Can you say oops?

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.”

Clinton agrees, saying, “We’ve got to cut the number” and “they’re not serious.” She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, “We’ve gotta get back to it.”

It amazes me how they both still think they are the big dogs.  Hillary has a lot of momentum, but Edwards is likely going to be delegated to being someone’s possible VP pick.  He has no credibility and his elitism will never fly. 

But in Hillary’s case I hope she is afraid of Obama and the late entry, Al Gore.

Of course both claimed plausible deniability.

Both Edwards and Clinton were asked about the exchange Friday, and offered different explanations.

In New Hampshire, Clinton seemed to lay responsibility on Edwards.

“I think he has some ideas about what he’d like to do,” she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn’t in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

“The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us,” he said.

Nice.  Typical politician’s evasion:  “I didn’t say that…ok I did say something, but it wasn’t that...and even if I did, I didn’t means what you think I did.”

Kucinich was unimpressed.

So much cruel Irony.  The body of the girl was found after the suspect in custody led them to it.

Body of missing Tacoma girl found

A suspect in the case of a missing 12-year-old Tacoma girl directed police to her body today, ending a week-long search after her July 4 abduction that drew national attention.

“It is with great regret and sorrow that I am informing our community that we have located the body of Zina Linnik,” said Tacoma Police Chief Don Ramsdell, reading from a prepared statement tonight.

Ramsdell said information provided by the suspect led police and FBI investigators to the girl’s body. Court records name the man as 42-year-old Terapon Dang Adhahn, a convicted sex offender who has been in custody on an unrelated immigration matter since Monday. He had not been charged in Zina’s abduction or death as of Thursday night.

The Linniks were Ukrainian immigrants who came here ten years ago.  The sad irony in this is that as these immigrants celebrated this countries Independence, their daughter was kidnapped by another immigrant.

Is this an indictment of our immigration system?  Maybe, maybe not, as you can cherry pick anything to make your point.  He may be here unlawfully or not, I don’t know as the “unrelated immigration matter” has not been clarified.

Heck the immigration status of the Linniks isn’t even clarified.  But the cruel nature of the irony stands.

And it gets worse, as this guy was also a convicted sex offender, and had failed to register, another problematic issue in our state.  Sound Politics wonders why he wasn’t deported after his conviction in 1990.  Good question.

And he even registered to vote, yet another problematic issue here abouts.

And all moot really.

Zina is dead.  Pointing out all this is futile, it won’t bring her back.

My respects to her family.

Idiots!  I can’t say it any more clearly then that.

Christian activists disrupt Hindu prayer in US Senate 

Invited by the Senate to offer Hindu prayers in place of the usual Christian invocation, Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Reno, Nevada, had just stepped up to the podium for the landmark occasion when three protesters, said to belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, interrupted him by loudly asking for God’s forgiveness for allowing the ”false prayer” of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

“Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight,” the first protester shouted. “This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before You.”

Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who was serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. But they continued to protest as they were headed out the door by the marshals, shouting, “No Lord but Jesus Christ!” and “There’s only one true God!”

Fools.  How disrespectful.  I would wager the “one true God” thinks you’re a bonehead.

These guys are whack jobs who clearly do not understand that the reality of religious freedom in America is just that:  Freedom.  While no one can argue that our country was founded with Judaeo Christian values as the basis for a lot of our laws, it is NOT a Christian government, and when the government rotates different faiths in these prayers they do so to reflect the actual demographics of our country.

If our religious freedom, which we celebrate, means anything at all, it has to be absolute.

When the Liberals castigate conservatives and Christians as being intolerant, this is a clear example of the types that prove their point.

But that said, let’s try and remember these are individuals, and should not be used to demonize the entire faith, even as the anti war nutroots are not reflective of all Liberals.

Only one other issue seems to polarize people on the two ideological sides as much as the war.  No, make that two.  I may deal with those tomorrow.

The war in Iraq, and war in general has to be the single most divisive issue among all the current ones.

Cutting to the quick here, let me state the obvious:  I have no particular issue with people hating war.  In fact, anyone who loves it, or enjoys it, is clearly a psychotic monster.

But, having said that, the way that some liberals address their dislike of war is concerning.  It is fine to oppose it, but all that has to mean is making wars as infrequent as possible, and as short as possible.

The conservatives seem to get it.  They more are more likely to recognize that war is hell, but a necessary one sometimes.  This does not make them war mongers, it makes them realistic.

Where liberals scare me is when they dismiss was as unthinkable without any actual evaluation of the necessities.

The use of the military becomes a factor of the difference.  Clinton, for example, did not understand what the military was.  Aside from being a photo-op backdrop, he saw it as a broad bladed police force.  To him, the idea was to punish terrorism, for example, in a legal fashion, rather then with a military response to an act of war against the country.

The subject of supporting the troops is contentious as well.  The troops need a clear focus to do their job, but when they are painted as murderers and terrorists by their own elected representatives it is hard to keep that focus.

The liberals preach that supporting the troops means bringing them home.  I don’t buy that if bringing them home means having them demoralized, with a worse battle to come for having left this one unfinished.  Why not empower them to kick ass and get the job done and bring them home victorious?