Bill's Bites -- 2006.10.09
Contributed by Bill Faith
The webmaster's blog-within-a-blog.
Continuously updated, newest items at the top.
Destitute Dog -- Please read this and help if you can.
Paint it black blue: Dems lead by 23 on generic ballot;
Update: RNC launches “firewall strategy”
Allahpundit
I don’t care. Not my problem anymore. Not. my. problem.
Unless and until Bush signs the fence bill.
Yeah, I know, “the generic ballot doesn’t mean anything.” Quote: ...
Video: Ted Turner unclear which side he is on in War on Terror, media has “no business” showing flag
Ian Schwartz
Speaking at the National Press Club this afternoon, CNN founder Ted Turner said he was “disturbed” by the President’s “either you’re with us or you’re against us” attitude:
[video link]
TED TURNER: There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me and one of them is the attitude, that you know, that was well expressed by our President. He said it very clearly, he said either you’re with us or you’re against us. And I had a problem with that because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet. ...
The fake fence fiasco
Michelle Malkin
Well, I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so.
On Sept. 14, I wrote: [...]
Now, Mickey Kaus at Slate.com is raising alarm bells over whether President Bush actually signed the Secure Fence Act during a grand ceremony in Arizona and whether a pocket veto will occur: Is Bush going to sign the 700-mile border fence bill (the Secure Fence Act), passed with great fanfare by Congress a little over a week ago? According to an AP story from Friday: President Bush has not yet signed the Secure Fence Act
That signing ceremony he held last Wednesday in Arizona, it turns out, was only for a Homeland Security appropriations bill that included "$1.2 billion for border fencing." It wasn't the Secure Fence Act.
We're approaching pocket veto territory here, aren't we? Under the Constitution Bush has 10 days to sign the bill into law--a deadline that would seem to be rapidly approaching.
More Kaus: Yes, I find it hard to believe that Bush would double-cross the pro-fence Republican base like that, a month before an election. I hope somebody sends me an e-mail soon to say I'm wrong. But you can't read the above passages without thinking the White House was at least trying to create the option of a pocket veto, hidden under the diversion of an appropriations-bill signing.
Rob Port at Say Anything has been monitoring the White House and explains further:
Google plus YouTube equals...
Michelle Malkin
...more trouble for conservative users, if Google News's and Google execs' campaign donations records are any indication. Here's the official word on the buyout: Google Inc. (GOOG) snapped up YouTube Inc. for $1.65 billion Monday in deal that catapults the Internet search leader to a leading role in the online video revolution. The all-stock acquisition unites one of the Internet's marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars.
*** 17:14 Google aquires YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars
Bryan Preston SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Google Inc. (GOOG) snapped up YouTube Inc. for $1.65 billion Monday in deal that catapults the Internet search leader to a leading role in the online video revolution. The all-stock acquisition unites one of the Internet’s marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars.
[-- An Item that was originally posted here has been moved to It's da bomb --]
Is Bush going to veto the border fence?
Allahpundit
Kaus explains it all to you.
Not that it matters. As previously reported, they’ve loaded up the appropriations bill with so many loopholes that they won’t have to build it even if he does sign.
In which case, why doesn’t he sign? Why would he do something as insanely antagonistic to his own base as torpedoing what’s already only a cosmetic gesture towards border security? It can’t be for Hispanic votes; the number of Republican voters he’d alienate by vetoing the bill would surely outnumber the Latino voters he’d pick up. ...
YouTube's slippery slope
Michelle Malkin
Tom Zeller Jr. at the New York Times saw fit to write about the jihad vs. anti-jihad battle at YouTube today. Not only does he appear to agree that banning "First, They Came" was a bad idea, but he also, unlike his colleague Virginia Heffernan (who inspired my new tagline), manages to cover the story with minimal snark andwithout any ethnic references at all. Wonders never cease! "A Slippery Slope of Censorship at YouTube"
Last week, as YouTube continued its recent campaign to spit-shine its image and, perhaps, to look a little less ragtag to potential buyers (including Google, which was said to be eyeing the upstart in the $1.6 billion range), the company took a scrub bucket to some questionable political graffiti on its servers, including a video entry from the doyenne of right-wing blogs, Michelle Malkin (michellemalkin.com). ...
[-- Several Items that were originally posted here have been moved to It's da bomb --]
Columbia U.: Campus gone wild
Michelle Malkin
Today's Vent.
The Examiner makes the same point I made: The thugs should be expelled from Columbia and barred from admission at any other self-respecting university. But frankly, we doubt that Columbia officials will do much of anything beyond delivering figurative slaps on the wrists of the offending students and their accomplices. Too many American academic officials have become cowed by fear of appearing to violate the politically correct orthodoxy that rules most campuses.
And too many of them agree with the thugs they helped create. ...
[-- Several Items that were originally posted here have been moved to It's da bomb --]
- 01:46 (Forgotten earlier due to ISP problems)
DNC Recruiting Veterans
Contributed by Bobbie (OWB)
You really cannot blame the DNC for doing everything they can to garner the votes of veterans. After all, when you add up all those who have served in some capacity with the military and their family members, friends and associates, it is a significant voting block. Plus, there remains in this country a sizable group of voters who simply have more respect for the armed forces and those who have served than any other group in the country.
Unfortunately, the movers and shakers within the DNC have so removed themselves from average Americans that they seem to have no means for making the simplest decisions concerning appealing to veterans. ...
Late Start
Had a round of ISP problems, late doing my "midnight rollover" stuff. Sorry about that.
Bill's Bites --- 2006.10.08 Soft Bites -- 2006.10.08
|
