I think any hope of a privatized Social Security plan is pretty much DOA.

Bush completely screwed up with the idea that Social Security reform should be means tested, and I wouldn't blame conservatives from both the House and the Senate to kill the plan.  This isn't about a plan that seems bipartisan; it's about coming up with a plan that works.  And I am tired of politicans half-stepping on initiatives that would provide a real solution, rather than a problem that resurfaces every 20 years or so.

There wasn't a viable solution in anything Bush touched on tonight.  People criticize Bush on not having more press conferences, but I say he should have even less if they're going to be that boring and ordinary.  I found myself flipping between Smackdown and the Heat/Nets game more than I did the press conference.  This was a complete waste of time.

---

UPDATE:  Drudge is reporting that CBS, Fox, and NBC dropped coverage at 9:00, leaving Bush at mid-sentence for their network programming.  CBS had Survivor (they moved it to 9, and put CSI on at 10), Fox had The Simple Life, and NBC had The Apprentice.  I was watching CNN (Forgive me; I don't have Fox) so I wasn't aware of it.

That doesn't surprise me.  I think the networks said "screw you" to politics and important events in place of ratings long ago.  I don't watch any of those shows, and I think they're all stupid.  But, sluts in reality shows trump the president every time.

In sports, we got the Heat/Nets game that's on TNT right now.  NBATV has Boston/Indiana, which is turning out to be a great series, at 8:30.  At the conclusion of Heat/Nets, TNT has Dallas/Houston with the tipoff at 10:00.  On top of that,  I watch WWE Smackdown (Don't give me any lip about pro wrestling.  I've loved it since I was little.).

I decided to check out the WSJ's OpinionJournal website, since blog-worthy news is quite slow today, and ran up on a piece by Jill Stewart featuring Ted Hayes, a social activist who's a member of the Republican Party in Los Angeles.  According to Stewart, Hayes is well known within the inner city, and is helping to clean up the streets and provide an alternative to gang life and drugs.

Usually Ambra is better at featuring people than I am, so I'll just let you read the column about some of the things Hayes has done for Los Angeles.  However,  I will say if inroads are to be made within the black community as well as the electorate that tends to vote leftward, conservatives should look for people who actually look like everyday people. 

That's not to shrug off the Ivy League scholars and the silver spooners, but the main reason why so many blacks cast their votes for the Left - whether it's Green or Democrat - is due to the fact that they know other blacks who vote the same way.  Say what you want about Cynthia McKinney or Barbara Lee (and there's plenty to say), but they do come across as more in-tuned to the voices of black people.

I really don't think conservatives realize that they are often considered out of touch and elitist.  It's ironic because I'm reading South Park Conservatives by City Journal editor Brian Anderson, and he mentions how Fox News journalists and anchors don't come off as elitist.  That may be true to a considerable amount of the population, but sometimes they don't realize that they look like a clique themselves.

I'm reminded of this quote:

Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity.”  - Eric Hoffer

It's a regular thing for high-profile conservatives to deride the "mainstream" media, although oftentimes they have more readers and viewers than the people they criticize.  They might not see this as being "mainstream", but others do.  I guarantee you people see Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others not only as "mainstream", but elitist.

Ted Hayes and others give credit to conservatives being people of all fabrics and all colors.  Those are the people we truly need if conservative principles are to survive this century.

Let's be honest; we knew from the minute former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume announced he was running for the U.S. Senate in Maryland that he'd had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, much less the seat itself.

Well today won't help matters, as the Washington Post found out about a confidential NAACP document detailing the accusations of a former female employee, Michelle Speaks, who says he showed favortism toward women in the organization whom he had "close personal relationships" with. 

According to the Post, this was a very sensitive document; once the members of the executive committee had time to read it at a meeting, the copies were taken back up before they left.  However, the Post was able to get a hold of some memos written by Marcia Goodman, a lawyer the NAACP hired to analyze Speaks's claims.  Speaks requested $140,000 - two years' salary - or threatened to file a complaint to the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission and possibly a civil lawsuit.

The NAACP being reported to the EEOC.  How ironic.

The Post also obtained a separate memo detailing some of Mfume's transgressions:

In 1999, staff lawyers conducted an inquiry after two women got into a loud verbal altercation, allegedly over his attentions. One woman was disciplined; the other was promoted several months later, according to one document.

The altercation is described in a May 24, 1999, internal memo that lawyers for the NAACP wrote to Bond. "There appeared to be a widespread belief in the organization that President Mfume had displayed preferential treatment" to one of the women "based on a possible dating relationship," the memo says.

The lawyers then questioned whether Mfume "interfered with this inquiry by exerting improper influence on two key witnesses." Also, according to the memo, Mfume refused to answer questions in the inquiry.

So you have two women in the nation's oldest civil rights organization catfighting over the President.  That sounds like a story from the White House in the 90's.  I would say the early sixties too, but JFK kept his women in check.

But this is the part that takes the cake:

Mfume acknowledged yesterday that he dated one of the women in that altercation, a female NAACP employee, for "three months" and later adopted her 4-year-old son. The boy is now 15, he said. The woman now works for the Maryland Department of Transportation.

"It was for a very brief moment," he said of the relationship. "And I fell in love with this kid who was fatherless and was very withdrawn. He's [become] an unbelievably impressive young man."

I'll tell you what playa (© J. Anthony Brown), women will do it to you EVERY TIME.

Is the foster child the same child that, according to the Post, Mfume claimed to have wanted to spend more time with when he resigned?  Christopher, the son he said he wanted to spend more time with, and the foster child are both 15.

Something's gone terribly wrong when a public official's life sounds like a soap opera.

Here's probably the most damning evidence that Speaks has:

To bolster her analysis, Goodman details salary information for several women who worked at the NAACP's national headquarters in Baltimore and states that those rumored to have close relationships with Mfume, or with his son, have fared better than those who did not.

If Speaks could adequately show a considerable gap between women rumored to have dated Mfume and ones who didn't, the NAACP is toast.  Goodman and the other lawyers who've analyzed the case can believe what they want, but the case is won and lost in court.  That's really all that matters.  Based on the information given, I'd be surprised if Bond and the executive committee hasn't settled with Speaks already.

The fault lies directly at Mfume's feet, no matter whether he truly was guilty of favortism or not.  The information given shows a pattern of sexual dalliances with employees, which could used against you later on.  If it was only one employee, it would be different, but ten?  Who's to say he won't do the same thing if the people of Maryland lose their minds and elect him Senator?

In an interview with the Post yesterday, Mfume said he doesn't engage in "inappropriate behavior".  I would definitely hate to see what he considers inappropriate.  No workplace I know of tolerates this kind of thing (well, actually the WWE does, but I don't think that's the standard Mfume or the NAACP wants to emulate).

I hope to have more on this later.

Over the last few months, Democrats have stepped up their attacks on controversial Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay.  They're still sore about the redistricting plan in Texas that saw them lose several seats in the House of Representatives, which gave them a net loss in Election 04 (nevermind the fact that Democrats have been doing those same redistricting tricks in the South for decades).

Note that Democrats haven't been accusing DeLay of anything illegal, only "unethical".  "Ethics" is a relative term, especially when you add in the fact that many Congressmen across the aisle have been guilty of the same things the Democrats, the media, and the left wing orgs have been accusing DeLay of.

Here's a great example.  Click on the map.

The Democrats don't want DeLay to actually defend the charges, because then there's a possibly he could be cleared of them, and thus they can't use it as propaganda anymore.  They expect the American people to stay stupid, and believe these charges are exclusive to the every-day activities of Washington politicians.  I don't mind these practices being ended, but I won't support a hatchet job being executed on someone by insulting the intelligence of the electorate.

Thus, I'm glad the Republicans did decide to return the rules to normal in order to expedite this ethics process and bring closure to these charges.  The AP and other media entities are characterizing this as a Republican "retreat", but if you've been paying attention to both DeLay and Speaker Hastert's comments, they are the ones that are calling for this so they can clear DeLay's name and finally eliminate this from the Democratic Party talking points.

I, like most people, didn't know Abu Gharib's anniversary was here.  Lucky for us, we had Ted Kennedy wobbling around to remind us.  Kennedy read a lengthy statement from the Senate floor reminding us of the scandal, or at least the anniversary of when the story broke.

Why would Kennedy or any Democrat attempt to place this back into the public spotlight with this speech?  It's quite simple, actually.  Abu Gharib marked one of the most critical moments of the Bush Administration's popularity.  The media aligned with the Democrats to use the scandal to trash the Administration every chance they got for months on end, although the Administration had nothing to do with the scandal.  In fact, top Army officials were cleared of any wrongdoing only days ago.

The Democrats' criticism of Abu Gharib was more about political advancement more than any real humanitarian concern.  Some probably were legitimately appalled, sure, but it was also during a campaign year that could have possibly booted President Bush out of office. 

The left knew the stakes, and they were willing to do whatever it took to recapture the White House, particularly with the financial backup of MoveOn.org and the left-wing 587s which were (and still is) crucial to the Democratic Party's agenda.  Bashing the military was just one of the perks, since most of them have never shown any concern for the military in decades.  National security is anathema to the left anyway; the United States is the cause of it's own problems.

The truth is, the media in conjunction with the Democratic Party pose more of a problem to the War in Iraq as well as the War on Terror than any scandal.  Any bad press that comes from it is guaranteed to be used by the Democrats as cannon fodder in order to attack the Republicans with.  It's time for the American people to ask the Democrats again, "What side are you on?"  They asked the Democrats that in 04, and they didn't like the answer.  The Democrats need to get their priorities straight, or they won't like the answer in 06 or 08.

I have been a fan of Fox's American Idol in the past (although I never vote).  But this year I've been quite critical of the judging during the competition, particularly from Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson.

I also suspected that one of the contestants, Nadia Turner, was booted due to collusion.  A seemingly good performance with no bad notes in it, Simon Cowell trashed it twice: after her performance, and then after Vonzell's performance.  It seemed as if he went out of his way to do so, knowing that it would kill whatever support she had.

Today, Drudge broke this story:

"We got all these ridiculous questions yesterday from an ABC producer," a top IDOL source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. "ABC can not beat us with programming, so they are attempting to bring us down with lies and false charges."

At the center of the questions, the IDOL source claims, are the actions of show judge Paula Abdul.

"[ABC] is trying to say Paula somehow cheats and picks favorite singers to nurture, in violation of some sort of network standards," the IDOL source, who demanded anonymity, explains.

Fellow Judge Simon Cowell will tell TV show EXTRA Tuesday evening: "Paula, to be fair to her, will spend more time backstage with the contestants giving encouragement and everything else.  But, that’s not a bad thing!"

I'll tell you this:  I'll watch it.  However this story won't have any teeth if ABC doesn't come up with some finalists, and I don't see that happening because they are all under contract (well, contracts could run out, right?)

Paula's been in a huge amount of trouble as of late.  First, she was charged for the hit and run incident from last December.  Last week, one of the former contestants announced he was writing a book about an affair she had with him - he is 24 and she is 42.  And there have been rumors that she has a pill addiction (which would explain her often-erratic behavior).  I wouldn't be surprised if the ABC story is enough for Idol producers to tell Paula her services won't be needed for another season.

I thought last year was embarrassing, but this season has been worse, despite having more talent.  Idol's ratings are at their worst, and I'm sure after next Wednesday things won't get any better.

Yesterday I talked about the Democrats seeking a compromise in order to save face from the nuclear option.

Today the answer was given.  Senator Bill Frist held a press conference on the Senate floor and said no to any deal that wouldn't place all of the nominees on the Senate floor and reserve the right for future nominees to get the same vote.  In other words, there isn't a compromise:

But Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

``My goal is to have fair up and down votes. Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no,'' Frist said. 

That means he and Reid are still at deadlock, because Democrats have said they would not accept any deals that would permanently ban them from blocking Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or the federal appellate courts, the top two tiers of the judicial system.

Well, I'm mildly surprised.  I expected Frist to cave.  In fact, the question in my mind was how much he was going to get for it.

But maybe this had something to do with it:

Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the federal judiciary and strongly defended President Bush's choice of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.

In an hour-long interview with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors, Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they might drop threats to use filibusters to prevent votes on Bush's judicial nominees if the president would withdraw a few of the most controversial names.

Now I'm not one to go into Rovian-based conspiracies like the moonbats, but is it possible that Rove read the tea leaves and thought Frist was going to blow this, so he decided to handle this himself?  It's possible, and if he did I can't blame him.  Frist was probably going to make the Republicans look impotent.

Either way, it looks like they're finally showing some backbone.

Previous posts:

1. Democrats looking to compromise on nuclear option.
2. Backbone.

If there is one thing thats great about watching the NBA, it's watching it on TNT.

I watched Houston beat Dallas in a great game tonight.  Both teams played tough, but Dallas just doesn't have enough heart to pull it out.

Both teams had great playmakers.  T-Mac at times put Houston on his back and rolled with it, including hitting the deciding shot of the game with 2.2 tics left.  Yao Ming is simply an offensive monster when he wants to be.  There's no question he's the heir apparent to Shaq.

For some reason, Dirk Nowitski has simply been off in this series.  He had a good fourth quarter in this game, but he's been nonexistent in the seven quarters prior to that.  You can tell Mark Cuban is frustrated at the way his guys are playing.

One guy that might be gone in the offseason is Keith Van Horn.  He had a good third quarter, but he looked lousy down the stretch, including not picking up McGrady on the winning jumper off the Yao Ming pick.  Magic Johnson (I'm about to clown him in a second) felt it was due to Van Horn being an "offensive player", but that's garbage. 

First, this isn't football.  You have to play on both ends on the court at all times; in fact, the biggest problem Dallas has is that they don't make defensive stops.  Second, it wasn't like it was a complex play.  All Yao did was set a high pick - a play they killed the Mavs with all night - for T-Mac to come around and shoot the 15 footer.  Switching off to the ballhandler is something you learn to do in middle school.  With only eight seconds left on the clock, you can't afford to give a sharpshooter like T-Mac that kind of space.

If you haven't been paying close attention to the filibuster controversy in the Senate, on Sunday Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell announced the Republicans had at least 51 votes to place them over the top to ban filibusters.

The Democrats took this very seriously, as Senator Joe Biden called for a compromise that would have all but two senators to be sent to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  That pretty much sealed McConnell's statement as fact.  Democrats know they are whipped.  Lo and behold, we get news today of private talks between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:

Officials said as part of an overall deal, Reid has indicated he is willing to allow the confirmation of Richard Griffin and David McKeague, both of whom Bush has twice nominated for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time, the Democratic leader wants the nomination of Henry Saad scuttled. Democrats succeeded in blocking all three men from coming to a vote in 2004 in a struggle that turned on issues of senatorial prerogatives as well as ideology.

I know one thing:  if Frist makes a deal that doesn't include William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen, I'm going to be very pissed, and there's going to be a number of conservatives that are going to be pissed as well.  The Republicans have the majority of the Senate and they have the votes to finish off this filibuster; they need to use their muscle. 

In fact, I don't see why Frist is so willing to seek a compromise anyway; the only compromise that should even be considered is that all of the judges they've tried to hold up to be placed on the Senate floor in place of keeping the filibuster option alive.  That's it.  If Reid and the Democrats aren't willing to do that, then tell them to take a hike.

Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters depicts this as backbone.  Let's hold our horses on that for a second, because we don't know what will come out of this.  Republicans have a way of screwing up these situations.  And it's gotten to the point that every time I hear about a compromise being forged, I cringe.  Somehow it's always conservative policies that get sacrificed.  Besides, this is more than just about getting judges confirmed; this is a matter of principle.  If the Republicans can't get their agenda with the advantages they were clearly given last November, then what else does the American people have to give them?