Ann Coulter says she wants Ron Paul for 2012

Appearing on Fox News’ late night show Red Eye talking about her latest book, Ann Coulter responded to a question asking who she wants in 2012 with none other than Ron Paul, the Libertarian underdog, postulating that by then the war would be over and she agrees with him on everything else so he would be perfect to do the “cleaning up” that will allegedly be necessary after the Obama administration.

The discussion focussed mostly on Ann’s recent appearance on The View, but moved to the main premise of her book about phony “victims” who are really victimizers and her excitement over Obama’s inauguration.

Here’s the video. The Ron Paul part comes at the end.

Hannity investigates Eric Holder

Sean Hannity investigated a “shocking new study” on Holder..

excerpt:

HANNITY: After seven years of lining the pockets of terrorists, Chiquita admitted their wrongdoing to the Justice Department and hired and extremely influential man to bail them out, former deputy attorney general, Eric Holder.

Holder had left the DOJ after the Clinton administration and was now in private practice. On March 19, 2007, with Holder as lead counsel, Chiquita pleaded guilty to one count of, quote, “engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization.”

Holder then brokered what some call a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only had to pay a $25 million fine over five years, yet not one of the half dozen company officials who approved the payments would receive any jail time.

REITNER: The entire liability for the wrongdoing involved in supporting this terrorist organization was placed solely upon the corporation. The individual corporate officers, directors, and others who were the guilty parties, those people, as I said, got a complete pass.

HANNITY: Ironically, Holder’s stance on the criminal case contrast part of a 1999 document that he wrote while at the Justice Department, a document that became known as the “Holder Memorandum.”

****************************
MORE:

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified Friday that Eric Holder played a role in a “corrupt” pardon. The Fraternal Order of Police chief said “we abhor” the clemency Holder supported for 16 Puerto Rican militants.

Nevertheless, they believe Holder would make a great attorney general.

The testimony of Freeh and national FOP President Chuck Canterbury on Friday, at Holder’s confirmation hearing, followed the strategy the attorney general-designate used himself the previous day:

Admit mistakes to take the bite out of Republican criticism. Then emphasize Holder’s positives from his years as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., a judge and a public corruption prosecutor.

“The pardon of Mark Rich was a corrupt act,” Freeh told the Senate Judiciary Committee, referring to Bill Clinton’s pardon of the fugitive financier on his last day in office. “There is no other way that I could describe it. But it was not an act by Eric Holder.”

Freeh, following Holder’s lead, said the nominee’s past mistakes were a learning experience that will make him a better attorney general. Holder had told the White House he was neutral — leaning toward favorable — on the pardon.

-from the Associated Press.

Cosby: Voting for Obama was ‘wonderful’

John Ziegler and David Shuster in shoutmatch over Palin

The subject: Palin’s internet interview with John Ziegler of HowObamaGotElected.com. The substance: ehh…..

ROUND TWO:

Hollywood money behind Al Franken for Senate

MICHAEL BRODKORB, MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS EXPOSED: Well, there’s no question that it did. I mean, Al Franken raised the majority of his money out of the state of Minnesota, and California played an active role in that.

The question is if Al Franken is seated in the United States Senate as to whether California will be gaining a third U.S. Senate seat and Minnesota will still be underserved. I mean, the liberal lead from Hollywood played an active role during his campaign in fund-raising. California played an active role in providing Franken resources and the Hollywood elite. Franken traveled out there to do fund-raising. He didn’t pay his taxes out there, but he certainly raised a lot of money there. And George Soros was very helpful after the recount providing Franken with money, so he played a very tremendous role.

O’REILLY: Here’s what I don’t understand, Michael. Maybe you can explain this to me. Survey USA took a poll, scientific poll in Minnesota. 34 percent of the people like Al Franken. 34 percent. How can this guy be the senator with that kind of an approval rating, that kind of a performance in the poll?

BRODKORB: You’re exactly right. I mean, I start from the premise as a lot of people do is that Norm Coleman was elected, re-elected on Election Day, and that this recount process has been a sham. It has been flawed. And the Hollywood elite’s money played an active role in making sure that Norm Coleman is behind in this recount process right now.

O’REILLY: Yes, because the Hollywood money…

BRODKORB: So they are very happy.

O’REILLY: Andrew, as you know, the Hollywood money hires PR people, attorneys, advertising, can blitz. The same Survey USA poll says if the election were held today, Coleman would win.

ANDREW BREITBART, FOUNDER OF BREITBART.COM: It’s beyond…

O’REILLY: Now in Hollywood, does this — are they celebrating Al Franken’s victory in Hollywood?

BREITBART: I think they’re going to be quiet about the Al Franken victory because they know he’s a contentious soul. And I don’t think they advertise their support of him the way they supported their support of Barack Obama. But the real tragedy here is, as you see, this phonebook of Hollywood names giving the maximum amount of money, $4,600, $2,300 is that the conservatives out here can’t play it, the same game and the same playground because the FEC database search is open to the press. And a conservative that would give money to Norm Coleman would be outed in the press. It would be outed in Variety. It would be outed in Politico. And that would hurt their careers. So it’s a complete unfair money advantage for the Democrats.

How Obama Got Elected(?)

Zogby confirms poll backing the video up, denies “push polling”:
The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4%, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma. It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.

* 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
* 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
* 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
* 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
* 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..

* Only 13.7% failed to identify Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on
* Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
* And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

The Tina Fey question appears to be the only one that could have been unfair, as Palin is the only candidate from Alaska and she did give an answer not dissimilar to the way Tina Fey mocked it. The rest of the questions however, show an extreme failure on behalf of the press to report and educate voters.

Bush and Obama: Their First Meeting

Obama wrote of his first meeting with the president about four years ago:

The inside of the White House doesn’t have the luminous quality that you might expect from television or film; it seems well kept but worn, a big old house that one imagines might be a bit drafty on cold winter nights.

On a chilly January afternoon in 2005, the day before my swearing-in as a senator, I was invited there with other new members of Congress. At 1600 hours on the dot, President Bush was announced and walked to the podium, looking vigorous and fit, with that jaunty, determined walk that suggests he’s on a schedule and wants to keep detours to a minimum. For 10 or so minutes he spoke to the room, making a few jokes, calling for the country to come together, before inviting us for refreshments and a picture with him and the First Lady.

I happened to be starving, so while most of the other legislators started lining up for their photographs, I headed for the buffet. As I munched on hors d’oeuvres, I recalled an earlier encounter with the president, a small White House breakfast with me and the other incoming senators.

I had found him to be a likable man, shrewd and disciplined but with the same straightforward manner that had helped him win two elections; you could easily imagine him owning the local car dealership, coaching Little League baseball and grilling in his backyard – the kind of guy who would make for good company so long as the conversation revolved around sport and the kids.

There had been a moment during the breakfast meeting, though, after the backslapping and the small talk and when all of us were seated, with Vice-President Cheney eating his eggs benedict impassively and Karl Rove at the far end of the table discreetly checking his BlackBerry, that I had witnessed a different side of the man.

The president had begun to discuss his second-term agenda, mostly a reiteration of his campaign talking points – the importance of staying the course in Iraq and renewing the Patriot Act, the need to reform social security and overhaul the tax system, his determination to get an up-or-down vote on his judicial appointees – when suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch.

The president’s eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and I appreciated the wisdom of America’s founding fathers in designing a system to keep power in check.

“Senator?” I looked up, shaken out of this memory, and saw one of the older black men who made up most of the White House waiting staff standing next to me.

“Want me to take that plate for you?” I nodded, trying to swallow a mouthful of chicken something-or-other, and noticed that the line to greet the president had evaporated. A young marine at the door politely indicated that the photograph session was over and that the president needed to get to his next appointment. But before I could turn around to go, the president himself appeared.

“Obama!” he said, shaking my hand. “Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours – that’s one impressive lady.”

“We both got better than we deserve, Mr. President,” I said, shaking the First Lady’s hand and hoping that I’d wiped any crumbs off my face.

The president turned to an aide nearby, who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.

“Want some?” the president asked. “Good stuff. Keeps you from getting colds.” Not wanting to seem unhygienic, I took a squirt.

“Come over here for a second,” he said, leading me off to one side of the room.

“You know,” he said quietly, “I hope you don’t mind me giving you a piece of advice.”

“Not at all, Mr. President.” He nodded. “You’ve got a bright future,” he said. “Very bright. But I’ve been in this town a while and, let me tell you, it can be tough. When you get a lot of attention like you’ve been getting, people start gunnin’ for ya. And it won’t necessarily just be coming from my side, you understand. From yours, too. Everybody’ll be waiting for you to slip. Know what I mean? So watch yourself.”

“Thanks for the advice, Mr. President.”

“All right. I gotta get going. You know, me and you got something in common.”

“What’s that?” “We both had to debate Alan Keyes. That guy’s a piece of work, isn’t he?”

I laughed, and as we walked to the door I told him a few stories from the campaign.

It wasn’t until he had left the room that I realized I had briefly put my arm over his shoulder as we talked – an unconscious habit of mine, but one that I suspected might have made many of my friends, not to mention the Secret Service agents in the room, more than a little uneasy.

As I’ve been a steady and occasionally fierce critic of Bush administration policies, Democratic audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don’t consider George Bush a bad man and that I assume he and members of his administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country.

After the trappings of office are stripped away, I find the president and those who surround him to be pretty much like everybody else, possessed of the same mix of virtues and vices, insecurities and long-buried injuries, as the rest of us.

No matter how wrongheaded I might consider their policies to be – and no matter how much I might insist that they be held accountable for the results of such policies – I still find it possible, in talking to these men and women, to understand their motives, and to recognize in them values I share.

This is not an easy posture to maintain in Washington. The stakes involved in policy debates are often so high that I can see how, after a certain amount of time in the capital, it becomes tempting to assume that those who disagree with you have fundamentally different values – indeed, that they are motivated by bad faith, and perhaps are bad people.