" identity.
For what it's worth, we've seen the CIA mount a disinfo campaign against the Bush administration via Joseph Wilson with an assist from the New York Times and most of the media. Shortly before the election last year Viacom used its book publishing empire and its hold on CBS News to wage a disinfo campaign against the Bush administration, and then CBS waged a separate disinfo campaign against President Bush personally by running those forged National Guard memos. And we've seen a Democrat disinfo campaign mounted against Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich in Maryland, with an assist from the Washington Post. This is either a strange set of coincidences or the media and the Democrats are colluding on a grand scale to undermine Republicans at the national and state level.
---
Speaking of Bad Democrat Behavior,
how doew plagiarism sound? In drafting a letter opposing Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, a Dem congressman stole from a lefty blogger.
Rep. Sherrod Brown wrote to Sen. Mike DeWine last Friday, voicing concern about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's labor record. Roughly 90 percent of what Brown, an Avon Democrat, wrote in his letter was lifted from an Internet posting by a blogger, as Brown's office acknowledged Monday when The Plain Dealer presented the similarities.Brown had not credited the blogger, Nathan Newman of NathanNewman.org, or any other source.
For instance, Newman, an attorney and labor and community activist, posted this on his blog Nov. 1: "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, much less interpreting the law in their favor."
Brown's letter merely changed the last clause so the sentence read, "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, not to mention interpreting the law against them."
Pathetic. At least when Joe Biden plagiarized, he stole from actual elected officials.
---
Show Us The Emails
We've seen two rounds of email releases from FEMA re Katrina. Both bundles of email portray internal communication between former FEMA Director Mike Brown and his immediate staff, and both bundles portray Brown as out of touch.
Fair enough. But the email release has so far been asymmetrical. FEMA has been very open about releasing its internal communications, though it casts the administration as adrift during a crisis. But we haven't seen anything released that sheds any light whatsoever on internal communications in the Louisiana government or between New Orleans and the state, or between Lousiana and national Democrats. In particular, we haven't seen anything released that sheds any light on the hiring of former Clinton administration FEMA head James Lee Witt. How did he get involved in the crisis? Whose idea was it to hire him? What was his role supposed to be, since Louisiana already had the equivalent of a state FEMA head?
Secondarily, what role did national Democrats like Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu play in the crisis? Internal communications between Landrieu and Gov. Kathleen Blanco's office would shed some light on Landrieu's role. It may turn out that Landrieu played a vital and even helpful role, or it may turn out that her role was of a more political nature. Whatever the case may be, since FEMA has laid its cards on the table it's fair to ask the same of relevant Louisiana officials.
Third, what was the nature and substance of communication between Blanco's office and the DNC? Again, this is relevant in that it might shed some light on the state of mind of various local and state officials and the input into their decisions that came from outside the state. It was clear from a day or two before the hurricane hit that an effort was being made to politicize the storm; was that effort directed in Washington or was it local, or some combination?
Fourth, why did NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin meet with Louis Farrakhan in Dallas, and whas was said? Farrakhan came away from that meeting pushing his theory that the feds blew up the New Orleans levees intentionally. Nagin has yet to publicly criticize or refute that theory. Does he believe it? Did he feed it to Farrakhan? He needs to be brought under oath and asked about it.
Do I expect to see these emails and communications? Honestly, no. The mentality of the Democrats is to circle the wagons around any Democrat criticized for any reason. Contrast that with the Republicans, where pundits tend to defend ideas far more aggressively than party or person, and where FEMA and the Bush administration have had few defenders on Katrina. The Republicans won't push the issue because they incorrectly view the Katrina story as "over," not realizing that it's just the left's newest bloody shirt. So we'll never see these internal communications among Democrats. But we should. Our picture of the Katrina disaster is incomplete without them.
---
ACLU Hijinks
The American Civili LIberties Union is siding with an Air Force airman convicted of drug abuse against the military judge involved in the case. The judge turns out to be Sen. Lindsay Graham, who is also an Air Force reservist and UCMJ appeals judge. So the ACLU's case is political, an effort to force a Republican to recuse himself from a case because he's a Republican. The ACLU therefore continues its drive to make all vice legal while at the same time make being a Republican a punishable offense.
Elsewhere, the ACLU is also mounting a challenge to the president's constitutional war powers.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to President Bush's war powers, taking on a case to decide whether Osama bin Laden's Yemeni driver should face a war crimes court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.In an unusual move, the justices agreed to review a federal appeals court decision by their new chief justice, John G. Roberts, who with two other federal judges had earlier upheld the president's military commissions in Salim Hamdan vs. Donald Rumsfeld.
Roberts disqualified himself, and is expected to do the same when the court hears arguments in the case, probably in March.
Hamdan's lawyers claim the president exceeded his constitutional powers by authorizing his defense secretary to create the commissions in the first place, without congressional approval; they also claim that the commissions, as designed, violate the laws of war, because, they argue, the United States violated the Geneva Conventions by designating Hamdan an enemy combatant instead of classifying him as a prisoner of war.
And, of course, no Supreme Court decision can be rendered without the obligatory rat squealings from the left.
"The Supreme Court now has a second chance to make clear that the Bush administration policies in Guantanamo run afoul of the best of American values," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's on the line is nothing less than our national commitment to rule of law, and whether we are comfortable being a pariah in the eyes of the world community."
Fwiw, I don't think Justice Roberts needed to recuse himself from the case. He had no role in formulating the policy; he merely upheld it at a lower level. His recusal makes an ACLU victory on behalf of al Qaeda more likely. You won't see Justice Ginsberg recuse herself, though she spent a major portion of her career litigating on behalf of the ACLU.
As for the ACLU, it never articulates just what those policies are that it objects to, preferring to FOIA internal documents relating to Gitmo and then release the most salacious bits to the media while pretending that they represent administration policy. It's a nice little con game, portraying the terrorists as victims and the Bush administration as occupying the same moral plane as the Iraqi regime it toppled.
If the United States has become a pariah in the eyes of the world, it is because the ACLU has spent years making us out to be a pariah.