New York Daily News

Quote Of The Day, Columbus Day Edition

Earlier this morning, on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing asked liberal media mogul (owner of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report), real estate billionaire, journalist and author Mort Zuckerman how he would spend the few million dollars remaining at the Democrats' disposal to help preserve its congressional majorities if he was the DNC chairman (who happens to be former governor Tim Kaine).

Snapped Zuckerman:

If I was the DNC chairman, I'd spend that money on finding a second career. 


Zuckerman to Kaine: Take the money, run and find a new line of work.

Congressman Weiner's Meltdown A Sign Of The Stress That Comes With Knowing The Jig Is Up?

If you haven't seen it, or not seen it in its entirety, it is worth the view: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) melted down ( on the House floor last week. His rant, ostensibly, was over Republican opposition to a spending bill for New York City's 9/11 first responders. Actually, Republicans were not against the bill so much as the procedure — the liberal leadership of the House brought the bill up under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority. Under a suspension, amendments are not allowed, and the GOP wanted to offer amendments. According to CNN, the bill likely will come up again under the normal procedure, in which a simple majority is needed.   So, it seems as if Congressman Weiner's outburst is all about nothing. If the Dems don't want any amendments, they have the votes to kill them. That simple. (See Michael McAuliff at New York Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac blog.) Which begs the question: Why get so hyper over a simple procedural vote?

The answer may be that the congressman knows that the liberal House (of cards) was found out long ago and that in about three months the American public will take a collective huff and puff and blow it all down. That would cause a lot of stress and the need to concoct a procedure to frame the opposition party into looking as if it's against the principle of the bill (and 9/11 heroes) when it, in fact, had different ideas on how to implement it (see No one is falling for it.

Like a con man getting found out, a very telling reaction from Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Virginia News Stand: April 13, 2010

Annotations & Elucidations Calling Mr. Ripley 

It's more Tea Party mania as Tax Day fast approaches. Groups are seeking Tea Party support in potential opposition to President Obama's next choice to the U.S. Supreme Court; liberal activists are trying to infiltrate Tea Parties with the purpose of embarrassing them (as we've known all along, and which the mainstream media finally has picked up on, see Aleksandra Kulczuga at The Daily Caller as well as the AP); and in Virginia, Tea Party activists have won two western GOP unit chair elections in recent days.

Meanwhile, nationally, and speaking of Tea Parties, support for the health care law is plummeting faster than a Soprano victim in the Elizabeth River, and more Americans than pay income tax think we're over taxed! That should tell you something, and Scott Rasmussen and Richard Olivastro do in Analysis and Commentary, respectively.

Think the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act is nervy, standing up to the big, bad federales? William Green of the Tenth Amendment Center has an idea that will knock your boots off. Also in that vein, and speaking of New Jersey (The Soprano's), many here patted themselves on the back after Governor McDonnell and the General Assembly balanced our budget without a general tax increase and reduced spending to $70 billion (over two years), a figure last seen in 2006. Very nice. But, as Norman Leahy notes at Tertium Quids, the other new governor, Chris Christie of New Jersey, is fighting for, and winning, real reforms, not to mention that even though it is larger than Virginia, it's annual budget is $29.3 billion. Even more impressive: The N.J. deficit is $10 billion; our two-year deficit was $4 billion. New Jersey more frugal than Virginia? Call Mr. Ripley.


Morrissey, Style Weekly settle $10 million libel lawsuit (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Griffith reaping GOP support (Roanoke Times)

Boyer elected head of Bedford GOP unit (Lynchburg News & Advance)

National News

Groups look for Tea Party support on nomination (AP/

Foes of Tea Party movement to infiltrate rallies (AP/

Census: No evidence of a conservative boycott (AP/

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on gay adoption: Kids 'aren't puppies' (New York Daily News)


Support for Repeal of Health Care Plan Up To 58% (Scott Rasmussen/Rasmussen Reports)

66% Say America Is Overtaxed (Scott Rasmussen/Rasmussen Reports)

Florida Senate GOP Primary: Rubio 57%, Crist 28% (Scott Rasmussen/Rasmussen Reports)

Christie may be the real GOP model (Norman Leahy/Tertium Quids Blog)

Media Research Center: Coverage of Tea Parties is disparaging and biased (Aleksandra Kulczuga/The Daily Caller Blog)


Next it will be government crashing the Tea Party (Richard Viguerie & Mark Fitzgibbons/Washington Examiner)

Ending the Fed From the Bottom Up (William Green/Tenth Amendment Center)

Stupak's Final Retreat (Editorial/Washington Times)

Good Riddance (Thomas Sowell/

Democrats Manipulate CBO (David Limbaugh/

Can You Afford More Taxes? (Richard Olivastro/

A V-Shaped Boom Is Coming (Larry Kudlow/

Is Romney Grasping at Straws? (Aaron Goldstein/The American Spectator)

George W. Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, Files Federal Lawsuit To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

That's right. Ted Olson, who led George W. Bush's legal team in the aftermath of the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore tried to steal Florida's vote from the then-Texas governor, and who was successful in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, has filed a lawsuit in federal court, citing the 14th Amendment, that would strike down each state and federal law and state constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. President Bush then named him U.S. Solicitor General, the top litigator at the Justice Department. Olson's legal teammate now is David Boies, Gore's lawyer during the attempted electoral heist. Mr. Olson certainly is entitled to his opinions, but he is more than slightly arrogant and presumtious when he says this, according to the New York Daily News:

"It's not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We're here in part to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution," said Olson, a prominent Republican.

Olson said he asked Boies, a Democrat, to join his team to present 'a united front' . ..."

Let's make one thing clear: Mr. Olson doesn't speak for all Republicans. He and Mr. Boies, don't speak for all Democrats. In 2006, Virginia voters ratified the Marriage Amendment with 57 percent of the vote. Neither U.S. Senate candidate that year got more than 50 percent. A significant amount of Democrats, including a large percentage of black and Hispanic voters, who voted in most cases for the Democrat senate candidate, cast their ballots for the Marriage Amendment. California's Marriage Amendment last year carried that state with 52 percent of the vote, but large blocs of black and Hispanic voters put the amendment over the top while simultaneously voting for Barack Obama (who, by the way, supports traditional, one-man one-woman marriage).

Just because two elite lawyers get together and create a great photo op based on their previous history, doesn't mean they are unifying two factions. In fact, they are doing quite the opposite. He is correct in one regard, though: this has "nothing to do with liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat." But it has nothing to do with "equal rights," either, and everything to do with special rights. Says the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:

"The members of Congress who wrote that Amendment in 1866, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended such an application, nor can anything in the Amendment be construed to imply such a 'right.'"

But what's really incomprehensible is Mr. Olson's sudden disregard for  states' rights and federalism, something Mr. Olson apparently stood for when he was solicitor general. Since this issue is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, it is not a federal issue. Why he thinks that concept, for which he has fought his entire career, doesn't now apply is puzzling to say the least.

However, there is one paradoxical angle here that should give us reason for optimism: Many homosexual activists don't agree with the lawsuit because a loss in federal court could be a swift, solitary blow to any legal action for years. While that thought may sound reassuring, however, we are sure if Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies fail, others certainly will find another angle. This is only one battle in what certainly now will be a long, protracted cultural war,  where the weapon of choice will be lawyers.