When George W. Bush ran for President he promised to do everything possible to build the NMD, the national missile defense system.  The following article describes the opposition to this decision:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/opinion-polls/ballistic-missiles/americans-back-deeper-cuts.html

The Rumsfeld Commission issued a report in 1998, while Bill Clinton was President that now seems eerily prophetic:

Concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies. These newer, developing threats in North Korea, Iran and Iraq are in addition to those still posed by the existing ballistic missile arsenals of Russia and China, nations with which the United States is not now in conflict but which remain in uncertain transitions. The newer ballistic missile-equipped nations’ capabilities will not match those of U.S. systems for accuracy or reliability. However, they would be able to inflict major destruction on the U.S. within about five years of a decision to acquire such a capability (10 years in the case of Iraq). During several of those years, the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made.

Liberals dismissed this as nonsense.  Their plan was to wait until we knew for sure someone was building a threat, then we would make a mad dash to build a defense system.  Rumsfeld pointed out, correctly, that we might not get five years notice.  In addition, five years might not be enough. 

When George W Bush announced his decision to pursue NMD, Democrats were opposed 56% to 41%, while Republicans supported it 60% to 37%.

Al Gore was opposed to NMD.  He was in the class of people who wanted to wait and then build a smaller, more efficient system:

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Defense.htm

I strongly believe that if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000 he would have significantly cut spending for NMD.

I favor an effort to develop a limited missile defense system and not a massive “star wars” system because our country will probably face a new threat later in this decade from a small arsenal of relatively unsophisticated ICBMs in the hands of a rogue state. [Bush’s proposed] much larger, space-based star wars approach is far more difficult to design and build, far more expensive to purchase, less likely to work, and is calculated to destroy existing arms control arrangements with the Russians.   

This would have been consistent with the Clinton administration who was afraid to cancel the program outright, but who instead tried to back burner it:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_09/clintonnmd

President Bill Clinton announced September 1 that he would not proceed with deployment of the planned limited national missile defense (NMD). Speaking at Georgetown University, the president highlighted concerns about the system’s technology, which he described as “not yet proven,” and diplomatic opposition to the missile defense, including close NATO allies, as reasons behind his decision. The president said he believed his action, which will leave an NMD deployment decision to the next administration, was in “the best security interest of the United States.”

Fortunately for everyone, George W. Bush, not Al Gore, was elected President of the United States in 2000 and he was determined to build the NMD.  In a major speech on May 1, 2001, Bush outlined the danger:

Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.

He boldly announced that the United States would withdraw from the obsolete ABM treaty:

We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.

His decision to put maximum effort to develop the NMD was met with withering criticism from top Democrats.

Senator Joe Biden scoffed at some future threat from North Korea.  He thought it “specious” to believe that: 

one day [North Korean President] Kim Jong-il or someone will wake up one morning and say, �Aha, San Francisco!’

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening.

Senator Tom Daschle was convinced that:

the president may be buying a lemon here. I don’t know how you support the deployment of a program that doesn’t work.

Senator John Kerry thought this would just set off another arms race:

“If you can’t shoot down 100% of them [incoming missiles], you haven’t gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. And if you can, you set off an arms race to develop a capacity that can’t be touched by a missile defense system.”

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said that:

By announcing his intent to move forward with as yet unproven, costly and expansive national missile defense systems, the President is jeopardizing an arms control framework that has served this nation and the world well for decades.

As soon as President Obama was elected he changed focus with regard to the NMD.  The following article from the Council on Foreign Relations explains this:

http://www.cfr.org/defense-strategy/national-missile-defense-status-report/p18792

Since the election of President Barack Obama, however, the future of anti-missile defense has grown less certain (Arms Control Association). The Obama administration has framed its national missile defense strategy with the caveat that continued support will be contingent on pragmatic and cost-effective technological advances and will “not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.” Missile defense experts interpret these statements to suggest the pace of development will slow (CQ), since the technologies have repeatedly failed in field tests.

This was a return to the Clinton doctrine of pretending to develop a NMD system while actually slowing down the pace of development.  Democrats never want to admit that are opposed to the NMD, they just seem to find one excuse after another to never actually implement it.

According to Forbes, Obama severely cut back the deployment of the NMD:

Reversing an earlier Obama administration decision, the Pentagon has now budgeted $1 billion to expand our West Coast-based missile defense system. Newly-appointed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has announced plans to deploy 14 more ground-based long-range missile interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska by 2017. This will supplement the 30 already existing on the West Coast. The reasoning he offered was: “The United States has missile defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM attacks…but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and is engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations.”

The U.S. could have already had those 14 more interceptors in place, along with another 10 in Europe next year.  The Bush administration deployed the first ground-based interceptor (GBI) in 2004, and had planned to deploy a total of 54. In 2009, Obama pulled the plug on that plan, and cut GBI deployment to just 30.

President Obama also mothballed or killed several other missile defense development programs. This included a scale-back of the Airborne Laser program to enable enemy missile interceptions during their early launch phase, along with the elimination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor which uses small warheads on a single rocket to handle decoys and offer a better chance of success. Obama’s 2010 defense budget cut $1.4 billion from the Missile Defense Agency.

North Korea has launched a three stage missile that put an object in orbit.  Obviously if you can put something in orbit, you can reach anywhere in the world.  That, unfortunately, includes the U.S.  It is important to understand that this would not need to be very accurate.  Many experts claim that the detonation of a relatively small nuclear weapon designed to deliver an EMP explosion at high altitude over the United States has the potential to inflict devastating damage.  It also doesn’t have to involve several missiles.  One lucky shot would do an unbelievable amount of damage.

If we had listened to people like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt odds are pretty high that we wouldn’t have much of a defense at all.  Now President Obama is declaring that if North Korea launches a missile we can defend ourselves.  I hope he is right.  If he is, then he better get down on his knees and thank God for the wisdom, courage and determination of George W. Bush. 

At the moment, it looks like North Korea is planning to launch at least one and possible more missiles.  They have launched “test” missiles in the past.  But the problem is that they time they claim they are going to attack us with a nuclear weapon.  If the U.S. did not think there was any risk, then why move missile defense facilities to South Korea and Guam.  Why suddenly rush to install 14 more ground interceptors?  If we move real quick, we can have them up and running by 2017.  I’m sure North Korea will be willing to wait.   

What if there is any chance, no matter how small, that North Korea could deliver a nuclear weapon to explode in our upper atmosphere.  Can we risk any chance of that happening?  Is the administration willing to let North Korea launch a missile and hope it is either aimed someplace else, or hope it is just a test, or hope it doesn’t really have a nuclear warhead?  What if we try to shoot it down and miss?   

What if they launch a missile, it appears to be a genuine threat, but it malfunctions or we shoot it own.  Do we just ignore this and express outrage? 

What if we launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea and destroy those sites before anything can be launched.  That would pretty much eliminate the threat of a nuclear assault, but at what cost?  That could easily set off another Korean War.  North Korea has thousands of artillery units ready, willing and able to wreak havoc on the Seoul metropolitan area.  Many experts predict that such a conflict could end up costing over 1 million casualties.  When you add in the factor of China building up troops on the North Korean border, this is a very serious situation.

I don’t know if there is a good answer.  The only thing I know is this.  We all owe President Bush a huge debt of gratitude.  In spite of overwhelming opposition from the cultured elite and the liberal left, Bush ordered the NMD and he pushed for it every day of his Presidency.  Thanks to George W. Bush, we have options.  If we had listened to Democrats we probably wouldn’t have any options at all.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will figure that out.

 TDM

Earlier this year I wrote that Obamacare couldn’t possibly work because the numbers don’t add up.  Well guess what.  The Society of Actuaries just released a report saying that Obamacare won’t work because the numbers don’t add up.  These are the people who are paid big bucks by the insurance industry for doing the math and getting it right.  Their credibility is beyond reproach.  This is not evidence of astute observation and analysis by me, it is evidence that Obamacare won’t work because the numbers don’t add up.  The following article from the Washington Guardian explains the problem:

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/study-health-overhaul-raise-claims-cost-32-pct-1

Grab your hats folks, because this is going to get worse, much worse.   The numbers don’t add up for Obamacare and they can’t raise taxes enough to fix the problem.  Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama were granted almost total power in January of 2009.  There isn’t a lick of common sense in the group.  What did you expect?  They came, they saw, they squandered and left us with a mess.

TDM

The California housing bubble caught a lot of people, including me, by surprise.  I knew that housing prices in California were insane.  But that had been true for years.  I knew that some really smart people said the bubble could burst, but it was hard to imagine.  There were times when prices had dropped in the past, for about 15 minutes, but soon they soon came back even stronger.  In addition, I didn’t personally know anyone who really believed the bubble was about to burst.  We were all afraid that if we didn’t buy a house now, we would never be able to buy a house in the future.  For a long time that was accurate.  If you didn’t buy a house when you could, the next year it would be 15% higher but your income sure wouldn’t be 15% higher.  Houses seemed to move farther out of reach with no end in sight.

Of course now we all know that the collapse of the housing bubble was inevitable.  The numbers weren’t adding up and in hindsight, this is really obvious.  I did some research about an upscale community in Northern California in 2007.  This area had a median household income of about $118,000, which is near the top.   The average price of a home was $535,000.  That means that even in this extremely affluent community the average family could not afford the average house.  How on earth did we expect that to continue?

Now we are looking at an international financial bubble that makes the housing bubble pale in comparison.  Once again the numbers just don’t add up.  Supposedly smart people are trying to get out of debt by borrowing more money.  Other supposed smart people are trying to help by loaning them more money.  When, exactly, has this ever worked?  Our fed chairman thinks that if we just keep interest rates near zero that everything will be just fine.  If he keeps in up, we will eventually be paying people to borrow money.  This reminds me of the kid who tried to skate across a pond on thin ice.  As long as he went really fast, it was ok, but the minute he started to slow down he was in serious trouble.  Well things are slowing down all over the world and it sure looks like trouble.

The latest and greatest bailout deal in Cyprus is astonishing.  The EU is going to give Cyprus banks 10 billion euros, but only if the banks first take (steal) 4.8 billion from their largest depositors.  Senior bondholders will be unceremoniously wiped out.  The Laiki Bank will be shut down and the “insured” depositors will be moved to the Bank of Cyprus.  In the meantime banks will not reopen until at least Thursday and the government is going to limit the amount of capital that can be withdrawn.  I suspect people all over the world are looking for an exit strategy.  It won’t take much to trigger a mad dash for the exits.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the EU will pour enough water (actually watered down currency) on the financial fire in Cyprus to stave off the inevitable.  But at best, this will not solve the problem; it will just kick it further down the road.  Then another fire will erupt somewhere and there will be even fewer options for containing the results.  The only real solution would be a booming world economy, but all of Europe is run by socialists who have never succeeded in creating a strong economy.  The former economic engine of the world, the United States, is following Europe down the path toward economic stagnation. 

In an interview today Charles Krauthammer made an interesting comment comparing the situation in Cyprus to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.  Following is a link to a Daily Caller article about that interview:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/26/krauthammer-compares-cyprus-bailout-to-assassination-that-led-to-world-war-i-audio/

The problem with Krauthammer’s comment is that it has the ugly odor of truth.  The collapse of the housing bubble was bad enough.  This time the entire world could experience a bubble bath.

TDM

It discourages me to hear conservatives brag about how they love our drones.  They think it is wonderful that these neat little drones are really good at killing all those nasty terrorists.  There is no doubt that these guys had it coming.  It feels so good to eliminate the problem painlessly.  Granted a few innocent civilians are also getting killed, but one must expect some collateral damage.  It’s doesn’t matter where they are, because our drones are really good.  We don’t even bother getting permission from the host country, or anyone else.  They can’t stop us anyway.  We just spot the target on the neat little camera and bombs away.  This is so exciting that the Obama administration tried to create a new combat medal for drone operators, to show their appreciation.  Liberals were describing this as the new, modern, better form of warfare.  What could possibly go wrong?

Unfortunately, we may have unleashed a serious problem.  One obvious problem is that our government may have been seriously considering the use of drones against us.  Every day there are more reports of drones being used in the U.S.  Currently, these drones aren’t armed they are just used for surveillance.  But originally drones in places like Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t armed either.  Then someone figured out that just attaching a little missile here and there was really cool.  One day a drone spotted a terrorist, a button was pushed and: instant results.  What a great new concept.  We can now kill people almost anywhere without risking any of our own people.  At first we only used them on the battlefield.  Then we started using them in Pakistan.  Now we are using them in places like Yemen and the Sudan.  If it wasn’t for Rand Paul, they might even have been used here. 

This reminds me of the nuclear bomb.  It was a great option for Harry S. Truman.  He dropped a couple of bombs, two cities were eliminated and World War II was over.  But within a short period of time, the Soviet Union also got a bomb.  Suddenly nuclear bombs weren’t all that great any more.  A nuclear bomb looks a lot less attractive when you are a potential target too.

I predict the same thing will happen with drones.  It won’t be long before our enemies have drones too.  According to the following article from National Journal, Iran may already have one:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321

Even if they don’t have them yet, they will have them, probably sooner rather than later.  And as least one of them will feel no moral restrain in launching one against us.  Why would they?  We’re the ones who set the standard.

For whom the drone roams.  It roams for you and me.

TDM

The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments on one of the most important cases in our nation’s history.  It should not be a close call, but with the recent Obama appointees on the court this is very likely to be another 5-4 decision.  Arizona has a law requiring people to prove they are U.S. citizens before registering to vote.  They want things like birth certificates.  Currently in Arizona you can use the federal form, which is a joke: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/politics/supreme-court-justices-appear-divided-on-arizona-voting-law.html?_r=0

The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens under penalty of perjury

The bottom line here is that Democrats passed a federal law saying all you need to do to vote in an election is “say you are a U.S. Citizen.”  No wonder they still don’t consider Barack Obama’s birth certificate to be an important issue.  When you combine this with millions of illegal aliens in the United States and the Democratic Party openly soliciting their votes the danger is obvious.  The worst outcome here would be for the Supreme Court to just overturn the Arizona law.  If that happens, it may be impossible for Republicans to ever win another election.  The best outcome is probably if the Court determines that the federal standard is inadequate and demand the federal government set up a reasonable system to verify the citizenship of all voters.  A middle outcome would be to uphold the Arizona law or at least parts of the Arizona law.  At least then a lot of states would almost immediately adopt standards consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

If we lose this one, I don’t see any hope of recovery.  I still suspect that if voting in the last election had been limited to legally registered, living voters, only allowed to vote once, that the results might have been quite different.  We will never know, because we have no way of verifying this.  If we don’t change this now; future elections will be determined by which party is more skilled at stealing votes.

TDM

President Obama is well on his way to becoming the lamest of all lame duck Presidents.  He has botched things big time, his popularity is dropping like a stone and even Democrats are starting to turn on him.  Today John Podesta took a major shot at Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/john-podesta-obama_n_2868904.html

John Podesta was the Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton.  He was also co-chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.  This is a Democrat’s Democrat.   I remember when Lyndon Johnson said that if he had lost Cronkite he had lost the country.  Well, if Obama has lost Podesta, he has lost the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  The second term of the Obama administration is less than two months old and it is already looking like a Quacker Factory.

Have you noticed that Republicans have started to go more than a little silent lately?  The reason is that when your opponent is self-destructing, you just get out of the way.  Quack, quack!

TDM

Up until now, Barack Obama has never had to learn the meaning of the word no.  Whatever he wanted, he got, usually with little or no real effort.  The most consistent pattern to his life has been unearned rewards.  He was the first person with zero accomplishments elected President of the United States.  He even won the noble peace prize for doing nothing.  For the first four years of his presidency, Republicans were afraid to say no.  They were continually battered by self-inflicted wounds earned in battles they were afraid to fight. 

His demands with regard to sequestration were so absurd that even the spineless RINO Republicans were forced to say no.  The results have been immediate and earthshattering.

Like most spoiled brats who are finally told no, Barack Obama threw a hissy fit.  He campaigned around the country trying to blame Republicans for the sequestration plan that was actually his idea.  But a miracle happened.  This time even the main stream media didn’t buy his nonsense.  This time it was Barack Obama who had to back down.  Then Rand Paul stood alone on the Senate floor, unarmed and unafraid and said no again.  While RINOs like John McCain and Lindsey Graham tried desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it was Barack Obama who had to back down. 

Suddenly, almost without warning, the “Anointed One” has lost his force field.  Barack Obama looks all too human and more than a little vulnerable.  The rest of the world figured this out a long time ago.  Republicans have finally figured it out too.  I suspect a whole lot of people are asking themselves why they ever feared him.

I cannot predict what will happen next.  But I can predict that we are going to see a whole lot more:  “BO  NOs.”  Barack Obama will remain President of the United States for nearly four more years, but he is already a lame duck President and the ship of state is leaking power like a sieve.   

 “BO NO”s.  A beautiful thing

TDM

Last night, Rand Paul changed american politics.   His filibuster was a stroke of genius.  While Lindsey Graham and John McCain were dining with Obama, Rand Paul reminded us all of the power of principle over politics.  He simply and eloquently said you either believe in the constitution or you don’t.  He did this so well that liberal and progressive Senators were stunned.  Dick Durbin even asked him questions that made the impact of the filibuster more signficant.  By acknowledging that Rand Paul was asking a seriious question and by engaging in a serious conversation with him, Durbin made Rand Pauls comments impossible to ignore.  It is hard to argue with his point that the President of the United States doesn’t have the power to just kill American citizens in the United States just because he thinks it’s a good idea.

Rand Paul did not shout.  He did not make outrageous attacks.  He even said a couple of nice things about Obama.  Yet, with his quiet, but reasoned performance, he delivered a devastating rebuke to the Obama administration.  The quieter he spoke, the louder he was heard.  Even die hard liberals are having a hard time arguing with Rand Paul this morning.

But an even more important star emerged with the public unveiling of Ted Cruz.  I thought Ted Cruz was just another Tea Party candidate.  The main stream media has painted him as another light weight swept into power by over enthusiastic Tea Party supporters.  But after I watched Cruz eviscerate Eric Holder during his cross examination I decided it was time to research this man.  It turns out that Ted Cruz is one heck of an attorney.   Cruz graduated from Yale and Harvard and unlike Obama his academic performance at Harvard is well documented.  He “earned” a position as editor of the Harvard Law Review, he was an executive editor of the Harvard Law & Policy Review and he founded the Harvard Latino Law Review.  He is also a brilliant debater and twice was voted the speaker of the year at national debate conferences.  As a private attorney he argued cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and he was the Solicitor General for the State of Texas.  That is the kind of position you give to a real attorney, rather than the political position of Attorney General.  This is one of the most intellectually capable people in the United States Senate and no one should make the mistake of underestimating him.  Eric Holder finally came face to face with a real live capable attorney and the result was devastating.

Both John McCain and Lindsey Graham responded by ripping Rand Paul this morning in speeches to the entire senate.  It was a huge mistake:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

The Republican Party hasn’t seen this kind of talent in decades.  Ronald Reagan was the great communicator, but Ted Cruz is a great communicator who gradued Magna Cum Laude with a JD fromHarvard.  Rand Paul is a medical doctor, a man of principle with a rare ability to make arguments that are compelling even to political opponents.  While McCain and Graham were dining with the President, liberal Senators were being mesmerized by the rarest sight in Washington, a man standing firm and alone, on a matter of principle refusing to be intimidated.  McCain and Graham would have been wise to applaud such courage rather than to try and suppress it.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain are acting this way because they know they have just been pushed off the public stage by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  When politicians have to try and explain to people why they are important, it is because they aren’t.  The torch has been passed.  The RINO leadership of the Republican Party was blown off the national stage by the soft but eloquent words of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  It’s a beautiful thing.

UPDATE.  While Lindsey Graham and John McCain were explaining why Rand Paul was so naive and stupid, Eric Holder was busy caving, because it worked:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/07/letter-from-holder-to-sen-paul-on-drone-authority/

Graham and McCain just embarrassed themselves.

TDM

Rand Paul has just moved into my top ten list of American politicians .  He is now into his eight hour of filibuster regarding the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director.   Who knows how long he will last.  Strom Thurmond, the current record holder, spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I do not know how long this will last, but I do know that he has focused attention on this issue and he is making a compelling argument.  Even liberals are paying attention when he warns against an administration that believes it can kill American citizens without even pretending to follow due process.  At a minimum, the main stream media will have to cover this story.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.  It is just possible that Rand Paul will single handedly energize the entire Republican Party.  It has been a long time since we have seen such a raw and powerful example of leadership.  You may like Rand Paul.  You may hate Rand Paul.  You may even be indifferent to Rand Paul.  But after this performance today, it is going to be increasingly difficult to ignore Rand Paul.

As for me, I just hope he keeps droning on.

TDM

I must admit that I found the term “pluperfect subjunctive” to be more than a little perplexing.  The more someone who actually understood the concept tried to explain it to me, the more confusing it became.  I ultimately decided that no one else actually understood it either, so on several occasions, for pure entertainment purposes, I would comment that a particular phrase was the classic example of the pluperfect subjunctive.  No one ever challenged me, probably because they either didn’t really care or more likely because no one wanted to admit they were also clueless.

Now we have political theater with regard to Senator Menendez that may actually make the pluperfect subjunctive more than a little appropriate.  A subjunctive is basically a verb that is used to express contingent or hypothetical rather than real action.  Since the action is viewed subjectively, it is called subjunctive.  Pluperfect actually means past perfect and it is used to describe an action that took place prior to some other past action.  An example would be:  “when I got to the dock, the ship had already sailed.”  In this case the Washington Post is saying that when they arrived, the prostitute who previously said Menendez did now said he didn’t.   A word to the wise, it would probably have worked out better if they got the right girl.

The Washington Post and the Daily Caller are now engaged in screaming at each other about who did the worse job of reporting.  A couple of things should be obvious.   For one, someone was paying $60,000 for Menendez to spend a couple of days in the Dominican Republic.  If you think Menendez, or his bff spent that kind of jingle for a nice beach and some great margaritas, rational thinking is probably not your strong suite.  But more important, the Senator’s conduct reeks of political corruption and payback.  Frankly, the sex party is probable the least important of his problems.  It is impossible to read this story without realizing that the Senator was bought and paid for big time.  There should be bi-partisan disgust with such blatant corruption on display.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect that if Menendez was a Republican, the Washington Post would not have bothered sending a reporter down there to check this out.  They would have just assumed he was guilty as sin.  If nothing else, he would have been guilty of being a Republican.

Now Menendez is claiming that this horribly flawed Washington Post article is proof positive of his innocence.  That is like O.J. Simpson claiming that because Mark Fuhrman lied about using the N word O.J’s DNA magically appeared on the knife used to kill his ex-wife.  Oops…that actually worked.

Like I said:  “pluperfect subjunctive.”

TDM