In 2004, we were pleased at Kerry Haters to host Thursdays "R" for Thune, during which we exhorted our readers to support John Thune's campaign against Tom Daschle. We raised a couple of thousand dollars and would love to believe that we helped Thune eke out his narrow win over Mr Disappointed.
But Thune is now pushing a pork barrel project that we cannot support. Dick Armey explains:
Currently the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering a $2.3 billion loan to DM&E through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.
This would represent the largest federal loan in history and put federal funds into competition with private capital. Furthermore, sweetheart provisions of the loan such as delayed repayment are suspect. The proposed loan is indicative of the significant expansion of the federal government’s role in the rail industry that was highlighted by an earmark in the 2005 Transportation Bill that expanded the FRA’s loan authority to $35 billion under this program—a tenfold increase.
The railroad seeks to serve the Powder River Basin, an energy-rich portion of the country that is also served by two major railroad lines. Given the current demand for energy, there are significant private sector incentives to develop rail access to the area, raising important concerns about the need for federal funding in the area. Indeed, the administration has proposed terminating the program to minimize taxpayer liabilities for any loan defaults under the program.
Or something. Some particularly addle-brained celebrities are hoping to get everybody to help save the planet:
Global Cool launched in London and LA today and is calling on one billion people to reduce their carbon emissions by just one tonne a year, for the next 10 years.
Boffins have found the climatic tipping point - when the climate becomes irreversibly damaged - can be turned back if global CO2 emissions are reduced by one billion tonnes a year.
Some interesting concrete suggestions:
A website has been set up, www.global-cool.com, with advice on how to go green by reducing energy consumption through doing simple things such as sharing a shower with a mate.
This may go over well in San Francisco. Josh Hartnett (who's an actor apparently) shows off his knowledge:
Josh said: “I grew up in Minnesota which is usually a cold place, but we’ve seen abnormally warm winters the last couple of years, which is unnerving.
“If water levels continue to rise at this rate, my house in New York will be underwater, and I’ll have to get a gondola to get around. It’s frightening.
Well, he’s trying. According to John Carrington of Carolina Online, the humble Edwards abode will have an indoor recreation building that contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”
We spoke to the former Executive Director of the Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, who confirmed a WorldNetDaily report that he had received a note from Jimmy Carter complaining that there were "too many Jews" on the Holocaust Memorial Council. Professor Freedman also said that Carter's support for the Holocaust Memorial Council was "principally a political gimmick" based on getting political support from Jews.
No word from Carter on the obvious overrepresentation of Jews at Auschwitz.
As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact." A Justice Department spokesman still insists it "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents." But that raises the question: How hard did Justice look for such evidence?
Newsweek has surveyed the contenders for the Republican field and determined the likely nominee, and determined that Chuck Hagel has the right stuff:
Meanwhile, the three leading contenders for the Republican nomination, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, are all vulnerable on the war—all three are in the minority of Americans who support the president's plan. Hagel may be the one Republican who can fully separate the party from the troubled legacy of George W. Bush as the GOP looks to 2008.
You know how it goes; Newsweek is only writing this story now because it will be a full year before we discover how poorly Hagel is going to do in the primaries.
Senator Ted Kennedy trotted out the old Vietnam "quagmire" analogies but added a new charge, bizarrely formulated: "In Vietnam," he recalled, "the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy."
"Obsessed with victory"? In the history of warfare, most parties have been "obsessed with victory" to one degree or another, ever since Caveman Ug first clubbed Caveman Glug. If you're not "obsessed with victory," you probably shouldn't have got into the war in the first place. It would be more accurate to say that Kennedy and his multiplying ilk are obsessed with defeat, and they're prepared to do what's necessary to help inflict it. The famous photographs of the departing choppers lifting off from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon with pleading locals clinging to the undercarriage are images not just of defeat but also of the betrayals necessary to accomplish it.
In fact, to the Left, those images are considered victory (as Steyn points out later).
To be sure, not everyone was abandoned. The U.S. ambassador sportingly offered asylum to a former Cambodian prime minister, Sirik Matak. "I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion," he replied. "I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty." As O'Sullivan adds: "It was worse than that. In the final hours, America switched sides." Sirik Matak stayed in Phnom Penh and was murdered by the Khmer Rouge, but so were another 1.7 million people, and in a pile of skulls that high it's hard to remember this or that individual. Still, it's startling, given the appalling slaughter that arose in the wake of "peace," to find vulgar braggarts like John Kerry and Pinch Sulzberger (the New York Times publisher) still preening and congratulating themselves for their stance three decades later.
James Webb, who was a hero in Vietnam but seems determined to emulate Kerry and Sulzberger this time around, rejects the comparisons.
No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq--wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq. "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation." But Webb feared that many who supported the Vietnam war, and watched America abandon South Vietnam as it grew close to victory over the Communist forces of North Vietnam, might see similarities.
Center-Right Bloggers Pick Their Most and Least Desired Candidates
John Hawkins polled a batch of conservative bloggers (including yours truly on their favored and unfavored candidates for the Republican Nomination in 2008.
My lists are as follows:
Most Desired:
1. John McCain 2. Rudy Giuliani 3. Mitt Romney 4. Duncan Hunter 5. Mike Huckabee
Least Desired: 1. Chuck Hagel 2. Ron Paul (have you seen he's dipping his toes into 9-11 "Truth"?) 3. Tom Tancredo 4. George Pataki 5. Newt Gingrich
I don't have anything particular against Newt, just think he's too polarizing a figure to be electable. I really think the race is already down to McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Newt's showing seems to me to be the biggest surprise in this poll.
A Dutchman dressed as the unpredictable master criminal The Joker from Batman managed to get himself a national ID card, despite supposedly stringent new rules which outlaw grins, funny faces, and head coverings from passport pics.
Andrea and Mark interviewed David a couple weeks ago. He is an extraordinary man, as this account of his exploits in Iraq reveals:
So Staff Sergeant David Bellavia returned for his third tour of duty - this time in Iraq. Last November - on his 29th birthday - his brigade was searching homes for insurgents in Fallujah. Fierce gunfire broke out, his superior officers were killed, and David found himself in charge. He killed six Iraqis - keeping his unit's casualties to three wounded. His bravery was chronicled in Time Magazine.
He has also been nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. A more detailed discussion of Bellavia's heroism can be read here. He is the vice-chairman of Vets for Freedom, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan campaign veterans who support our mission in those countries. He will be discussing the Democrats' response to the State of the Union address.
CPR airs from 3:00-5:00 Eastern time. You can listen in live here. If you do, I also suggest that you check out CPR's chatroom as well (just enter your name, city and state and click "submit query").
Update: Wow! What a killer interview. David's passionate and a great speaker. I was absolutely spellbound. The interview will be rebroadcast tonight at 10:00 and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
I'm not sure how much credence to give to polls this far out but it's certainly worth noting because the Garden State is one that the Democrats have to hold in order to win the White House.
The Quinnipiac University poll found New Jersey voters prefer Giuliani over Clinton, and like Arizona Sen. John McCain just as much.
Giuliani leads Clinton 48 percent to 41 percent, while McCain and Clinton are about even, at 44 percent to 43 percent respectively, according to the poll.
More on Hillary's problems:
New Jersey hasn't supported a Republican for president since 1988, but Richards said "a big chunk of New Jersey voters have negative feelings about the senator next door — enough to show two Republicans giving her a run for her money in this traditionally Democratic state."
"It's easy to explain why she trails 9/11 hero Rudolph Giuliani, less clear why Sen. John McCain from faraway Arizona is so close," Richards said.
Richards said the numbers show Clinton is not only trailing among independent voters, but losing Democratic votes to her Republican rivals.
Well, looks like Nuancy Boy has finally decided to listen to reason:
A source close to Kerry and a Democratic operative who worked for him in 2004 said the four-term senator has decided to sit out the 2008 race, which already has drawn more than a dozen contenders from both parties.
Kerry made that decision within the past day and was expected to announce it later Wednesday, the source said.
A Democratic operative who worked for Kerry in the presidential race said that the senator "came to the realization a lot of people want something new."
Update: Check out Doug Power's tribute to the great love affair to come out of that 2004 campaign!
With his usual impeccable timing, Al Gore is pushing his global warming theory harder these days. Indeed, according to some accounts, Gore is planning on skipping the 2008 elections, in which he would have to be considered one of the frontrunners, in order to concentrate on climate change. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, picked up a couple of Oscar nominations. Gore's giving the film away to Australian high school students.
After viewing it last year, Prime Minister John Howard said it showed "a degree of a peeved politician".
The new federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said the film was a "very compelling dramatisation of the climate change issue", saying he had no problems with it being distributed in schools.
Education Minister Julie Bishop said it was up to each school to decide whether it used the film, but it should be made clear to students that the film did not represent the only opinion on the issue of climate change.
When the film was released last September, Industry and Resource Minister Ian Macfarlane said "it's just entertainment, and really that's all it is".
"While the expectations were high for this speech as speculation swirled of a change in policy in the White House, the rumors were inaccurate," Greenpeace USA Executive Director John Passacantando said. "The international community should abandon all hope, once and for all, that President Bush will ever really change course on climate change."
Bush did repeat his previous warnings against America's dependency on foreign oil and urged Congress to "reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars," but he painted the issue as one of protecting national security more than saving the environment.
Mesa City Councilman Tom Rawles refused to join in saying the Pledge of Allegiance before Monday night's council meeting to protest American involvement in what he calls an Iraqi civil war.
"If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe, you don't belong in politics," Rawles said before the meeting.
Except that he's not standing up:
Rawles stood as a Mesa clergyman prayed before the meeting, then sat down in silence as fellow council members and the audience recited their loyalty to the flag.
And yes, he's a Losertarian:
Rawles, who represents southwest Mesa's District 3, took office in June 2004. He is a Libertarian, though council seats are nonpartisan. He served on the Maricopa Board of Supervisors from 1993-97, is a lawyer for Johnson Stewart Co. and was chief of staff for U.S. Rep. John Rhodes III from 1987-89.
Look, this is really simple. By saluting the flag, by saying the pledge, you are not endorsing the actions of any particular administration. A lot of us Republicans despised many things that the Clintons did, but none of us (to my knowledge) were retarded enough to refuse to salute the flag as a consequence.
To help her presentation on global warming, Roberta Fernandez flashes a map of Florida.
It shows the southern half of the state underwater, including Tampa Bay. "If Greenland melts the sea will rise 20 feet," says Fernandez, who calls herself a Climate Messenger.
There are gasps in the audience of smart, but mostly uninformed staffers at a local mortgage and real estate firm who have given up their lunch hour to hear her message.
And there is the requisite America-bashing aspect to this "truth" movement as well:
"No wonder the rest of the world hates us!" added loan officer Matt Moskos, 28, referring to the United States' disproportionate 30 percent share of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Go vote for the candidate of your choice on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the ledger. After voting, be sure to check the results page; I think you will be surprised at some of the candidates who are leading.
Yesterday I watched the conference championship games in the NFL. I had predicted New England to win the AFC Championship. Now, understand that I don't root for the Patriots. I'm a 49ers' supporter and a huge fan of Joe Montana. At this point anything New England and Tom Brady accomplish has to be considered as a challenge to the Niners and Montana as the pinnacle of football excellence.
And yet, because I had predicted their victory, I found myself unable to root against the Patriots. I cheered as they moved out to the big lead early in the game and groaned as the Colts first drew even, then took the lead with only a minute to play.
And it strikes me that this may be the problem with so many of us predicting Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. Do we really want Hillary to win her own conference championship? It may appear that she's the weakest opponent we can reasonably hope for, but what if the perfect storm that crashed on the Republicans in 2006 comes around for another battering?
One of the most enjoyable things about running the Kerry Haters blog was looking for goofy photographs of John Kerry. They were not hard to find. Of course, Kerry was trying to sell an image of himself as a normal, sports-loving kind of guy. Good idea, lousy execution.
The question is what Hillary will do? Obviously the notion of her tossing a ball around on the tarmac is out, and exchanging recipes with women she meets on the campaign trail doesn't offer a compelling visual. She's tried the food-eating bit:
I don't think they will try to repeat that. Hillary with a beer in front of her? You may think that doesn't pass the laugh test, but then neither did John Kerry tossing a football around.
I picked three games correctly against the points, only Indy at Baltimore surprised me.
I'd take both visiting teams tomorrow, setting up a battle of New Orleans and New England in the Super Bowl. I'm more confident on New England, somewhat less on New Orleans. Don't bet against Tom Brady in the playoffs!
If Chicago does win, it would set up a rematch of the game 21 years ago where the 1985 Bears became the second (and last) team to go 15-1 in the regular season and win the Super Bowl. Oddly enough, the first team to do it was the 1984 San Francisco 49ers.
Conference Championship Trivia: Can you name the only quarterback to start and lead his team to wins in both the AFC and NFC Championship games? Can you name the only quarterback to start and lead his team to losses in both the AFC and NFC Championship games?
I heard about this in an email from a friend and didn't know quite what to make of it. Although the Lefty bloggers are moaning about how Fox is slandering Obama, they miss that they're also getting in a mention that Hillary's camp leaked this information.
Ron Paul: Things Will Be Better Now the Democrats Are In Charge
You know, I was pleased when Ron Paul joined the Republican Party, and welcomed his idea of pushing libertarian ideas into the Republican mainstream. But... he's showing his kooky side right now.
Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday [MP3 link] and had the following to say about 9/11:
"CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.
Our buddy Pam Meister has an excellent column in the American Thinker today on the effort to create the European Union.
In other words, Europeans are building a common society not as Europeans, but as non-Americans, much in the way that John Kerry ran for president in 2004 - not on any solid Democratic plan, but as a non-George Bush.
As John Kerry lost his 2004 presidential bid, will Europeans fail in their bid to become a solid European community?
Remember that in blogging, you are not supposed to be unbiased. You're not a straight reporter of the days events. Readers want you to deliver information to them, but they also want to know what you think about it. Feel free to get snarky; snark definitely succeeds in blogging.
There's a sports talk radio show called The Jungle with Jim Rome, and although I can only listen to it in small doses, he has excellent advice for bloggers: Have a take, and don't suck. Rome doesn't want callers who call in and ask him "What do you think about Peyton Manning versus Tom Brady?" He wants people who tell him what they think of Tom Terrific and Peyton the Choker (Or Tom The Lucky and Peyton the Unfortunate).
Your posts will generally be better the more there is of you in them. If you have a creative spark, this is where you can let it shine. Are you funny? Sharp and caustic? Good with Photoshop? Erudite in your subject matter? Be a show-off!
Note that putting the "you" in your blog is not limited to opinion. You can also add work to your posts. For example, last year I took on a claim by the American Prospect which was repeated by NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, that Jack Abramoff's clients had sharply reduced their contributions to Democrats after Abramoff began representing them. I proved that in fact Abramoff's clients increased their donations to both Republicans and Democrats sharply after he took over. Result? Both the Prospect and Krugman were forced to issue corrections to their articles. This took a lot of work with a spreadsheet and analysis of various sources. But it paid off in spades as my blog got cited in the National Review Online among other places.
Yes, we all link to stories that we find interesting, but if you add something of yourself to your posts, you'll be far more likely to attract attention.
And attracting attention will be the focus of my next post.
Jack Cashill looks into Sandy Berger's pants and thinks he's figured out what Berger was Bergling.
To understand what that “smoking gun” might have been and how it involved Clarke and Berger, let us turn to the fateful summer of 1996. At that time Col. Buzz Patterson carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton. Given his security clearance, Patterson was entrusted with any number of high security assignments. One morning in "late-summer,” Patterson was returning a daily intelligence update from the Oval Office to the National Security Council when he noticed the heading "Operation Bojinka."
As Patterson relates, "I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons." As a pilot, he had a keen interest in the same. "I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community," Patterson writes, "and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." The President’s hand written comments on the documents verified the same.
The Philippine police had uncovered plans for aerial assaults as early as January 1995 and shared those plans with the FBI almost immediately. The man responsible for those plans was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and very possibly an Iraqi contract agent. His accomplice was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11 and allegedly Yousef’s uncle.
Understandably, the 9-11 Commission was very concerned about who knew what when in regards to the use of planes as bombs. Bush National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was asked on her first real question: “Did you ever see or hear from the FBI, from the CIA, from any other intelligence agency, any memos or discussions or anything else between the time you got into office and 9-11 that talked about using planes as bombs?”
I think that's right on the money. It was a big mistake, because the 9-11 Commission (rightly in my estimation) did not spend a lot of time pointing fingers and assigning blame, which is why the Jersey Girls were so bitter about the report--they wanted heads to roll.
St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes. I assume that St. Jude is watching over John Kerry's 2008 presidential campaign, and a (probably small) group of football fans in Chicago.
I'm going to do a series of posts on blogging, called Blogging 101.
The first advice I would offer an aspiring blogger, is to specialize. Rather than blogging about dozens of different topics, blog about about a few. The advantage of this is that it turns you very quickly into an expert on those topics. And expertise on a topic that's hot is what drives readers and other bloggers to your blog, and results in radio, TV and magazine interviews. I've been blogging on the 9-11 "Truth" Movement on the Screw Loose Change blog for about 9 months now, and my work there has been mentioned in Time, US News & World Report, Vanity Fair and the Sunday Times of London. Heady stuff!
Obviously, specialize in topics that you find interesting; if you don't like reading about Barack Obama, you won't be able to interest your readers either. Note however that you don't have to like Barack Obama himself; indeed a snarky blog on Obama would probably attract a good deal of readers, just as the Kerry Haters blog did in 2004.
More that one topic is certainly a good idea; football-only blogs don't get a lot of readership in April, and Obama mania may not last long. But be careful that there is some reasonable overlap between your topics in readership, or you may find the football fans turned off by your mockery of Obama, and your Obama mockery fans turned off by your opinions on Bill Parcells' playcalling.
Remember that you are trying to present yourself as an expert in the topics you're blogging on; that means that you have to do the work. Learn as much as you can about your topic, both online from in books/magazines/TV. One trick that I've picked up can be quite useful. Go to Google. Type in "Barack Obama" (or any other chosen topic) in the search feature. Then Click on the News Tab at the top of Google, which will take you to this page. Scroll down to the bottom. See this?
New! More ways to find the latest on Barack-Obama:
* Search blogs * Create an email alert
Create an email alert (requires registration with Google). Then, every time a story is printed in just about any news source, you will receive an email. This helps you keep on top of your topic.
Also click on the search blogs category; this will tell you who else is keeping tabs on the Illinois senator. These are the blogs you will be checking in with regularly to see what they're saying about Barack. There are other blog resources as well; Technorati and TruthLaidBear are especially helpful, enough so that I will devote a post to using their features.
Police were watching and photographing five of the men charged with plotting to bomb London's transport system more than a year before the failed attacks, when they were camping in northwestern England, prosecution witnesses said Wednesday.
One of the alleged plotters also was questioned by British police as he tried to board a flight to Pakistan the same year, but was later allowed to travel.
Ramzi Mohammed, 25, was shown boarding the train and turning his back to a mother with a child in a pushchair before allegedly trying, and failing, to detonate a bomb in his rucksack.
Here's a picture of the six men accused; Mohammed is the top middle:
Jonah Goldberg gets in a few whacks on John Kerry. Good timing, because once the campaign really gets underway, nobody's going to be talking about the Botoxicated Brahmin.
Despite enormous name recognition; despite the kind of sympathetic coverage that only alleged victims of the “Republican attack machine” get; despite constant efforts to stay in the news, a stockpile of cash from his wife, and his last campaign; and despite enormously impressive hair; he is near the bottom in all the important rankings of serious candidates.
And when I say near the bottom, I mean if he claws his way up a bit, he’ll be at the bottom.
In November, Kerry came in dead last in a Quinnipiac poll asking respondents whether they had warm feelings for various prominent politicians. Kerry came in around “arctic.” The National Journal asked its brain trust of political insiders (consultants, graybeards, et al.) to list their top 10 Democratic prospects for ‘08. Kerry came in behind Sen. Chris Dodd — and Dodd came in 10th. All Kerry got was footnote status as an also-ran.
Heheh, behind Dodd? That's sort of the definition of dead in the water.
Obviously a lot of conservatives were getting excited about Chuck Hagel, wondering if this bold new face of the Republican Party had a chance to win the nomination in 2008. And then Robert Scheer endorsed him.
CHUCK HAGEL for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can't -- or won't -- take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.
Of course, Scheer isn't serious; he's just using the Republican to bash the insufficiently liberal (in his estimation) Hillary.
Moo-On Planning Attack Ads Against McCain During Republican Primaries?
Buried near the end of a post griping about how John McCain has supposedly flip-flopped on the War in Iraq (actually they show that McCain was against the invasion back in 1990), get this bit:
To further bring home this point Moveon.org will be releasing television ads in New Hampshire and Iowa, also known as McCain's two paths to paradise, pointing out his many flip flops on war and his weak case for escalation.
Sounds like the cows over at Moo-On know who's going to be the toughest candidate for the Democrats to beat in 2008.
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter's long-shot bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination got a boost over the weekend when he emerged on top in a straw poll of Republican precinct committeemen in Arizona's most-populated county.
Hunter, R-El Cajon, got 96 votes among the 458 ballots in the non-binding poll of Maricopa County party officials asked to list their first choice for president.
Hunter easily beat Arizona's own U.S. Sen. John McCain, considered a front-runner in the GOP presidential race, who drew a comparatively paltry 50 votes. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second in Saturday's poll with 82 first-place votes.
Hunter remains very unlikely to win the nomination; I can't remember the last member of the House of Representatives to even win a primary in the presidential sweepstakes.
Love his small-L libertarian ideas but hate his big-T Truther notions. "Contrived, Gulf of Tonkin-type incident"? Are you sure this isn't Ru Paul speaking?
Who is he? The media, in their rush to anoint him as the "great black hope" of the Democrats, are having a hard time deciding which icon he most resembles. Is he the new Jack Kennedy?
"I was in the hall when he gave that speech and I heard a future president," says Mr Luntz. "Here was the American dream embodied in a young man running for Senate, a new Jack or Bobby Kennedy."
Both Reagan and Obama delivered a single speech that captured the public's attention and catapulted them to the front rank of national figures. On Oct. 27, 1964, Reagan as a private, albeit well-known, citizen spoke in a paid political telecast on behalf of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy. The Arizona senator lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson a few days later, but Reagan--telling voters, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny"--became fixed in their minds as a political force on the strength of his message and delivery.
In much the same way, Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention made people take notice of, in a phrase from his speech, "a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him too."
Well, I called all four games last week; let's see if I can keep the run going.
Indianapolis at Baltimore: I'll take the Ravens in this one. They've got a far better defense than the Colts and were 7-1 at home while Peyton and company were 4-4 on the road. McNair's got plenty of playoff experience, and Brian Billick has won it all before.
Eagles at Saints. Philly seems on a roll, and New Orleans has gotta be feeling the collar tightening. The Saints did win the regular season matchup, but it was by a field goal late, and it was against McNabb. Take the Eagles and the points.
Seattle at Chicago. Very tough game to pick. Hasselbeck's got loads of playoff experience; Rex Grossman lost his only attempt. I'll pick Chicago to win this one, but they seem unlikely to cover the points.
New England at San Diego. One simple rule: Don't bet against Tom Brady in the postseason.
Becomes the second American to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Iraq War.
At a moving ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President Bush on Thursday made a posthumous presentation of the nation's highest award for valor to Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham. The 24-year-old lost his life two years ago in Iraq during hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent who released a hand grenade.
"Corporal Dunham did not hesitate. He jumped on the grenade, using his helmet and body to absorb the blast," Mr. Bush said.
And we don't often give huzzahs to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, but they earned them as well:
The Dunhams were to meet later in the day with New York senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had pressed for Dunham to be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
UC Santa Cruz Cancels Job Fair Over Security for Military Recruiters
You may recall the near riot that happened last year when the military recruiters appeared at a UC Santa Cruz job fair. Nathan Bradfield remembered and discovered that the job fair has been canceled because the university cannot guarantee the safety of military recruiters.
The reality, of course, is that there are students who are interested in a military career. And whether a shouting, shoving group of protesters likes it or not — these students have a right to meet with whomever they want.
This "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude pervades the American university system, and it's a great failing of campuses today. Too often, the attitude in lecture halls and in informal discussions is that inclusiveness and diversity has its limits.
Kudos to Allahpundit for digging this one up and coming up with the nickname.
I love the bit (about 4:00 in) about how "This is not black helicopter stuff." But at the same time (3:45) "All of these things will be done by memos of understanding..." You know, because you can alter the constitution with memos of understanding.
Pam noted in the comments on my post regarding the Yale singing group that was assaulted in SF after singing The Star Spangled Banner that there was more to the story. Here are some additional details:
As Rapagnani tells it, his 19-year-old daughter was hosting a New Year's Eve party at the family's Richmond District home for the Baker's Dozen, who were in town as part of a West Coast tour.
The 16 singers showed up late to the party wearing preppy sport jackets and ties, and launched into "The Star-Spangled Banner."
A couple of uninvited guests started mocking them, and allegedly the words "faggot" and "homo" were tossed -- and so were a couple of punches.
The loud noise drew relatives from next door, who promptly ordered the house cleared.
The Yale kids, most of whom were staying with a family a block away, began heading home.
But witnesses said one of the uninvited guests -- who happens to be the son of a prominent Pacific Heights family -- pulled out his cell phone and said, "I'm 20 deep. My boys are coming."
Interesting stuff. The good news is that there will be pressure to make arrests:
As if that weren't enough, the dean of Yale College has weighed in, as has one of the victim's fathers, Sharyar Aziz -- a prominent New York banker whose son's jaw was busted in two places. He has not only called the mayor's office and police chief -- he's also retained the law firm Gonzalez (as in former mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez) and Leigh to keep the heat on the cops and make sure "the individuals behind this heinous assault (are) apprehended."
A 1994 videotape mysteriously posted on YouTube.com prompted Republican Mitt Romney to declare Wednesday, "I was wrong on some issues back then," while also insisting to social conservatives key to his presidential campaign that he is one of them.
"If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don't just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor," Romney said during a late-day appearance on the "Glenn and Helen Show," a radio program featuring Tennessee psychologist Helen Smith and her husband, Glenn Reynolds.
"Frankly, in the bluest of states, facing the most liberal media in the country, I've led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I've taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same-sex marriage."
Except, of course, that the result was same-sex marriage in his state.
Romney's a fine candidate. He's moderate, like me. I just don't like him claiming to be something he's not.
The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire says the population of residents aged 25-to-34 declined in New England much more sharply than the national average from 1990 to 2004. During that period, the number of young adults in the region declined nearly 25 percent, compared to the national average decline of 7 percent.
Management Professor Ross Gittell, who wrote the report, said New England lags behind the national average in growth of all age groups, but the young people decline is the most alarming. He said all 67 counties in New England, except for Nantucket County in Massachusetts, saw a decline in the number of young adults.
The report said Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia and Oregon saw a more than 10 percent growth in the population of young adults.
It's quite mysterious indeed, but I suspect that the population of residents 25-34 years old may have something to do with birth rates and abortion rates, oh, say, 25-34 years ago?
Members of the a cappella Baker's Dozen were performing at a party in San Francisco at the new year when their rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" apparently sparked taunts and threats from fellow partygoers.
As the group left the house, they were attacked by dozens of assailants, suffering scrapes, black eyes and concussions, said Connecticut's News Channel 8.
This is what the conspiracy theorists don't want you to realize because once you get out of the weeds and stop talking about roads, obscure reports, and professors, it becomes obvious that this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water. But, people like Corsi have gone too far out on a limb to ever admit that. So, they'll keep on insisting that the Bush Administration is about to implement a North American Union until Bush is out of office and then they'll try to take credit for preventing the implementation of a non-existent plot rather than admit that they didn't have the slightest idea what they were talking about.
This is why I've pretty much decided not to create the posts I talked about the other day, about the Amero and the NAFTA Superhighways. They're not the issue. The issue is that Corsi and the others pushing this conspiracy theory don't have anything to tie this to the Bush Administration. And without that tie-in, what they've got are some academics who think a North American Union and the Amero would be a good thing. Yawn. We've also got academics who think humans marrying sheep would be a good thing; nobody (yet) has suggested that this is the secret agenda behind Rudy Giuliani's support of Civil Unions for gay couples.
Shifting Sands: Mitt Romney Changes His Mind Again
When interviewed by Human Events back in December, he had no opinion on the proposed "surge" in troop levels in Iraq:
I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.
Apparently recognizing that not taking a stand was hurting him, Romney now says he supports the surge:
"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment."
No serious contender for the GOP nomination in '08 could remain silent on this issue, and Romney's reluctance to lay out his position beforehand shows the learning curve he faces as a first-time national candidate.
This highlights Romney's weakness on the foreign policy front. Back in the 1990s many people felt we had reached "The End of History" and that foreign policy could be neglected. We learned painfully that was a mistaken notion on September 11, 2001.
And for those who think that Mitt might be a little light on foreign policy experience, but at least he's a solid conservative on the social issues unlike John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, check out this:
I absolutely think there's a place in the Republican party for people who believe what Romney professes in there. But you can't then turn around and proclaim yourself the "real conservative" in the race and the "successor to Reagan".
I have to admit, I was somewhat startled to discover that only 25% of the the electors for the Baseball Hall of Fame voted for Mark McGwire. I anticipated that he'd come close or make it; as it was he was only about 1/3rd of the way there.
Considering that these same voters were prepared to vote Pete Rose in despite his lifetime banishment from the game for gambling, it seems just a tad hypocritical. Of course, Rose was a reporter's player: somebody who loved to talk about the game after the game, a ready source of the quotes and insight that every sports reporter depends on. As I have observed many times in the past, if you want good press, talk to the press.
And, predictably, the reporter on this story brings up that exact point:
Meanwhile, as all this sportswriter soul-wringing has been spilling out, do you know what McGwire has been doing? What one of the most prolific home run hitters ever has been up to? What he has had to say?
Of course you do. He has done nothing. Said not a word. Not one objection. Not one word in his defense. Not one solitary peep. And that brings up the most important question in this sadly drawn-out saga.
If Mark McGwire doesn't care about his place in the Hall of Fame, why in the heck should we?
I got on CPR radio briefly during the interview with Dr. Corsi. He was, it is safe to say, quite unhappy with my post below, and accused me of doing much the same as Michael Medved and John Hawkins in dismissing his arguments with ad hominems. When I pointed out that I had specifically avoided that, he claimed that "debunking" constituted a personal attack. Obviously, it doesn't.
It is fair to point out that I started with the assumption that Dr. Corsi is wrong, most specifically with regard to his allegations that President Bush supports this North American Union, and that it is imminent. Do I believe that there are academics who would support a North American Union? Sure. Do I believe that the professors that he mentioned on the show support it? Yep. Do I believe that Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page endorsed it? I'd like to see the editorial myself, but I do know he was very much an open borders kind of conservative. Update: Look here for a good discussion of Bartley immigration policy prescriptions, which apparently included in 2001 a call for a North American Union.
But none of that makes a story. That President Bush might believe in a North American Union makes it a story, and that's where Corsi's argument is missing a crucial link; hence the "connecting the dots" language of the conspiracy theorist.
Debunking Dr. Corsi Part 1: The North American Union
Dr. Jerome Corsi did the Republican Party and President Bush a huge favor in 2004 when he collaborated with John O'Neill and researchers from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the New York Times' bestseller Unfit for Command, which exposed John Kerry's fraudulent record in Vietnam. It was a terrific book, one that I wholeheartedly endorsed at the time.
However, Dr Corsi is now working on a new theme, which will not be as helpful to Republicans and President Bush. He has published several articles at Human Events, claiming that there is a secret plan by President Bush to combine the United States, Canada and Mexico into one entity, the North American Union, "erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada." The new political union would have a common currency, the Amero, and would be criss-crossed with "NAFTA Superhighways".
It is safe to say that many conservatives do not agree with Dr. Corsi on this conspiracy theory. Michael Medved wrote a scathing column in late December on the topic.
This paranoid and groundless frenzy has been fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called “The Amero.” Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a “Monster Highway” some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.
John Hawkins has also scorned Dr. Corsi's theory. In a ranking of the 21 most annoying people on the Right in 2006, Hawkins placed Corsi as #3, between page molester Mark Foley and convicted bribe-taker Duke Cunningham. Hawkins said of Corsi:
Nobody has worked harder to convince people that the completely moronic North American conspiracy theory is real than the right's version of Dylan Avery, kooky Jerome Corsi.
Much of the criticism of Dr. Corsi's claim has been ad hominem in nature; indeed Medved's column contains little else. To a certain extent, these ad hominem attacks are valid. For example, few conservatives will waste a lot of time on the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, dismissing them as "kooks" and "nutbars". But these types of personal attacks are never convincing to those who believe in the conspiracy theory, and may not be effective even with fence sitters.
So I have decided to take a long, hard look at Dr. Corsi's claims, without engaging in the invective that has marked some of the previous debate. This analysis will be broken down into four separate blog posts:
1. The North American Union (analyzed in this post) 2. NAFTA Superhighways (forthcoming) 3. The Amero (forthcoming) 4. Similarities Between Dr. Corsi's Theory and Other Conspiracy Theories
Dr. Corsi made his opening salvo in a May 19, 2006 article for Human Events entitled, "North American Union to Replace USA?"
The first three paragraphs state the thesis rather concisely:
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
We can all agree that's a rather extraordinary claim. Is there anybody in the USA who thinks things would be better if the United States, Mexico, and Canada were all combined into one economic and political entity?
So let's look at the proof that Dr. Corsi presents of this theory:
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
Dr. Corsi does a little sleight of hand here. It may appear from the way he writes that the last two paragraphs, which contain the part about the "outer security perimeter", come from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, but in fact they are taken from the Council on Foreign Relations document that Corsi cited earlier.
So how does Dr. Corsi tie the CFR document to the Bush Administration? The answer is that he doesn't. Instead he claims:
The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union....
Now anybody who has dealt with conspiracy theorists as I have on the 9-11 madness will recognize the exhortations to "connect the dots" as a rhetorical effort by the writer to avoid actually making the connection himself. "Bush administration actual policy on illegal immigration." Dot. "Drive to create the North American Union." Dot. Connect the dots!
Okay, now I think we can all agree that the administration's actual policy on illegal immigration can probably be described as laissez-faire. But to say that you can immediately connect that to a document created by a "left of center" group like the CFR raises an obvious question: What is the connection?
Basically what Corsi's saying is "I don't like Bush's policy on illegal immigration, and looky, here's something somebody else wrote talking about merging the US with Mexico, and that must be what Bush is trying to do." He admits as much in his debate with Hawkins:
Then what is Hawkins’ explanation for why Bush won’t secure the border?
Hawkins answers this quite sensibly in my view:
I think Bush has been soft on illegal immigration largely because of pressure from businesses that want cheap illegal labor and because he believes, incorrectly, that the only way the GOP can compete for Hispanic votes is to cater to illegal immigrants.
But Corsi prefers to believe that it's because Bush is secretly trying to unite the country with Canada and Mexico. Or is it so secret? Corsi jumps back and forth on this issue:
I have argued that the plan to establish the North American Union as a regional government is being advanced by the U.S. government through internal executive branch administrative action in order to keep the plan below the radar of U.S. public scrutiny. In accordance with this plan, I would argue that President Bush has intentionally avoided revealing his true plans to the American people.
Get it? It's a stealth plan. Or maybe not:
Again, I have never argued for a conspiracy theory. Quite the contrary, I have consistently argued that the evidence for my arguments is in the open, often published on government websites. True conspiracies are not hidden in plain view.
The "Building a North American Community" report, which was produced by a Council of Foreign Relations-sponsored task force, not the US government. Let me make sure everyone is getting this. The "Building a North American Community" report is not US government policy, it's just a report produced by a think tank-sponsored task force.
Corsi replied:
Clearly, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that has no binding control on U.S. governmental policy-making. We are equally sure that Mr. Hawkins is fully aware of the influence NGO’s such as the CFR have exerted on U.S. governmental policy-making for decades.... We next turn to the Department of Commerce’s website devoted to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Under the first bar to the left, we find the June 2005, “Report to Leaders,” submitted on the exact timetable specified in the CFR report. Reading this document, we find a close correspondence between the cabinet level working groups already set up by the Bush administration under the auspices of this Department of Commerce office and the working agenda specified by the CFR report (note especially pages 24-26).
Essentially what Corsi is arguing here is that the administration is following the suggestions made in the CFR report, so therefore we can look at the CFR Report as a blueprint for the administration's plans.
So let's look at the CFR document which Corsi apparently believes calls for "effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada."
On page 30 of the PDF file, the CFR report calls for the three countries to work together to:
"Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass… [which] would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration and airport security throughout the region.".
Now wait a minute! Why would we need a North American Border Pass for expedited customs and immigration if we're going to erase the borders? How does this "dot" connect?
Answer: It doesn't. And this is where Corsi's conspiracy theory really breaks down. Not only can't he connect the CFR report to the Bush administration, but the CFR report doesn't even call for erasing the borders.
Update: Geoff from Please Make It Clear has also been looking into this, and Dr Corsi will be appearing on CPR Radio this afternoon at 4:05 Eastern to discuss his theory.
Joe Biden has announced that he's running for president in 2008.
“I am running for president,” he told “Meet the Press” anchor Tim Russert. “I’m going to be Joe Biden, and I’m going to try to be the best Biden I can be. If I can, I got a shot. If I can’t, I lose.”
Of course, a lot of people will use this occasion to dredge up his plagiarism incident from the 1988 campaign, where Biden borrowed the words of a British Labour Party leader named Neil Kinnock. But it's his own ditzy words that should really come back to haunt him. Anybody remember his suggestion that we go "mano-a-mano" with the Taliban in Afghanistan? Or this memorable gem:
Of course, it also can make Biden look like a maniac. According to The New Republic, in October 2001, Biden encountered a group of airline pilots and flight attendants who wanted his help in passing emergency benefits for laid-off airline workers. "I hope you will support my work on Amtrak as much as I have supported you," Biden told them. "If not, I will screw you badly."
On which note, let us turn to the gay sheep. Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances in order to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they've had "considerable success" with injecting hormones into the rams' brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of "Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe."
Gay groups (human gay groups, that is: Even America does not yet have a 24/7 gay sheep lobby group with offices on K Street) are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, "the right of sheep to be gay."
This is one of those columns where you wonder where he's going with all this, and suddenly it hits you like a battering ram. Terrific reading!
As a critical turning point in America’s role in the nearly four-year-old Iraq war nears, the editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers have been surprisingly – even, appallingly – silent on President Bush’s likely decision to send thousands of more troops to the country.
It follows a long pattern, however, of the editorial pages strongly criticizing the conduct of the war without advocating a major change in direction. Now it comes at what appears to be a crucial point, with Democrats in Congress, overcoming their own timidity on the issue, finally emerging Friday with opposition to the buildup -- setting up a possible battle royal in the days ahead.
Mitchell, of course, has been against the war for a very long time. He called for a pullout of the troops way back in May of 2004, and complained that no newspapers were editorializing for such a withdrawal. Now, of course, the old Irish saying is that when everybody says you're drunk, sit down, but Mitchell is still singing the same old tune, albeit with a few more people harmonizing with him.
An E&P survey of major papers’ editorial pages this past week, however, finds that very few have said much of anything about the well-publicized “surge” idea, pro or con. They may finally declare themselves Sunday – much too late, given that the president seems to have made up his mind and just shook up his cast of commanders to assemble a more sympathetic crew.
The liberal editorial page of The New York Times has said nothing this week, beyond noting the "bleak realities" in Iraq, even as its regular columnists Bob Herbert, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and (this Sunday) Frank Rich, across the page, are ripping the idea.
When Bob Herbert, Slow-Mo and Frank Rich agree on something, you can pretty much take it to the bank that it's a terrible idea. And when Greg Mitchell agrees....
Specifically, it turns out that Kerry was at that table to conduct an off-the-record breakfast discussion with two reporters, so there would have been no reason whatsover for troops to be sitting with them. In fact, Kerry and the reporters even sought out empty seats, I'm told.
The funny thing is that Sargent thinks this makes Kerry look better!
Kansas City at Indianapolis. Indy should win this game, but given their struggles in the postseason the last few years, it would not shock me at all if the Chiefs pull off the upset. Certainly with Larry Johnson toting the rock, the Chiefs should be able to salt the game away if they can take the lead.
Dallas at Seattle. Both teams staggered to the finish line. Both have proven coaches, but only Seattle has a proven QB in the playoffs. I'll pick Seattle.
NY Jets at New England. Not too much doubt as to whom to pick in this game. Chad Pennington won the comeback player of the year award, but really it was the rest of the team. I like Pennington a lot, but not over Tom Brady in the postseason.
NY Giants at Philadelphia. The Giants seemed to be headed to the Super Bowl early this season, but a 2-6 record in the second half has everybody doubting them. Jeff Garcia, after some initial struggles, guided the Eagles masterfully down the stretch, to the point where there might be a QB controversy in Philly next year. The Eagles should win this one handily.
They can't raise money. They can't organize. They can't even acknowledge that they've been beating a dead story into the ground because like their fearless leader, they equate admitting they are wrong with failure. Yet they are wrong, almost all the time and about almost everything.
Gee, reading that, you'd think that the liberal blogs have had an unbroken string of success in the last several elections. Whom did you support that won in 2002, or 2004, Jane? Don't let this one successful election (in which, by the way, the main candidate you raised money for and organized for, Ned Lamont, got his butt whipped) go to your head.
The Democrats won this time around, but it was despite the efforts of the liberal blogosphere, no mistake. And it's not like they don't know it; the Democratic leadership has steadfastly refused to take up the causes that many Lefty bloggers are pushing, like impeachment.
John Feal knows a lot about suffering. Permanently disabled during rescue efforts at the World Trade Center, he dedicated his life to helping others. Now he is giving even more than money or time - he is donating a precious kidney to a former Queens man he met over the Internet.
"He went to my Web site, fealgoodfoundation.com, and told me what good work I was doing," said Feal of Paul Grossfeld, a former Sunnyside resident who now lives in Marlboro, N.J. After Grossfeld told him he needed a kidney, Feal didn't think twice. "I told him, I'll do it. "
Sports announcer Jim Lampley was arrested Wednesday for investigation of domestic violence.
Lampley, 57, also was booked for investigation of violating a restraining order and dissuading a witness, said Capt. Glenn Revell of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. Lampley was released after posting $35,000 bai
Some of you may remember Lampley's buffoonish attempts at being a liberal blogger over at the Huffpo. After getting schooled by Byron York and others (including yours truly) on his claims that the 2004 election had been stolen (because exit polls are never wrong), he retreated to blogging about something he actually knows about, boxing.
Here's a picture of Lampley, his former (?) wife, and Brad from the Bradblog, who describes Lampley as "a terrific hero". May want to revise that, Brad!
According to gossip maven TMZ, this incident does not appear to involve Bree Walker, the woman shown above, and Lampley's former spouse.
Sources say that because of previous complaints, Lampley was arrested by an investigative team at his girlfriend's home in Encinitas, CA.
Lampley was once married to anchorwoman Bree Walker.
The party Sen. Joe Lieberman created to mount his independent re-election campaign has been seized by one of his critics, and the secretary of state's office said Wednesday that it won't challenge the takeover.
After the senator's Nov. 7 victory under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party banner, John Orman switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman and voted himself chairman.
As I commented last year, the liberal bloggers seemed more interested in defeating one Democrat than they were in defeating the Republicans. In an unfortunate twist, they succeeded in the latter and failed in the former.
But I do gotta wonder about Orman's political savvy even though he's a poly sci professor:
Orman said he hopes to keep the Connecticut for Lieberman party active and endorse a Senate candidate in 2010.
Uh, you know that Lieberman won't be running for reelection in 2010, right? His next test before the voters is 2012 (assuming he doesn't mount another quixotic campaign for the presidency in 2008).
RCP pointed the way this morning to a series of articles on the top contenders for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Steve Kornacki says Hillary can win the nomination by doing what Gore did. Translation: Smack her opponents around.
But the main explanation for Mr. Gore’s comeback is simply that he took the gloves off, dusting off his notorious attack-dog act and shamelessly slandering Mr. Bradley with conventional (and yet maddeningly effective) scare tactics, warning that his opponent’s programs would, essentially, kill old people. It helped, too, that Mr. Bradley showed all the eagerness to fight back of Michael Dukakis.
I remain in the "They've gotta be kidding about Obama" camp, but Dick Morris appears to like his chances.
So we wait for Barack Obama to define himself. If he runs to the left, he will be a worthy successor to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If he runs to the center, he might be a successor to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He might just make it to the White House.
I don't see how he gets to the right of Hillary, which is surely where the center is. He still strikes me as the Mario Cuomo of his time; somebody who struck the right chords with the party's base in a keynote address, but who doesn't really have the staying power for a bare-knuckles brawl.
Update: This article talks about Obama's use of drugs (as disclosed in an autobiography) while in high school and college and ponders whether he will be able to overcome it. Considering that the media made almost no mention of Kerry's use of pot, I doubt it will become a significant issue. If he were a Republican, though....
John Edwards is the candidate who seems to have the best chance of knocking off Hillary. He's got money, looks and an established base in the party (trial lawyers). He can argue that as a Southerner, he might pick up a few states in the old Confederacy, without which a Democrat victory looks increasingly improbable. Kathleen Parker wants us all to remember that his daddy was a millworker.
No one, Republican or Democrat, has worked harder on his resume or more carefully calculated the timing of his announcement than Edwards, who, by the way, may be the son of a millworker. Could just be a rumor.
Nearly every time we've seen Edwards in the past year, he's been dripping with sweat from raising roof beams and digging out muck in New Orleans, where he and a corps of volunteer youths have been rebuilding the city that George Bush ignored.
The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the month long Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.
Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one - hard to understand and harder to win - and so not worth the losses?
However, the number of deaths is the wrong focus. It's the time factor. The Iraq war started almost four years ago, and four years of war under a Republican president is all the American people, as prodded by the anti-Republican media, can handle. World War II was over in less time. Vietnam lasted longer, but was essentially over after four years of Republican control.
Many of the people at the top of the media food chain were active in the antiwar movement during the 1960s--even some of today's conservatives. It took them awhile to bring the rest of the country around to their way of thinking, but while the wheels of the media grind slowly, they grind exceedingly fine. Indeed, this time around they almost toppled a war presidency during rosy economic times, something they were notably unable to do in 1972.
Note the current media fascination with 3000 US soldiers killed in the war on terror. Supposedly this somehow balances the scales with the 3000 dead on 9-11. Of course, any sensible person would say that the 3000 soldiers who died should be added to the 9-11 toll, not subtracted from it.
Of course the question raised in the title of the article, "Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll?" is pretty easily answered. Because it's a convenient club.
