Adjoran in the Arena

One more election post-mortem

2004-11-04T15:48:00.000-08:00

I've refrained from posting during the returns and the immediate aftermath. For one thing, I enjoy soaking up all the details; it is a quadrennial treat in which I have indulged for 40 years or more. For another, I felt it prudent to allow the emotional rollercoaster of the last few days to end before commenting.

So, what happened?

#1. In the end, this election merely shows the electorate returning to the slow but steady course first outlined by Kevin Phillips and Ben Wattenberg in their seminal 1970 book, The Emerging Republican Majority. The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win 51% or more of the popular vote was LBJ in 1964. Republicans have won 7 of the 10 elections since, the only exceptions being the narrow loss of the unelected Ford, severely damaged by the Nixon pardon, and the Clinton victories with pluralities. All three Democratic wins in this period were by moderate southern governors.

Thrice it seemed as if the Phillips-Wattenberg projection had been realized for good: after Nixon's landslide in 1972, and Reagan's in 1984, followed by the big Bush win in 1988, and finally after the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. But Republicans managed, in each case, to give the Democrats renewed life and hope with their self-inflicted wounds. Nixon abetted the Watergate coverup. George H.W. Bush abandoned his pledge not to raise taxes, and paid scant attention to domestic economic concerns, inviting the Perot rebellion. Republican congressional leaders Gingrich and Dole overplayed their hands, and appeared too negative, allowing Clinton's brilliant "triangulation" strategy to give the Democratic Party a new lease on life.

Now, however, the inexorable move to the right by America resumes. It is slow, but sure. Notice that, at a time when our military is in harm's way, the threat of international terror remains elevated, and employment recovery has been slow, the issue most often cited by voters as critical to their decision was moral values.

#2. Truisms are truisms because they are indisputably true. Just as no Republican has ever been elected President without winning Ohio, no Democrat has ever been elected without at least two states of the old south {excluding Florida}. Democrats have put forth candidates since 1796, and the only one to capture the White House without two or more southern states was J.Q. Adams in the "faction" election of 1824 {all the serious candidates were Democrats} which was decided in the House of Representatives - a result repudiated by the electorate as Jackson rolled to victory in the 1828 rematch.

The ONLY Democrat ever elected with as few as two southern states was Clinton; besides him, all have won three or more.

So, when the Democrats began their calculations late last year on how they could assemble an Electoral College majority without the south, they were engaging in an exercise far more futile than William F. Buckley's declaration of purpose in founding his National Review in 1955: "To stand firmly athwart history, yelling 'Stop!'"

The Democratic Party, the Party of Jefferson and the oldest political party in the world, was born in the south, but now seems to have entered a self-imposed exile.

#3. The map of red and blue by county tells all: See it here.

The Democrats hold the urban areas of the northeast and west, the upper Great Lakes, and along the Mississippi River. That's it, beyond a smattering of other urban areas here and there, and some patches in southwest Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. They are rapidly becoming a party which cannot appeal to a broad cross-section of America. FDR's grand coalition has been fractured with the desertion of southern conservatives and the growing competitiveness of the GOP in Catholic and union households.

In this crisis, the Democratic Party is divided along sharp ideological lines. While they were able to unite behind Kerry, the divisions remain. The left wing, represented by Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, and Pelosi, et al, is fighting the center-left faction of Clinton, Lieberman, Daschle, and the DLC for supremacy. Most of the grassroots activists are of the left, so the dilemma is real: if the party moves toward the center to capture more of mainstream America, it could alienate its most fervent supporters.

The sole standing pillar of the FDR coalition, black Americans, are still overwhelmingly loyal to the party. However, when the question turns to issues like abortion, tax cuts, prayer in schools, and gay marriage, blacks are more conservative than whites. While Kerry won 89% of black votes this year, the disconnect between the beliefs and voting habits of this critical group cannot be encouraging in the long term.

While the Democrats are in crisis, conservatives have little cause to celebrate. As the GOP becomes the majority party in America, it is moving toward the center. While some conservative principles have become mainstream positions - tax cutting, strong military, traditional values - federal spending and entitlements are hardly threatened.

#4. "Rock the Vote" - NOT! For the fifth consecutive election, we were told of the impending explosion of influence by young voters 18-25. This year, they were supposedly off the pollsters' radar because of their reliance on cell phones. The Dean surge last year portended, it was claimed, the emergence of a new, energized, and youthful force in American elections.

The 18 - 30 age group comprised 17% of the electorate in 2000. In 2004, they were . . . 17%. They may turn out in droves to hear Springsteen and other rock stars play, but their voting habits remain unchanged.

I have to wonder what the artificial paradigm for a surge in the youth vote will be in 2008, but I expect it will prove as empty as those from preceding elections.

In conclusion: This election represents less of a personal victory for George W. Bush than a reaffirmation of long term trends.

Continuous election returns online

2004-11-02T01:21:00.000-08:00

COOL SITE ALERT

Bookmark Megapundit's Election Tally Board to see live updates of returns as they come in.

Each state has its own box on the board showing Bush and Kerry % and % of precincts reporting. Once any major outlet calls a state, its box will turn red or blue and the EC votes will be added into the national total at the bottom of the screen.

It all fits on one screen, so there is no scrolling to find the state desired, and no waiting for the media to get around to each state in turn.

Hat tip to Wizbang for the pointer.

Osama sues for peace?

2004-10-30T15:34:00.000-07:00

An important point about bin Laden's latest video, from The Belmont Club's wretchard:

It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

Read the rest HERE.

Hat tip to Michael Totten, subbing for Glenn at Instapundit for the pointer.

Osama: a signal?

2004-10-30T03:43:00.000-07:00

I have to admit I was shocked to see Osama bin Laden alive and on television. I had presumed him dead, given the length of time since we had last verifiably heard from him.

I wasn't surprised to hear him repeating Kerry and Michael Moore talking points.

The real question is: why now? Is he so stupid as to think he can influence our elections, or is it a signal for a prearranged attack?

I don't think it could be a signal. The only way such a signal would be necessary is if there were a deeply imbedded terror cell with no other way to communicate, and instructions to act when bin Laden released a new tape. That strains credulity. Osama is the world's most wanted man, in his 60s, and on dialysis. It wouldn't make any sense to have a signaler who might not be alive or able to communicate at some point in the future.

Also, there are too many ways to communicate. Check an anonymous web email account at a public library, for example.

Finally, bin Laden has no history of issuing warnings. Most of his videos have been Al Qaeda recruitment films. He typically has not even directly taken credit for the many terrorist acts which can be traced to him.

It seems most likely the latest release, while proving he is alive, are a sign of weakness, not of strength. Americans know better than to pay attention to the rantings of our most hated enemy, and in fact may backlash against him, but in the Arab world his stature would be enhanced if his statement appears to have an effect on our election.

He is a man in hiding and in fear. Notice the neutral backdrop of his indoor message, in contrast to the outdoor setting for most earlier tapes. Osama cannot even risk that US experts can decipher his location from the terrain.

John Kerry: lying once more

2004-10-27T23:45:00.000-07:00

John Kerry has insulted our military by delaring them incompetent for not finding the powdered explosives at Al Qaqa, south of Baghdad. He is trying to blame Bush for this "growing scandal." Maybe he should talk to his foreign policy advisers every once in a while.

Top Kerry experts Richard Holbrooke and Jamie Rubin, both experienced hands from the Clinton Administration, have both said publicly this week that "we don't have the facts" [Holbrooke] and "we don't know the truth" [Rubin]. It hasn't seemed to deter Kerry from trying to make political hay out of the reports.

But the New York Times story was shoddy journalism at best. They ignored reports filed in 2003 that show the site was searched, and no IAEA seals were found, indicating the 377 "missing" tons of HMX/RDX explosives were moved before the war started. For instance, CBS News still has this one on their site.

Bill Gertz of the Washington Times is reporting tonight that Russian troops may have moved the cargo before the war. {The story was linked by Drudge, so the site is jammed now, but the link is HERE. According to Wizbang, FoxNews' Brett Baier is reporting that we have satellite video of truck convoys in the area at the time in question, AND he has located a copy of the Jan 2004 "Action Report" from the IAEA, which contradicts what Mohamad Albardi told the UN Security Council. Read about it at their site.

The story, once scrutinized for a couple of days by responsible journalists, has collapsed like a house of cards. The New York Times has become a bad joke.

And so has John Kerry.

Kerry: another whopper

2004-10-25T01:58:00.000-07:00

Joel Mowbray breaks the story in the WASHINGTON TIMES HERE

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

[more on link above]

Although Kerry lied about meeting "all" the UNSC members, even meeting with any is highly questionable. Foreign policy is the sole and exclusive province of the executive, and typically congressional committees coordinate their meetings with foreign officials with the State Department.

Of the permanent members, Kerry met with France, and allegedly Britain. He also met with Germany of the rotating members. What the heck was he thinking?

Oh, yeah, he was thinking of running for President, and wanted to appear as if he were a consequential member of the Senate, instead of just a show pony who only shows up for photo ops . . .

Loser.

Thanks to INDC Journal for the pointer to this story.

UPDATE: Bill at INDC also gives a link to this Daily Recycler VIDEO. It's on-site video, nothing to download, from the second debate. Watch Bush's face as he hears Kerry's whopper. . .

Spin this!!!

2004-10-24T18:19:00.000-07:00

If you hate the "spin alley" after debates as much as I do, you need to watch this Quicktime movie starring Triumph the Comic Dog. He skewers both sides, and breaks through the spin.

Triumph was there, live and in the stinking flesh, asking direct and pointed questions of the spinmeisters until they sputtered, stammered, and turned away.

You need free Quicktime, and the file is about 15 MB, but well worth downloading, a barrel of laughs. It was originally broadcast on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and comes to us courtesy of Rooftop Report. Download it HERE.

Hat tip to Southern Appeal for the link!

Kerry: Mum's the word

2004-10-24T18:05:00.000-07:00

It probably isn't breaking news that John Kerry declines to be specific, so I am not shocked that he is dodging Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, with whom President Bush agreed to an extensive interview on Iraq:

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book “Plan of Attack.” Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry’s senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq – to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, “The short answer is yes, it’s going to happen.”

In August, I was talking with Kerry’s scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush’s decisions in the Iraq war, saying “I would’ve done almost everything differently.” A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush’s actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.

Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:

Click link above for the full article, which simply lays out the questions Woodward posed. Wonder why Kerry wouldn't bother to answer them?

Oh well, he won't release his wife's full tax returns, his medical records, or his full military records, either, so it's not much of a surprise. Only those with blind faith in his "secret plans" will be voting for him anyway . . .

Hat tip to Polilpundit for the pointer.

Heavenly cheers

2004-10-23T18:09:00.000-07:00

Time out from politics for a brief moment.

I have to salute the Boston Red Sox for doing what no major league baseball team has ever done: come back from losing the first three games in a seven game series to win. They showed grit and determination, earmarks of a champion.

No predictions, as the Cardinals were pretty clearly the best team in baseball for most of the season, but St. Louis is facing some questions on starting pitching, due to injuries and late-season swoons. Should be a dandy Series.

But I have to tip my hat to my late Mother, who was born in Lynn, then just a bedroom community of Boston, and was a lifelong Sox fan. For years, she even shopped for stuff at Sears even when WalMart was cheaper, because Ted Williams had been a Sears spokesman for decades.

There could be a mystique for Boston this year, since they are leaving one of the great ballparks, Fenway, with so much history. Tris Speaker, the centerfielder who started more double plays than any outfielder in history {mainly by playing shallow and throwing out the lead runner at second}, Bobby Doerr, Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Williams, Yaz, Carlton Fisk, Jim Lonborg, Roger Clemens . . . and one of Mom's old quirky favorites, Jimmy Piersall, played there. And they have at least one friend in high places . . .

Good luck, Sox. Mom's cheering from above.

Why the Left loves Kerry

2004-10-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

Some may be wondering, as I once did, why diehard leftists are supporting Kerry so enthusiastically, if he is indeed "strong on defense" and will "pursue victory in Iraq" and "better prosecute the WOT . . . hunt down the terrorists and kill them." The left isn't known for supporting American strength - many even opposed the Afghan invasion {predicting, as before Iraq, and before the Gulf War, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, that American soldiers would be coming home in "tens of thousands of body bags"}.

Many assume it is purely due to hatred of Bush. They recognize most leftists seem more like Deaniacs or Kookicinich kooks. But I think they underestimate the appeal of Kerry to the far left.

Consider: Kerry was rated the MOST liberal member of the Senate by the nonpartisan National Journal.

He was deeply involved with the radical left in the antiwar movement. On the question of Vietnam, did he take the side of the United States, or the communist North Vietnamese?

On the question of the Nuclear Freeze, did he take the side of the United States, or the Soviet Politburo?

On the question of Grenada, did he take the side of the United States, or the Marxist dictator Maurice Bishop?

On the question of missile defense, did he take the side of the United States, or the Soviet Politburo?

On the question of the Pershing II deployment, did he take the side of the United States, or the Soviet Politburo?

On the question of Reagan's military buildup, did he take the side of the United States, or the Soviet Politburo?

On the question of the Nicaragua, did he take the side of the United States, or the Marxist Sandanistas?

On the question of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, did he take the side of the United States, fifty other nations, and the UN itself, or the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein?

On the question of intelligence spending in 1995, when he proposed drastic cuts even Ted Kennedy thought unwise, did he take the side of the United States, or the terrorists?

Given his positions in the above instances, are you surprised the far left is fanatically backing him?

Answer those questions for yourselves. Then answer this one: do you believe such a man will strongly defend the United States against our enemies?

Remember your answer in the voting booth.

Pretty Boy

2004-10-19T04:14:00.000-07:00

I feel pretty, oh so pretty,
Oh so pretty and witty and wise

I have to admit, Edwards is the prettiest candidate in the race. But getting there isn't easy . . .

Slate video by Harry Shearer

He signals he's ready for hair spray by closing his eyes expectantly, like a child. Then Edwards and the technician straighten a little more with their fingers. Please don't tell me that thing in his hand is a compact. Oh, dear. It is.

[more on link above]

After the compact appears, the rest is pretty boring. But the first part up through then is hilarious.

Kerry Excommunicated?

2004-10-19T01:03:00.000-07:00

According to the Catholic World News, there could be trouble brewing for JK:

"I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith," said Balestrieri. "The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts."

Father Cole wrote, "If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."

Read the rest at CWN, linked above.

This will help the Kerry campaign in PA, OH, MI, WI, IO, NM and MN, since they don't any Catholics in those states anyway.

What's that? . . . oh, well, in that case . . .

Hat tip to Powerline for the pointer!

The politics of flu

2004-10-17T05:07:00.000-07:00

John Kerry has released a new ad claiming the Bush Administration is responsible for the flu vaccine shortage:

Seeking political gain from the vaccine shortage, Kerry's campaign released a television ad that says Bush "failed to fix the problem."

"Millions of Americans won't get their flu shots, including seniors and children," Kerry said while also blasting Bush on joblessness. "We've got people standing in line for hours on end, some of them in their 70s and 80s, hoping to be among the lucky ones to get it."

A Bush spokesman accused Kerry of hypocrisy for criticizing the president after voting against a measure that would protect vaccine manufacturers from punitive damages.

What is most perverse about this crass attempt to make political hay out of noxious weeds is that it is the actions of Democrats which have actually caused the current problems.

Liability insurance costs, having risen to the extent of eradicating profits on flu vaccine, have reduced the number of companies producing the vaccine from 25 thirty years ago to only two, both foreign, today.

Additionally, the 1993 Clinton plan to provide childhood vaccines "for free" caused many companies to get out of the vaccine-producing business. By capping prices without regard to costs, in order to "save" money on the program, Clinton forced several companies out of the market. His further restrictions on a key component, without any evidence of harm, reduced the field of producers even more.

Welcome to Democratic health care. If it comes soon to a hospital near you, don't say you were not forewarned.

I believe in John Kerry

2004-10-15T00:38:00.000-07:00

I've decided I believe John Kerry is telling the truth when he says "I will never give another nation or group a veto over America's security."

Now I realize that Kerry will not take any actions at all to which anyone might object. The only major military action he supported was Kosovo, and pretty much everybody wanted us to go in there; there was more dissent about it in this country than in Europe. Well, Serbia wasn't happy about it . . .

But in 1990, when Saddam had invaded Kuwait and taken over their oil production, and had armies massed near the Saudi border, fifty-one nations, the largest coalition for military action ever, joined in moving to force him out. The UN endorsed and authorized the action. You don't get broader coalitions than that one; even France was on board.

John Kerry was against it. His prostestations about "allies" and "building coalitions" and "global tests" fall short of credibility when he opposed the most universal action in history.

Apparently, Kerry's "global test" means every nation in the world must participate with us, and none must oppose us. Presumably, whatever country was the target of the world's ire would object, and Kerry would stand down.

France won't get a veto over our use of military force. They won't need one.

Out of bounds

2004-10-14T01:09:00.000-07:00

Political discourse must needs be spirited. The battle of ideas is a fierce one, and that is a good thing. Passionate advocacy from both sides of an important question increases the sum total of knowledge.

But there are, or should be, certain limits. One should not lie to advance one's political cause. One should never stoop so low as to use an opponent's family for political gain. No gentleman would ever do so, but sometimes exclusive academies and Swiss boarding schools fail to mold gentlemen.

So it was when John Kerry invoked Dick Cheney's daughter in the final Presidential debate. As a completely isolated instance, we might be inclined to attribute this to poor judgement in the heat of debate, a mere slip of the tongue. But John Edwards did exactly the same thing during the Vice Presidential debate.

A Presidential candidate does not repeat his running mate's recent errors. It seems both mentions were deliberate and planned. It is despicable.

Obviously, some focus group found that evangelicals and/or traditional Catholics said they were less likely to vote for Bush once they learned about the Cheneys' daughter's sexual orientation. So, John and John decided to make sure more of these voters heard about it - and if they missed it the first time in the little-watched VP debate, why, we'll give it too them again!

That it was calculated with malice aforethought is made more clear when Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign director, stated flatly that young Ms. Cheney was "fair game." Like an animal, to be hunted down for sport?

Then Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John, publicly decried Lynne Cheney's angry reaction as evidence the Cheneys feel "shame" about their daughter's lifestyle. Is there anyone who believes Mrs. Edwards' statements aren't 100% approved in advance by the Kerry campaign? If there is, please contact me for a great deal on resort property on the moon. Free green cheese to the first 50 respondents!

The naked ambition of these Senators should be disturbing to any decent human being. Have they no honor at all?

But I suppose they have answered that question already . . .

Would Kerry? Really?

2004-10-13T04:38:00.000-07:00

One Steven Sturm, blogger at ThoughtsOnline, presents a convincing case that Kerry would NEVER use preemptive war to defend America, no matter what "plans" the Senator claims to have . . .

I am going to prove my hypothesis that, while Kerry claims to be willing to take pre-emptive military action, in reality he is not. In order to do so, I’m going to stipulate to a number of conditions as I advance my arguments. I don’t believe that one could take issue with these stipulations – but I stand willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

Stipulation #1: The war with Iraq is not an example of a situation that measures up to Kerry’s standards for justifiable pre-emptive military action. I think this is obvious, as he has said so many times.

Stipulation #2: The lack of a ‘genuine coalition’ is not what made Kerry determine the Iraq invasion to be the ‘wrong war’. Some might take issue with this one, but I’ve never heard Kerry say that this war would have been the ‘right war’ had ‘only’ some other countries signed on to the effort.

Stipulation #3: There is no difference between a country attacking us directly and providing support to a surrogate (country, group or individual) who attacks us. In both cases, the country will be deemed to have attacked us.

Stipulation #4: Attacking a country that has attacked us (or given support to those who have attacked us) is retaliatory in nature, and not pre-emptive, which, by definition, requires taking action in advance of an actual attack.

Stipulation #5: We would only use military force in advance of an attack if we believed that we were subject to attack – either by a particular country or by its surrogates. Taking military action lacking any such belief would be aggressive and not pre-emptive in nature.

What situations would give rise to us believing we were subject to an attack? Obviously, something along the lines of “I’m coming to get you” or “I’m going to help those who are coming to get you” would qualify. Were a country to take actions such as massing troops on our border, loading troop ships to sail to the United States, laying siege to our military bases overseas or so on, this too would also satisfy this test.

Read the whole argument at the link above; it is a compelling one.

New Kerry ad hurts Bush on "issue gap"

2004-10-12T16:54:00.000-07:00

John Kerry's latest radio commercial ruthlessly exposes the gap between him and the President on the major issues of our time.

Folks, I just don't know how we can answer this one. Listen to it in mp3 format HERE.

How can we possibly hope to keep up with John Kerry now?

They are at it again

2004-10-11T05:58:00.000-07:00

The JibJab guys who did the great "This land is my land" parody have done it again, here. This one is even funnier.

Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for the pointer!

The Dred Scott decision and judicial activism

2004-10-11T05:26:00.000-07:00

The spin on the left now is that Bush mentioned the Dred Scott case in answer to a question on judicial activism as a signal to Pro-Life groups. I am no longer surprised by any fantastic allegation from the left, but this one truly strains the imagination.

Bush was grasping for an example, and Dred Scott popped into his head. There are dozens of better and more recent examples of federal judges inserting their personal beliefs into their decisions, and reading into the Constitution something which is not there.

However, it is a valid example, nonetheless. First of all, in DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD the SCOTUS ruled that no slave or descendent of slaves could ever be a citizen of the US. To arrive at this conclusion, they went beyond the text and engaged in speculation about the unspecified intentions of the Founders.

Secondly, the Court found that even if a black person were granted the rights of citizenship in their state, those rights would not be recognized by other states, and again, would confer no rights as a citizen of the nation. This is direct contradiction to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Thirdly, the Court declared that Congress had no right to regulate the importation of any person's "property" into another state or territory, in direct contradiction of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 {the enumerated powers of Congress}:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

[bold emphasis added]

Fourthly, the Court held that there was a distinction in the Constitution between "people" {most often, in the text, "person(s)"} and citizens, which there clearly is not. While there was, at the time, a differentation of the way slaves were counted {three-fifths of a person}, there was also the specific reference to slaves as "persons" in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No distinction is made between "person" and "citizen" in the Constitution. It repeatedly refers to "persons" when speaking of citizens. One example of many is "no person shall become a Senator who . . ."

Given the above examples of the egregious judicial activism which led to this horrible decision, I believe it is most appropriate to consider Bush's answer in the context of the question, and how he referred to the decision. Reading too much more into it is speculation at best.

It should come as no surprise that other opponents of judicial activism, be they Right-to-Life groups, Libertarians, etc., also refer to Scott, as it is one of the more outrageous examples of what can happen when judges empower themselves to twist, rewrite, or ignore the Constitution.

The decision itself, for those who are interested, is here: usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/f...democrac/21.htm.

Jobs, Bush, and the economy

2004-10-11T05:04:00.000-07:00

One of the poorest job performances of the Bush Administration has been on the economy. Not on policy; they have done fine there. The failure has come in explaining to the American people what has happened to us.

Our economy generates about $11 trillion of activity each year in Gross Domestic Product. Of that, the federal government takes about 23% per year, or about $2.5 trillion, leaving $8.5 trillion to fund state and local taxes, pay private sector salaries, fund mortgages, car loans, and credit cards, and invest in new business expansion.

From March of 2000, when the stock market technology boom first showed signs of faltering, to the bottoms in 2002, equity markets lost over $4 trillion. That was money that just disappeared from our economy, and was no longer there to fund our growth. Then, on 9/11, we took another direct hit of roughly $2 trillion in economic losses. Between the two, we lost at least $6 trillion.

This happened over a period of two and a half years. Now, suppose that over a similar period, you were without income for eight and one-half months. That was the effect of these economic hits. Would things get tough?

Now, suppose again that during this period there were certain major expenses that you just had to undertake, despite the loss of income. Wow, are things getting tougher?

Well, that is exactly what we have just been through as a nation. All things considered, we are doing remarkably well, and our economy is finally resuming the strong growth we enjoyed before these terrible losses.

I think most people understand this, in their hearts. I would still feel better if the Bush Administration articulated it more forcefully.

Out of the mist, he slowly walked

2004-10-10T05:03:00.000-07:00

He was just a country boy from Nebraska. He never went to college. All he ever wanted to do was to play baseball. It was the one thing he did well which also made him happy in doing it.

He didn't know anything about the war, so far away from his dreams. He did manage to return from those fields so far from home, even to play baseball again, but he left a part of himself there. The artillery shell which had landed so close to him had killed many of his friends, burst his eardrum, and left him "jumpy" for the rest of his life. Whenever a child lit a firecracker, he was so startled that the fear on his face frightened those around him, too.

He turned to the bottle, not for comfort, but for oblivion. Only when senselessly drunk could he forget the horrors he had witnessed in war. But his succor took its toll, and his only true passion, his baseball skill, began to quickly fade away. His team abandoned him, traded him, but for a time a new team embraced him, and he played as he once had. A pitcher of phenomenal control, though, his accuracy failed him. The fastball, in younger days only a feared alternative to his deadly curves, became a more frequent weapon, and the good, younger hitters were finding the range. He was traded once again.

No longer did he find relief in the cheers of the crowds. The bottle became his only friend, and principal companion. His new manager was a player himself, though, and knew well the magic in that arm. But old "Pete," as everyone called him, could only manage yeoman's work on the mound for this new team. People still pointed him out in public, but now only to say, "See him? He once was the best pitcher in the game."

But fortune smiled upon him, as this new team won the National League pennant, and were matched against the surging New York Yankees in the World Series. Eyebrows raised when his team's player-manager, Rogers Hornsby, the greatest right-handed batter in the game before or since, chose the 39 year old Grover Cleveland Alexander, so far past his prime, to start the second game of the Series. They were raised even more when he won it.

Poor old Pete was called upon once more in the sixth game, with his team down 3-2, and once again beguiled the Bronx Bombers. Two wins in the World Series! Pete was as happy as he had been since the War! Why, more than a decade earlier, he had pitched in the World Series as the most dominant pitcher in the game, and only won a single game, as his Phillies lost in five.

Pete celebrated the only way he knew how: by getting drunk. But this time, it was in joy, and not sorrow. Every glass brought back memories of past glories on the diamond. For once, he was a happy drunk, and tied on a good one. He could barely stagger into the clubhouse for the seventh and final game, and once out in the bullpen, he sat on the ground in the corner, nursing his hangover, and only occasionally asking another pitcher how the game was going.

It was going well, at least until the 7th inning. St. Louis led, 3-2. The Cardinals' ace knuckleballer, Jesse Haines, loaded the bases with two men out, but developed a blister on his finger. He told manager Hornsby he couldn't continue. Whatever made Hornsby send the call out to the bullpen for Alexander, we will never know. He surely knew the aged star could barely walk.

But when the boy ran to the bullpen and cried, "He wants Alexander," old Pete sobered up. He stood and put on his glove. The fall afternoon in New York was foggy, and there was a mist hanging over the outfield where the bullpen was. At the plate was Tony Lazzeri, the Yankees' sensational rookie who had batted in more runs and hit more home runs than Gehrig that year, second only to Babe Ruth on the team. What a vision it must have been for the young star, seeing the pitching legend emerge from the mist as he slowly walked to the mound.

Once again on the mound: Grover Cleveland Alexander, one of the all time greatest pitchers, known as the master of the curveball. With the bases loaded, two outs, and a bad hangover, Alexander fed Lazzeri four fastballs and struck him out. He also retired the Yankees in order in the eighth, and got two outs in the ninth before walking Babe Ruth. Facing Bob Muesel, Pete was one out away from closing the Series when Ruth attempted to steal second, and was thrown out. The Cardinals won, mainly behind the arm of the old pro.

It was October 10, 1926. Alexander pulled himself together and had two more good seasons for the Cardinals, winning 21 and 16 games, but he was not the dominant pitcher he was before going to war. Two years later he was out of baseball, and spent his final years as a barfly. But, one moment in 1926 will forever represent the greatness of one of the best pitchers ever to stand upon a mound.

Thugs, punks, and vandals

2004-10-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

There has recently been a upsurge in nationwide incidences of election sign theft and/or destruction, vandalism against cars and homes bearing Bush/Cheney bumper stickers or signs, and even violence against campaign workers. The vast majority of this activity is directed against Bush supporters.

I assume John Kerry does not approve of such behavior. Nothing in his background suggests he would. Certainly, the growing number of reports of these actions harms his campaign.

Aside from the recent attack on a Florida campaign office by union thugs, most of the perpetrators seem to be young people. The teenagers who burned a swastika into the yard of a Bush supporter in Wisconsin have come forward and apologized, saying they didn't realize the victim was a veteran. I suppose that in their minds, vandalism against non-veterans' property is acceptable.

The majority of these acts fit the youth profile. Signs stolen or torn, cars "keyed," stop signs spray-painted to add "Bush" are all typically juvenile tactics. Their parents must be so proud of these young people getting involved in the political process.

Is this what they mean by "Rock the Vote?"

Edwards misstatements

2004-10-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

Two misstatements by Edwards in the Veep debate don't seem to be getting much coverage.

First, I am almost sure I heard him say "John Kerry voted to cut taxes over 600 times in the Senate."

That averages out to 30 votes to cut taxes every year. Tax cut icons like Jack Kemp, Bill Roth, and Phil Gramm only wish they had had that many opportunities to vote for tax cuts.

Second, Edwards repeatedly claimed that Halliburton wasn't having their payments withheld, as is normally the practice when billings are under investigation. This is not true. Millions are being held up; it was announced months ago.

Here is a Houston Business Journal report in May, which was NOT the first time payments were withheld.

Edwards just wasn't telling the truth in these cases.

•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬

UPDATE: From the transcript:

EDWARDS: We are committed to cutting back anything in our programs that need to be cut back to get us back on a path to fiscal responsibility.

John Kerry, Mr. Vice President, has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts for the American people -- over 600 times.

From that notorious right-wind rag, the Washington Post.

•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬

UPDATE: Polipundit's Lorie Byrd heard from military blogger Oak Leaf that Edwards' statement about "millionaires paying less taxes than our combat troops in Iraq" is false, as combat pay is tax-free. Says so here. Who ya gonna believe? John Edwards, or the Department of Defense?

Cheney, by a lot

2004-10-05T23:21:00.000-07:00

Edwards had his presentation down, but still looked helpless against a well-informed Vice President, who showed the leadership that made him White House Chief of Staff at age 34, a five-term Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and CEO of a $13 billion corporation.

Hindrocket from Powerline represented conservative bloggers, and gave a solid assessment, but he and Wonkette were only asked one question each. Why did they pick her, anyway? Kaus, Drum, or Marshall would have been better choices on substance, IMO.

A lot of good moments for Cheney, but I was most struck by the way he gave answers without feeling the compulsion to use up his alloted time on several occasions. It conveyed a calm and confident authority.

Why is this guy only #2? No, I know . . . it was a rhetorical question.

Dean Dizzy

2004-10-05T00:34:00.000-07:00

I just saw Howard Dean on Late Night with David Letterman.

It says a mouthful about the Democratic Party that this man was their frontrunner for the better part of a year. Dean insisted we should not have invaded Iraq, so Dave asked him about it.

Letterman: Well, what would Iraq be like say, in ten years, with Saddam still in power?
Dean: I don't think we can assume he would still be in power. We could have removed him over time with pressure. He had been under pressure for twelve years, if we had kept it up we might have removed him in a period of time.

Aha! The Dean plan was to "keep on the pressure." You know, he could be right. Eventually, Saddam would have died of old age. Why didn't Bush think of that?

On how he or Kerry might have acted differently:

Letterman: But if you were President, or John Kerry, or me, wouldn't have been dealt from the same deck of cards [intelligence] that Bush was?

Dean: No, Bush misrepresented the intelligence. We now know Saddam wasn't talking with al Qaeda, Iraq wasnt' involved in 9/11, and Iraq hadn't imported the nuclear materials that Bush said he had.

Um, well, no. We do know that Saddam was in contact with al Qaeda, and no one ever said he was directly involved with 9/11. And what Bush actually said was "British intelligence believes Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake uranium from Africa." Nobody said Iraq had obtained what they were looking for.

Listening to this moron makes me want to scream. But then I might sound like him.

Bunker buster bombs: boom or bust?

2004-10-02T14:22:00.000-07:00

John Kerry announced he would unilaterally forego research and development into "bunker buster" nuclear weapons. These are weapons specifically designed to penetrate deep into rock or concrete before detonating.

We know that enemies like Saddam, Kim Jong-il, and whichever illiterate old Ayatollah is leading the mad Iranian mullahs at present, have reacted to the advances of American precision air and missile power by constructing deep underground facilities which cannot be destroyed by current crop of conventional "bunker busters" {which operate on the same principle as the proposed nukes, but with less explosive power}. It is uncertain whether such redoubts could be compromised by even large nuclear explosions on or near the surface.

It's simple physics: the force of the shock wave from an above-ground explosion will travel primarily out and up from the target, because the ground below is denser than air. Even if a huge bomb or warhead were exploded directly over a deep bunker, that bunker might survive. This is the reality which led to construction of deep bunkers for our key government officials in the West Virginia mountains fifty years ago.

We do know that a massive above-ground explosion would have devastating results on the ground, however, killing hundreds of thousands and spreading radioactive fallout over a wide area. Since our targets in such an attack would not be the Iranian or North Korean people, but their leaders and weapons, we could only be sure of the collateral damage, and not the desired effect.

The bunker-busting nuclear warhead would be designed to penetrate deeply into the ground, rock, or concrete over the bunker before detonation. Thus surrounded by solid material, the shock wave would have many times the force underground than an above-ground detonation, with the objective of collapsing the bunker.

The arguments AGAINST developing such weapons fall into three basic categories: 1) practical physics, 2) diplomatic and treaty implications for proliferation, and 3) increasing the likelihood of actual use of nuclear weapons.

1. The physics argument. In order to penetrate deeply, a warhead must impact the ground at high speed. The higher the speed, the deeper it goes. However, current materials and technologies limit the possible speed at impact, because if the warhead is going too fast, it will lose structural integrity before reaching the desired depth for detonation. Some claim the maximum possible depth would be no more than 20 meters or so, which might not be deep enough to destroy a given bunker - but would still probably throw a significant amount of fallout into the atmosphere.

This argument presumes no advances in technology. It is similar to the objections to missile defense in the early '80s: "We can't do it right now, so it's impossible." Of course, our missile defense technology has advanced since then, to the point we are nearing practical deployment. Had this mindset been prevailing in the '50s and '60s, we might never have reached the moon.

Of course, the development of a new weapon entails innovation and technical advances, and always has. The bow and arrow was a new technology in the age of the spear. Had we not researched and developed stealth aircraft or missile defense, they would not have been "possible," either. The objection is fallacious.

2. The testing-treaty-proliferation argument. It is argued that we might have to test these weapons underground, which would violate the spirit of the test ban treaty {which we didn't ratify, but adhere to} and inspire or excuse other nations to seek nuclear capacity and/or do their own testing.

The experience of the last half-century is that other nations will acquire nuclear weapons whether we want them to, or not. Nations who have sought to do so either withdraw from treaties prohibiting it, or just ignore them. Non-proliferation agreements failed to prevent India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, and North Korea from going nuclear, or others from trying.

Neither is it certain that developing BBB would require underground nuclear testing. We would surely have to test penetration into the ground, to ensure structural integrity of the materials, but computer modelling is so advanced it might be able to satisfactorily evaluate the effect of a blast, once we know how deep we can deliver the weapon.

One thing is certain: our self-imposed abstaining from testing will not deter the PRK, Iran, or any other enemy from their own testing if they believe they can achieve nuclear insurance from American military force.

3. Lower-yield weapons make nuclear war more likely. This argument projects that by diminishing collateral damage by developing bunker-busting or battlefield nukes, they are more likely to be used in war.

This is essentially the same argument used against the neutron bomb, but in a different world. When our primary threat came from large enemies like the USSR and China, whose ambitions were for dominance and influence, Mutually Assured Destruction was a plausible and effective deterrent. The face and nature of the enemy has changed, though.

Using our huge warheads designed for Cold War MAD against smaller nations would be a horrific decision, and one that would not guarantee success against bunkered enemy leadership or weapons. They are therefore far less likely to be deployed, so in this respect the objection has some validity.

But, deterrence relies upon the enemy's uncertainty of our response. If a Kim Jong-il or Khameini think we won't dare strike, or can't reach their bunkers, our "deterrent" becomes a paper tiger. If instead we have the capability to surgically destroy them and their WMD facilities with limited nuclear blasts, it provides a far greater deterrent to them. MAD is a meaningless concept against an enemy who can't totally destroy us, and who knows we won't totally destroy them.

The fact is the more options in our arsenal, the greater the deterrent. To cut off even discussion of developing bunker-busting weapons, as John Kerry proposes, makes a WMD attack against us by a rogue nation more likely, not less. The uncertainty of our capabilities that BBB would add to their calculations would be the only realistic and effective deterrent against them.

Also, in cases like Iran, where fanatics might sacrifice themselves and their nations to attack us, the bunker busters give us an additional preemptive option, which could be used to deter them from proceeding with developing underground facilities for WMD. The only true deterrent is a credible threat, which these weapons constitute.

In sum, we can and ought to proceed with the necessary R & D expeditiously. The Cold War is long ended, and our nuclear strategy must adapt to the new geopolitical situation, just as our diplomacy has.

Hugh Hewitt is assembling a virtual symposium on this subject. Visit his site to follow the progress, or for the insightful posts and helpful links he provides every day. I do.

Allegorical satire

2004-10-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

You must read ‘Johnny Nuance’ over at IowaHawk.

A walk down Memory Lane, back to those halcyon days in 'Tam!

The Debate: what effect?

2004-10-02T01:06:00.000-07:00

The consensus thus far seems to be that Kerry "won" the debate, because presentation trumps substance on television, but that the internals haven't moved much. Those who said Bush was a stronger leader and better on the War on Terror before, still do in the same proportions.

My own thought is that Kerry's numerous errors will come back to haunt him in GOP commercials, whereas all he can put up against Bush are the split-screen scowls and a few pauses before answering.

Gerry Dale, whose Electoral College Breakdown has been around a few elections now, has a different take, based on the actual history of the races before and after debates:

Debating The Impact

The fable of the first Presidential debate is well known. Richard Nixon was known as highly intelligent, determined, and both experienced and skilled in the art of debate. His opponent, the young and dynamic John F. Kennedy, understood the medium better. Nixon showed up weary, and foolishly did not use makeup. Kennedy was tanned and rested, and had his presentation professionally attended. The cameras made Kennedy look even better, while the sweating and pale Nixon came across sickly and nervous.

According to the fable, those who heard the debate on radio declared that Nixon had gotten the upper hand. Those who watched on television, however, came away with a completely different impression. And as Erika Tyner Allen writes, "At election time, more than half of all voters reported that the Great Debates had influenced their opinion; 6% reported that their vote was the result of the debates alone." Given this, it would be easy for one to conclude that the first set of Presidential debates greatly impacted the 1960 election.

But while people probably, for the most part, do answer poll questions truthfully to the best of their perceptions, people also do sometimes remember things wrong, or otherwise end up answering in misleading manners. The entire race for President in 1960 had been fought tooth and nail. First one candidate, and then the other, opened up a 4-5 point lead with their convention. Heading into the debates, the race as measured by Gallup was a tie. Three straight polls, taken from early August through the middle of September showed the race either exactly even or within a single point. The actual results on election day were just as close; Kennedy took home 0.17% more of the popular vote. If 6% decided their vote on the debates alone, they must have done so half for each candidate; and if more than half of all voters had ther decision greatly influenced by the debates, they must also have come down on both sides in nearly even proportions.

It gets even better. According to Dale, the debates were only decisive in 1980, and pretty much irrelevant every other election. Read the whole article http://www.dalythoughts.com/Update-09-26-04.htm.

Debate analysis

2004-09-30T23:23:00.000-07:00

Short answer: Kerry wins on style, Bush on substance.

It was the best I've seen Kerry. He came across strong and presented well. The debate rules allowed him to skirt specifics and rely primarily on general assertions, and he took advantage.

The President seemed a bit hesitant at times, although he was able to present better-backed arguments.

On the split screen shots, Bush often looked to be frowning as Kerry spoke, while Kerry did a lot of nodding while Bush talked. Both came off badly in those shots, in my opinion.

The real story of the debate is the opportunities Bush missed to nail Kerry, to wit:

1. Kerry complained about the troops body armor, which was part of the $87 billion he voted against. I think Bush mentioned it later, but not immediately.

2. Kerry keeps up his claim to bring in mysterious new allies. Which new allies, Senator? Be specific.

3. Kerry declared he would stop the bunker-buster bomb program. Bush should have pointed out they are designed as a deterrent against the deep bunkers some of the bad guys plan to hide in, Kim Jong Il as one example.

4. Kerry kept mentioning the Afghans we used at Tora Bora, claiming they let Osama slip away. That was a call by the field commander on the ground. Would Kerry be micromanaging military decisions from the White House?

5. Bush should have pointed out that he proposed troop shift from Europe would free up nearly two full divisions, the same amount Kerry proposes to create - BUT at no additional cost, while Kerry's plan will cost many billions from now on.

6. Bush should have pointed out that the process we are following on Dafur is the policy Kerry wanted us to follow on Iraq, and it is getting nowhere fast in the UN.

On balance, I think it was about even. How that plays out with the voters is hard to say. Kerry's style was good, and Bush's failure to rebut all Kerry's fallacies makes his substance win less . . . substantial.

If Kerry needed a big win, he didn't get it. But maybe he did well enough to earn a second look from some voters.

Debate advice for Bush

2004-09-30T20:34:00.000-07:00

I would suggest he ask Kerry, "Man, what happened to you? What color IS that?" But questioning the opponent is against the rules.

If Bush follows the advice from Lorie Byrd over at Polipundit, he can hardly lose. Read it here: http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4278

Volokh's Iraq challenge

2004-09-30T18:25:00.000-07:00

The Volokh Conspiracy has issued a challenge to "pro-war" bloggers to answer his three questions. Here is my response:

¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Yes.

First of all, using hindsight does not change the situation in which the decision to invade was made. Every major intelligence service in the world believed Saddam possessed WMD, including the British, the French, the Saudis, and the Egyptians. He certainly behaved as if he had them, obstructing UN inspections {according to Blix} in violation of UNSCR 1441.

I suspect that Volokh really wants us to answer if it was a good idea EVEN IF no stockpiles of WMD were discovered.

The answer is still "Yes." Saddam did have the means with which to quickly reconstitute stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons whenever he chose, and once international pressure eased {note that France, Germany, and Russia were already violating the UN sanctions in place}, his nuclear scientists possessed the knowledge to proceed on developing nuclear weapons.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator, inimical to the interests of the United States and his neighbors, who harbored, succored, and funded terrorists, had invaded two of his neighbors and launched Scud missiles into two other countries, and had attempted the assassination of former President Bush.

In the first Gulf War, we listened to "our allies," the UN, and the "sensitivities" of Arab regimes, and backed off, leaving him in power. We continued to pay heed to these outside influences as Saddam flouted the ceasefire agreement for nearly 12 years, violated the UN economic sanctions, diverted funds from the UN "Oil for food" program, and regularly fired missiles at American and British planes enforcing the "no fly" zones.

Invading Iraq was not only a good idea, it was implementing US law as well as several UNSC Resolutions. In 1998 the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, legislation setting the official US policy as "regime change" in Iraq.

¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

I don't like to hear bad news, especially when lives are being lost. Who does?

However, bad news is news. News media has always covered bad news, because that attracts more readers or viewers than good news. It would be a mistake to believe that these reports mean our policy is failing, however. Have there been mistakes in strategy and tactics? Of course there have. There always are in war.

After the defeat of Germany in WWII, we occupied that nation for a full seven years before returning sovereignty to the German people, and maintained a strong military presence there to this very day, nearly 60 years after the "end of major combat operations."

Now, it is true that more American soldiers have lost their lives in the Iraqi occupation than in the German occupation. Three times as many have died during the occupation as were lost in combat. I grieve for every one of them, including Chance Phelps.

Despite the unseemly attitude evidenced by some on the left and in the media by our losses hitting the "magic number" of 1000, I seem to remember they were predicting our men would be coming home "in tens of thousands of body bags" before the invasion.

Come to think of it, they said the very same thing as we went into Afghanistan, didn't they?

To keep the number in perspective, remember that more Americans have been murdered in Washington, DC since we invaded than in Iraq.

I suppose they want us to get out of DC, too?

¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

Let us clearly understand that it would be a grave error to assume that because criteria a, b, c . . . etc. are met, we have necessarily "succeeded," or that failure to meet one or more of the criteria we now set means we have "failed."

That being said:

We need to bring security and control to those areas still lacking them, and the Ba'athist insurgents and foreign terrorists must be defeated. Elections must be held freely and fairly. A stable Iraqi government must be able to govern the country without relying on US military forces for internal security.

But even fufilling these conditions would not necessarily mean "success" in the longer term. The essential institutions for a free society cannot be simply willed into being. These include an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and respect for the rights of property and contracts. In a nation and a culture which has no legacy of these institutions, implanting and establishing them is a daunting task.

"Success" in Iraq, as in life, must be measured in degrees. In neither case is "success" an all-or-nothing proposition. But deposing Saddam and his Ba'athist murderers is a damned fine start.

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

UPDATE: The challenge was posted not by Volokh himself, but by Orin Kerr, a featured poster at the Volokh site. Kerr is a former clerk to Mr. Justice Kennedy, and is now a Law Professor at GMU.

Sorry for the mix-up.

Tony, Billy, and YOU

2004-09-30T06:41:00.000-07:00

I am going to reproduce an entire article here. After Jim Robinson {Free Republic} got slapped down for arrogant copyright violation, most internet message boards have instituted strict "clipping" policies, allowing only a snippet of a copyrighted work to be reproduced.

To paraphrase Dan Quayle, "What a shame to lose one's testicles, or never to have had them at all."

BUT ~ there is a "Fair Use" exception to copyright protections, which provides that copyrighted material may be used for "purposes of . . . education or discussion . . ."

Don't get me started on how the Disney Corporation has fought for bastardization of the constitutional protections allowed for protection of intellectual property rights. That is a proper subject for another post . . .

For your education, and, I hope, discussion, I offer you William Kristol's latest from the Weekly Standard site.

Blair Makes the Case
President Bush should note his ally's words.
by William Kristol
Weekly Standard
09/29/2004

AS PRESIDENT BUSH prepares for Thursday night's debate, he might want to take a minute to read the remarks on Iraq and the war on terror by his ally Tony Blair, in his annual speech Tuesday at the Labour party's annual conference in Brighton:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.

I acknowledge that and accept it.

I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighboring countries.

And the problem is I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power.

But at the heart of this, is a belief that the basic judgment I have made since September 11th, including on Iraq, is wrong, that by our actions we have made matters worse not better. . . .

Do I know I'm right?

Judgements aren't the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I'm like any other human being as fallible and as capable of being wrong.

I only know what I believe.

There are two views of what is happening in the world today.

One view is that there are isolated individuals, extremists, engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism. That what is happening is not qualitatively different from the terrorism we have always lived with.

If you believe this,

we carry on the same path as before 11 September. We try not to provoke them and hope in time they will wither.

The other view is that this is a wholly new phenomenon, worldwide global terrorism based on a perversion of the true, peaceful, and honorable faith of Islam; that its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassahs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.

If you take this view, you believe September 11th changed the world; that Bali, Beslan, Madrid, and scores of other atrocities that never make the news are part of the same threat, and the only path to take is to confront this terrorism, remove it root and branch, and at all costs stop them acquiring the weapons to kill on a massive scale because these terrorists would not hesitate to use them.

Likewise, take the first view, then when you see the terror brought to Iraq you say: here, we told you; look what you have stirred up; now stop provoking them.

But if you take the second view, you don't believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it.

They're not protesting about the rights of women--what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan's first ever democratic ballot, though 4 million have done so?

They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence.

They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be.

They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents.

They know that.

That's why they are there.

That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.

And, of course, at first the consequence is more fighting.

But Iraq was not a safe country before March 2003.

Few had heard of the Taleban before September 11th 2001.

Afghanistan was not a nation at peace. . . .

It's simply that I believe democracy there means security here; and that if I don't care and act on this terrorist threat, then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people's lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy, in an era of globaliaation, depends, will vanish. . . .

Military action will be futile unless we address the conditions in which this terrorism breeds and the causes it preys upon.

That is why it is worth staying the course to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, because then people the world over will see that this is not and has never been some new war of religion; but the oldest struggle humankind knows, between liberty or oppression, tolerance

or hate; between government by terror or by the rule of law. . . .

I have changed as a leader.

I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about "caring." It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

I present the above only for purposes of education and discussion. If News Corporation, the owner of the copyright, chooses to come after me, so be it.

In the immortal words of John Kerry, "Bring it on!"

Kerry, clearly

2004-09-30T02:00:00.000-07:00

This exchange was put on PoliPundit, but their server is down right now - doubtless because of their increasing traffic, they do a great job - but I can link to a part of it on Powerline:

Diane Sawyer interviewing John Kerry:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

Now, if Kerry is this confused about his Iraq position and policy tonight, we may as well call ol' "Dandy" Don Meredith in to have a few belts, and belt out a rousing rendition of "Turn out the liiiiiiights, the party's oooooooooooooover . . ."

Stupid is as stupid does

2004-09-30T01:32:00.000-07:00

I have long contended that Patty Murray {D-WA} is the dumbest United States Senator currently serving. Given the membership in that esteemed body, her status is no small achievement. Her only "qualification" for office was that she was a "Mom in tennis shoes."

If the voters of Washington had put her stinky old tennies in the Senate, they would doubtless have more intelligent representation.

Rep. George Nethercutt - who unseated Democratic institution Tom Foley a decade ago - is running against her this year. Nethercutt isn't exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, either, but he at least approximates higher primate intelligence, which places him far above Murray on the food chain.

He's been trailing the whole campaign, and is still behind by high single digits {9% in the last poll I saw}. His latest ad may change that, though.

George figured out that if the public wasn't responding to his own entreaties, he needed to get another spokesperson. He picked . . . Patty Murray. The ad, which can be seen here [hint: select "Windows Media small," it seems to work better].

Patty really stuffs both her tennis shoes in her mouth in this video from around the time of the Afganistan invasion. She goes on and on about what a great humanitarian Osama bin Laden is. Must be seen to be believed.

Whatever possessed the people of Washington to take her seriously is well beyond me. After this ad, we should see some awakening there.

Tip o' the hat to Powerline for the link!

Where were you when the CBS Eye blinked?

2004-09-30T01:26:00.000-07:00

La Shawn Barber, who I mentioned in an earlier post on worthwhile women bloggers, is asking for input from bloggers and readers on the Rathergate fake documents scandal.

Specifically, she wants to know where readers got their information on the scandal: the "big" blogs, smaller bloggers, message boards, CBS . . . {okay, I'm kidding about the last one}.

Of bloggers, she asks what role you may have played in the development of the story.

The lady asked for input, so go put in.

Senator, I feel your stain

2004-09-29T19:17:00.000-07:00

Much is being made of John Kerry's sudden change of skin color. He turned up with an orange face the other day, which sent the blogosphere spinning with speculation as to the source. A bad spray-on job? Too many carrots and pieces of pumpkin pie?

I sympathize with the Senator. Among many good genes, my late mother also passed on her fair complexion. An old friend from my salad days used to introduce me as "the original white boy from South Carolina!" Original? I'm not that old . . . but I'll freely admit that when the first indigenous person called a European settler a "Paleface," he was looking at a chap with skin tone similar to my own.

In my youth, this was an issue. Tan was in, pale was out. Tan is healthy looking and attractive to girls. Pale is sick and repulsive. Sunning didn't help. I have always gone from fish-belly white to lobster red in about two hours. Even liberal amounts of SPF-5000² only seemed to turn my body into an abstract-looking mozaic of shades of scarlet and hot pink.

So, when the first "tan in a bottle" product came out, I immediately bought some. It was to be applied at night, and would allow me to wake up with a "deep, golden tan." I could almost hear the girls sighing as I slathered it on.

Upon awakening, I found that the promised "deep, golden tan" was actually . . . well, orange. Not burnt orange, or orangish brown, but traffic-cone bright orange. It took a few days for it to wear off, and in the meantime I was the object of much unwanted attention. The girls weren't "ooo-ing" and "ahhhh-ing," they were pointing and giggling. I looked like the comic book character The Thing, or about like John Kerry does now.

I'm afraid I can offer the Senator no advice beyond staying behind locked doors and allowing no cameras near him. Maybe his wife could buy him a chemical peel.

On the bright side - and I don't mean Kerry's face - he could be carving out a place in history. Bill Clinton was famously called our "first Black President;" perhaps if John wins, he will be known as our first Orange President.

•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·
•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·

UPDATE: Lorie Byrd has a very plausible set of food theories over at Byrd Droppings.

Personally, I suspect it was a case of an illicit sweet potato experiment gone horribly wrong.

Islands in the stream, that is what we are

2004-09-29T08:01:00.000-07:00

Ann Althouse skewers Kerry's lame metaphor about changing horses midstream thusly:

We'll never hear the end of this horse in the stream business. It just keeps getting new frills. So we need a "taller horse," because the current horse "drowning" as we go into "deeper waters." And now we've added a waterfall. So I guess we need a special kind of horse that's especially good at surviving a precipitous drop, which you'd really want in a situation where two horse were simultaneously going over a waterfall and you decided your horse was less crashworthy and that it would be a good idea to try to get onto the other horse while you were still in the waterfall. That's quite the metaphor.

Read the whole thing at the link above.

It reminds me of an old Wick Fowler review of a vaudeville act, where a man blew a cork out of a bottle by puffing on the bunghole. It went something like this:

Now, if he had blown the bunghole through the corkhole, or the cork through the bunghole, or the corkhole through the bunghole, or the bunghole through his asshole; well, that would have been something.

If the Democrats had a candidate like Wick Fowler, well . . . that woulda been something.

Debate advice for Kerry

2004-09-29T06:53:00.000-07:00

Since I previously described the extreme pressure on Kerry for the first debate {"Hey Johnny - don't choke!"}, it seems only fair, in the balanced and bipartisan tradition I have tried to establish for, lo, these last four days, that I pass along some tips for him, courtesy of BlameBush!:

[Click the link to read the whole thing, John. If you can't figure it out, call Al Gore. He isn't doing anything].

First, I recommend you begin the debate by immediately sucking the air out of the room. Bush will try to loosen things up, crack jokes, and give the debates a casual, more folksy tone. Don't let him! Once you let the Shrub start speaking to the audience like he's the friendly neighbor who borrows their lawn mower on weekends, they'll go into sensory overload and shut down whenever you start patronizing them like the ignorant children they really are. Indeed, allowing Bush to connect with the viewing audience was Gore's fatal mistake in 2000. Therefore, it is vitally important that you kick things off by reminding everyone of how miserable they are - how the economy is the tank, the environment is on the brink of collapse, and the war in Iraq is all but lost. Use ominous words like "quagmire", "squandered", and "Terayza" to pull a dark shroud of gloom over the evening. Have the stage crew dim the lights whenever you speak, and utter your bromides in a deep, forboding baritone. As long as you maintain a sense of hopelessness and doom throughout the debates, you'll be in your own element. Likewise, anything optimistic Bush says will make him look out of touch.

Secondly, you must stay on the offensive concerning Iraq. You have a keen sense of 20/20 hindsight, so use it to point out all that's gone wrong with the war. The Abu Ghraib atrocities, for instance (and be sure you refer to them as 'atrocities'). Point out that if you were calling the shots, you would have allotted extra resources to provide sensitivity training for the troops, and educate them concerning the Geneva convention and international law.

You should definitely read the whole thing; it's a hoot!

Note though, that Lincoln is on the five dollar bill, not the ten. Hamilton is on the ten, and is much better looking.

Think not of the ninety-and-nine

2004-09-29T05:21:00.000-07:00

I first found Blackfive by reading the Mudville Gazette, now posting from Iraq. Blackfive has a number of essays posted which should be mandatory reading, but none more moving than the account of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Strobl, who escorted the remains of Chance Phelps, a Marine killed in battle in Iraq, home for burial.

Here is a little of it, but I strongly recommend reading it all at the link on Chance's name above.

I practically bumped into Chance’s step-mom accidentally and our introductions began in the noisy hallway outside the gym. In short order I had met Chance’s step-mom and father followed by his step-dad and, at last, his mom. I didn’t know how to express to these people my sympathy for their loss and my gratitude for their sacrifice. Now, however, they were repeatedly thanking me for bringing their son home and for my service. I was humbled beyond words.

I told them that I had some of Chance’s things and asked if we could try to find a quiet place. The five of us ended up in what appeared to be a computer lab—not what I had envisioned for this occasion.

After we had arranged five chairs around a small table, I told them about our trip. I told them how, at every step, Chance was treated with respect, dignity, and honor. I told them about the staff at Dover and all the folks at Northwest Airlines. I tried to convey how the entire Nation, from Dover to Philadelphia, to Minneapolis, to Billings, and Riverton expressed grief and sympathy over their loss.

Finally, it was time to open the pouch. The first item I happened to pull out was Chance’s large watch. It was still set to Baghdad time. Next were the lanyard and the wooden cross. Then the dog tags and the Saint Christopher medal. This time the chains were not tangled. Once all of his items were laid out on the table, I told his mom that I had one other item to give them. I retrieved the flight attendant’s crucifix from my pocket and told its story. I set that on the table and excused myself. When I next saw Chance’s mom, she was wearing the crucifix on her lapel.

By 1400 most of the seats on the gym floor were filled and people were finding seats in the fixed bleachers high above the gym floor. There were a surprising number of people in military uniform. Many Marines had come up from Salt Lake City. Men from various VFW posts and the Marine Corps League occupied multiple rows of folding chairs. We all stood as Chance’s family took their seats in the front.

It turned out that Chance’s sister, a Petty Officer in the Navy, worked for a Rear Admiral—the Chief of Naval Intelligence—at the Pentagon. The Admiral had brought many of the sailors on his staff with him to Dubois pay respects to Chance and support his sister. After a few songs and some words from a Navy Chaplain, the Admiral took the microphone and told us how Chance had died.

Chance was an artillery cannoneer and his unit was acting as provisional military police outside of Baghdad. Chance had volunteered to man a .50 caliber machine gun in the turret of the leading vehicle in a convoy. The convoy came under intense fire but Chance stayed true to his post and returned fire with the big gun, covering the rest of the convoy, until he was fatally wounded.

While some in the media could barely disguise their glee at the one-thousandth American to die in Iraq, we must remember that each soldier who laid down his or her life was an individual, with a family, a personal life cut short on our behalf.

Throughout our history, the American soldier has fought valiantly and heroically, willing to sacrifice unhesitatingly, that our nation be a safe haven for Blessed Freedom. They were not mercenaries, or soldiers of fortune. They were farmers and shopkeepers and secretaries and construction workers and accountants and short-order cooks, who rose to the occasion. Their strength has ever been augmented by what they were fighting for. Their truth is marching on, as those caissons go rolling along.

Mourn for them as the individuals they were, and the lives they might have had but gave for us. Mourn Chance Phelps, and never let his sacrifice be soiled by forgetting why he so bravely offered it.

Do I feel a draft?

2004-09-29T04:55:00.000-07:00

When Josef Goebbels visited the Soviet Union in the early 1930's he was particularly impressed with the communist propaganda operation, which he described as The Big Lie. It didn't matter how outrageously false your claim was, if it was repeated often enough and loudly enough, people would begin to believe it. He then coopted the communist formula for Hitler.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Now Betsy's Page is reporting that CBS, Rock the Vote, and others are echoing the Kerry campaign in repeating the old internet hoax about a draft:

Ratherbiased, unlike most everyone in the country, still watched the CBS News show. And they look at how CBS had a story tonight about fears that the draft will be brought back. This is all part of a liberal tactic to scare people into voting against Bush because they fear a draft will be brought back.

Last week, I posted about an anonymous e-mail going around to college students scaring them about the draft. However, almost everything in the e-mail was a lie. Here's a thorough debunking at Factcheck.org.

Hindrocket posts tonight about another e-mail being sent around by Rock The Vote (supposedly a non partisan group - Ha!) scaring kids about a draft.

I guess this is the only way the Dems can think to retake the advantage among women and young voters. Focus groups must be showing that this is a winner for Kerry. So, in order to get some political advantage, liberals are willing to scare kids and their families about something that is just not going to happen.

[Click on link above to read full post and access hyperlinks]

Long after the original hoax was debunked, Charles Rangel {D-NY} introduced a draft bill into Congress. There was no support; both party leaderships dismissed the idea. But Rangel is a smart chap. He wasn't trying to pass a bill at all. He just wanted an actual House bill number on record to give the hoax renewed credence.

A despicable rumor spread by cynical manipulators. But then, I suppose the same could be said of the Democratic Platform.

Next, OJ will be offering marriage counseling

2004-09-29T04:15:00.000-07:00

Lorie Byrd over at PoliPundit points out that the venerable Al Gore - a/k/a "the formidable debater," and later "the sighing eyeroller" and "the stalker" - is actually giving Kerry advice on debating George Bush, in the New York Times, no less!

My confidential sources {who recently provided CBS with a blockbuster story} tell me that the Times originally wanted Ann Richards - former Texas Governor and rumored to be the stupid ugly sister of Phyllis Diller - to do the debate advice piece. It seems that "last call" fell well past deadline, so they had to look elsewhere, and Al wasn't busy.

BTW ~ the NYT and many news sites require "free registration." If you hate wasting the time to set up free email accounts and filling out their forms as much as I do, visit BugMeNot next time. They maintain a database of usernames and passwords for most news sites. Plug in the URL of the place that requires you to register, and they supply an already-registered username and password so you don't have to give out {or, make up} any personal information to read the site.

Oil, free markets, and guinea hens

2004-09-29T02:50:00.000-07:00

The price of oil topped $50 a barrel yesterday, an all-time high in dollar amount. Adjusting for inflation, though, it is still less than half the price after the Iranian Revolution.

Of course, that is trivia. No one cares what the relative cost was 25 years ago. Oil is 30% higher than last year, and that is what people notice. And that translates to an increased cost to the American economy of roughly $68 billion per year - about 6% of our GDP. It is fair to say that our economic growth rate would be at least 2% higher if oil had remained at pre-Iraq levels.

Still, industry analysts say there is still a 1% excess capacity on the production side. That is historically low, so while there is no immediate shortage, the markets fear that possible disruptions of supply in Iraq or Nigeria {where BP has had to shut down production of several facilities due to security concerns} or Venezuela could create a sudden shortfall in supply. Even so, the "fair market" price should be in the $28 - $35 per barrel range, say the experts.

For the markets, perception is reality. The free market does a wonderful job of allocating goods, services, and resources to their most efficient use, but the process by which it accomplishes that end is chaotic.

Fearing supply disruptions, investors began buying up oil futures contracts to lock in prices at current levels even before the Iraq War commenced. They profited by this defensive buying, so they did it again. And again. And again. And . . . well, you get the idea.

There are two primary motivators for investors in a free market. The first is desire for gain {or, as the left would call it, greed}. The second is fear of loss. The tech/internet stock bubble of 1999 - 2000 was fueled by the first. Investors saw these stocks going up and up, and bought into them. That most of the high-flying companies, savvy though their technologies were, had not yet figured out how to actually make money was lost in the stampede to buy.

With oil, it is the second and stronger motivator, fear of loss, which rules.

Always anticipating disaster has a way of feeding on itself, especially when such speculation also brings large profits. That the price of oil is inflated beyond reasonable supply and demand formulae is as irrelevant to the speculators in oil today as were simple business fundamentals to the speculators in NASDAQ five years ago.

When I was a boy, my family kept guinea hens for a while. These creatures were usually inobstrusive and stayed out of trouble on their own. But they were better than watchdogs, because whenever anything unusual came near, they began a cacophonous cackling which would wake the dead, and fled for their very lives. Anything would set them off, day or night, which is why we eventually got rid of them.

The markets are behaving like guinea hens on oil prices right now. Sooner or later reality will set in, and the price will fall, perhaps preciptiously, back to "normal" levels.

I'll never be able to get ten gallons of gas for $3 again, like I was in 1971. But then again, no one is able to get the amount of work out of me for $3 they could back then, either.

Kerry's debate challenge

2004-09-29T02:05:00.000-07:00

With the first debate, on foreign policy, upon us, there is widespread speculation on what will happen.

For a challenger trailing in the polls and Electoral Vote count to debate a sitting President in time of war is a daunting task. Kerry has already set himself up for serious questions on his treatment of our allies, and claims he could attract help when all potential donors have announced publicly they will refuse. Never mind his constantly shifting positions on Iraq . . . Bush leads him by a wide margin when polls ask "Who is better suited to fight the War on Terror?" and "Who is a stronger leader?"

As if he didn't have enough problems, he seems to have received a bad orange spray-on tan in recent days. Unless he's angling for the Finding Nemo vote, he better get that fixed before Thursday night.

But the real obstacle for John Kerry is that he will have to come down on one side or the other of the Iraq situation. Attempts at "nuance" will fall flat in this type of forum. But Kerry's elusiveness on Iraq isn't born of indecisiveness, but of political reality. His party is divided on the subject; taking a strong stand either way will cost him substantial support.

How he resolves this dilemma will impact not only the perception of the debate, but the election itself. I think he will try to further refine his "yes, but done better" position {Iraq position #36.a.2 in your Kerry program}, because the swing voters he must win over will not buy a "cut and run" strategy. But will his antiwar leftist followers be there for his GOTV efforts if he does?

Kerry's quagmire reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoons:

Dilbert: I'm having trouble with this proposal for new equipment . . .
Dogbert: How about this: "Give us $5 million for new technology so we can pump up our resumes and get out of this hellhole you call a company."
Dilbert: Well . . . I feel obligated to say something about our customers.
Dogbert: How about: "I'm glad I'm not one of them!"

Joy in Mudville

2004-09-28T19:35:00.000-07:00

My favorite military blogger went offline some time ago as he was deployed to Iraq. But thanks to the miracle of modern technology, The Mudville Gazette is back!

Small wonder if the troops that move among these drooping trees, that sleep within these sagging tents, that sweat beneath this burning sun, aren't beginning to droop a bit themselves. Those same pundits would certainly have you believe it's so.

But here's what I noticed in the DFAC today: young faces. Young determined faces. Not much older (but far wiser and much more mature) than the crowd at a high school lunch room. You can tell without asking what these guys think. They look you in the eye. And if you can stand to look back you'll see into the eyes of the undefeated. There is no quit here, no early out, no cut and run. These are young men with an ugly job, America's finest sent to do our worst and best, and they make me feel old and inspired all at the same time.

So here is the first impression of your fine young sons: They walk straight and tall with heads held high in this war-torn world, in this sagging land. I wish you who can only read of defeat trumpeted in your newspapers or on your TVs could have walked among them and seen this for yourselves.

Read the rest here.

Thanks to Instantpundit for pointing out his return!

Allies? What allies?

2004-09-28T04:10:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing John Kerry claiming he will involve more of "our allies" in Iraq to ease the burden on our troops and budget. Who on earth is he talking about?

Britain, Poland, Australia, South Korea, Italy, Japan, and thirty-something others are with us already. Oops, Senator Kerry called them "the coalition of the bribed and the coerced." Tels diplomatie! Guess they will be heading for the door if he's elected . . . and he has also insulted Iraqi PM Allawi while still in this country, an unprecendented diplomatic faux paus.

What about France and Germany and Belgium, then? Well, none of them have any significant military forces to offer in the first place, having downsized their already minor commitment to defense after the fall of the Soviet Empire, and each of them has publicly declared they will NOT help in Iraq no matter who wins the US Presidential Election.

So, then . . . WHO exactly is going to jump on board for a war Kerry described as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time . . ."? WHO would be dumb enough to do that? I mean, besides Canada? "I love it when you talk French, Morticia! It drives me wild!"

Are these "allies" the mysterious "foreign leaders" Kerry claimed were supporting him? Has he been working secret back-channel negotiations with Burkina Faso and Moldova? What could they send us besides a request for funds?

Or are these imaginary allies? Cambodians with Chinese rifles?

What gives Kerry the right to claim - or his minions any rational basis to believe - that he could add more allies to our cause?

Seeing red!

2004-09-28T04:02:00.000-07:00

The best of the many sites monitoring the Electoral College race {that's the one that counts, remember? Just ask that Gore chap . . . } is Tripia's State by State. They use the basic formula of RealClearPolitics by taking all the recent polls and averaging them out.

What is cool about Tripia is that you can customize the view. For instance, if you want to ignore Zogby's Internet poll and forget Rasmussen and Harris, you can do it easily, and the map changes to reflect the different results from the pollsters you specify.

No matter how many different ways I try it, though, there sure is a lot of red out there . . .

Secret missions, secret plans, secret hopes

2004-09-28T02:29:00.000-07:00

The indispensible Jim Geraghty reports from the Kerry Spot at NRO:

KERRY'S "SECRET PLAN" OBSESSION [09/27 03:26
PM ]
Look at the lead paragraphs of this AP story from today:

SPRING GREEN, Wis. — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told
voters in America's Dairyland on Monday that President Bush had a secret plan
that would hurt milk producers after the election.

Kerry tried to convince voters in this rural community, where he is practicing for Thursday's debate, that he would look out for dairy farms here even though he hadn't always in the past. In the 1990s, Kerry supported the Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional pricing program that propped up prices for Northeastern dairy farmers over objections from their Midwestern counterparts.

"We've had a difference between the Midwest and the Northeast," Kerry said. "I'm going to be very upfront with you about it. "As a senator representing Massachusetts, I fought for the dairy compact and fought to have our dairy farmers get help," the four-term lawmaker said. "I'm running for president of the United States now and I intend to represent all the farmers of America."

I wonder if that would make a good quote for a Bush ad in New
Hampshire.

Also, do you feel like you're having a hard time catching up with all
of Kerry's charges of "secret plans"?

He's charged Bush with having secret plan to call up more troops after the election.

Kerry has suggested that Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft.

Blogger Slings and Arrows is on the "secret plan" beat, and has found that Kerry has accused Bush of having secret plans to privatize Social Security, wage nuclear war, cut social services, manipulate oil prices to benefit the Saudis, cut VA Benefits, cut Education Funding, and send jobs overseas.

[More on link above].

Nice catch, KerrySpot and SlingsandArrows!

Kerry loves his own secrets - secret plans to get France to send troops and money it doesn't have to Iraq, secret missions to Cambodia when the rivers were blocked to Swiftboats, secret battles with the Khymer Rouge years before they operated in the area, secret hopes that some poor dumb soul somewhere is buying it all.

BUT ~ when he accuses Bush of having "secrets" that exist only in the paranoid imaginations of the radical left, his attitude towards secrecy takes a 180° turn. Those "secrets" are bad - bad - evil bad! Never mind that they are only accusations without basis in reality.

To take Kerry seriously requires a flight of fancy. Relax, let all your muscles relax. Unwind, close your eyes, see only with your mind's eye . . . That's it! . . . Now, concentrate . . . let your mind go blank and your limbs go limp . . . see yourself . . . you are on a boat, deep inside Cambodia . . .good, good . . . now see yourself fired upon by Khmer Rouge troops who didn't exist, or those who did, but never contested border areas at the time . . . yes, that's it . . . see the secret agent in your boat . . . doesn't he look just like Martin Sheen? - never mind . . . must see Colonel Kurtz . . . good, now you've got it . . .

Or maybe you don't. Oh well, we tried . . .

A man of imagination

2004-09-28T02:26:00.000-07:00

If we want a leader with a vivid imagination, maybe John Kerry IS the guy!

He imagined he was in Cambodia - and "seared" the vision onto his memory.

He imagined he owned a Chinese assault rifle {no doubt purchased from an unlicensed Khymer Rouge dealer in Cambodia}.

He imagined he is qualified to be President of the United States.

Man, that guy is a true visionary!

Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?"
Kerry dreams of things that never were and says, "I was there!"

Et tu, PoliPundit!

2004-09-28T01:52:00.000-07:00

Wow! Now I've been linked on PolitPundit too!

Many humble obeisances . . . while I retire to my lair to compose a speech while listening to Peter Gabriel's Big Time . . . gee, I better start writing something profound now . . .

. . . but I can't help but "imagine" {with a tip of the hat to John Kerry, "Imagine all the people, voting just for me, Yoo-hoo may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join me, for some harmless UN fun . . ."} that at this rate, in a week or two I'll have Dan Rather's job . . . .

Courage.

;-)

Southern Appeal

2004-09-28T01:30:00.000-07:00

I'm flattered to have garnered a mention on the excellent Southern Appeal by JD, one of the leading writers in LA {Lower Alabama} - especially since I'm now celebrating two whole days of this . . . he gives me a bit too much credit, though: my cousin is the physicist, I have a rudimentary knowledge at best.

Thanks, and a hearty "Roll Tide!" to you!

Women Bloggers: Wonkette vs the Worthwhile

2004-09-27T21:16:00.000-07:00

The recent NYT blogger profile concentrated on leftist bloggers and, despite the immediate protests of my fellow conservatives at being ignored, was less than complimentary of them. Reporter Klam was pretty clearly fascinated by Wonkette, whose writing shows an inordinate propensity toward the nether regions of the human anatomy, with frequent scatological and sexual references. Now, I will admit I used to have a similar fascination with potty humor, but then I turned fourteen.

Wonkette did have a very funny picture up: Secrets Plans of Kerry HQ. Loved that one. But, on balance, perhaps the prevailing pervasively pernicious perfidy of her partners on the left would be preferable to the vain and vacuous vapidity of the niche she has created for herself.

For instance, when she speculates on the size of Kerry's penis, she loses me. I am far more concerned about his undetectable testicles.

~~~~~~~~

Lest I be labelled misogynist, I should point out that there are many worthwhile female bloggers out there who write well and make their points without tittering on about poop or pee-pees.

For instance, there is Ann Althouse, a centrist law professor at Wisconsin. Her essay on How Kerry lost me is a great read which sheds insight on the problem Kerry is having with the moderate voters, especially women, this year.

Then there is Lorie Byrd, a working mother who is one of the mainstays at Polipundit {a blog I visit regularly and recommend highly}. She also occasionally posts on her own site, Byrd Droppings. Her post today on health care exposes the fallacy of nationalized medicine:

I have read many stories of people in Canada waiting for weeks or even months for hospital treatment, sometimes even for serious health concerns such as cancer. (It seems that Americans who can, cross the border for prescription drugs, and Canadians that can, cross the border for timely and quality medical services.) Even more frightening than that, however, are first hand accounts I have read recently. I have been part of a cholesteatoma internet support group for several months now and have seen stories from those having problems both here and in other countries. Here the main problems, in addition to those related to the condition itself, are with insurance companies and are related to how much of the surgery and other expenses of treatment they will pay. The problems for those with government-run health care, in my opinion, are much more troubling. One woman in the cholesteatoma group wrote that she was on a waiting list for months for her surgery. When my daughter was first diagnosed, her ENT doctor told us he was having surgery himself and that if we wanted him to do the surgery we would have to put it off for four weeks. Although she had already had tubes put in her ears twice by this doctor, and we liked and trusted him, we chose to have a partner in his practice do the surgery, rather than wait. I cannot imagine being in the position of knowing that there was something growing in my daughter's ear that was destroying her hearing, and potentially causing damage to her brain, and we had to just wait and let it continue to grow for months. If I was in that position, I would imagine that I would sell or mortgage whatever I needed to in order to travel to wherever it was possible to have the surgery done sooner.

Read the rest at the link above.

Then there is Betsy Newmark, a history teacher from Raleigh, NC. Betsy's Page reminds me of a more comprehensive Best of the Web sometimes. {She also includes the Best of Best of the Web . . . }

Another woman blogger I've been reading lately is La Shawn Barber. I like what I've seen so far, but I doubt Joe Lockhart shares my opinion! Even though the original MSM report was retracted, I will never be able to look at Joey the Pooh again without laughing - which is a great improvement on the scowl he has brought to my face for years.

So, there are indeed worthwhile women bloggers who can be informative and insightful without adopting the Wonkette style: rude, crude, nude, and tatooed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: Lorie Bird isn't exactly a "working mom." She informs me she was a "stay-at-home mom" until all her kids were in school, and now only works during school hours. So, it would have been more accurate to describe her as a "stay-at-home working mom." Not that there isn't honor, if not glory, in all the possible permutations . . .

Jeremy Rifkin: Still Crazy After All These Years

2004-09-27T05:00:00.000-07:00

From over at Tech Central Station, Henry I. Miller, MD, reviews the latest silliness from the Nutty Professor:

Professional worrier Jeremy Rifkin's pronouncements always remind me of the
characterization by one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas B. Reed of his political opponents, "They never open their mouths
without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
Rifkin's assertion that Americans' consumption of beef causes domestic violence were absurd. So were his claims that biotechnology threatens "a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust," and that a small-scale field trial of a
gene-spliced soil bacterium could change weather patterns and disrupt air-traffic control.

The rest is at the link above.

Larry, we hardly knew ye

2004-09-27T04:47:00.000-07:00

An often mentioned name as a potential Democratic nominee for a SCOTUS vacancy is Lawrence Tribe of Harvard.

Oops.

Power Line: "Democrats' Top Scholar Charged With Plagiarism
I got to know Larry Tribe in the days when Deacon and I were stalwarts of the Dartmouth debate team, and Tribe coached the Harvard team. Shortly thereafter, he was one of my professors at Harvard Law School. Larry was never exactly a friend, since he was a teacher and I was a student, but I knew him and considered him a nice guy and one of the most lucid intellects I've encountered.

In later years, Larry became famous as America's leading Constitutional Law scholar. His treatise, American Constitutional Law, dominates the field. Tribe, a practicing lawyer as well as a scholar, has argued 36 cases in the United States Supreme Court. He is now one of Harvard's University Professors, the highest honor the university bestows.

Tribe also went on to become the Democratic Party's top lawyer and, arguably, its leading intellectual. He created the legal and intellectual justification for the Democrats' shameful destruction of Robert Bork's career, a role that probably ended Tribe's own hopes of a Supreme Court appointment. Among other politically charged cases, he represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore.
Now Larry Tribe stands accused of plagiarism. Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book.

Why did he do it? In a sense, Tribe seems to have fallen prey to" [Hindrocket's PowerLine comments continue at link above; Bottums' article can be read here: Weekly Standard.

The fight ahead

2004-09-27T04:27:00.000-07:00

Belmont Club: "Just after Izz El-Deen Al-Sheikh Khalil climbed into his white Mitsubishi in Damascus a bomb planted in the vehicle exploded, ending his career. Khalil was member of the military wing of Hamas living in the Syrian capital. The Syrian government blamed Israel for the attack, characterizing it as 'an Israeli act of state terrorism in the heart of Damascus'. Israel responded coyly, neither confirming nor denying their involvement in Khalil's death. But the strangest reaction of all was from Hamas."

Interesting article and comments.

My own thoughts, posted as a comment at the Belmont Club a few moments ago:

"Doug's point is well taken. Time is NOT on our side, it is on theirs. As Rumsfeld famously commented regarding preventing terrorist attacks, "We have to be right every time; they only need be right once."

As nuclear weapons proliferate to undependable regimes, the only thing that keeps the terrorists from attacking us with nukes is that they don't have them yet. The same is true of chemical and biological WMD as well. When they obtain them, they WILL use them.

It is a race against the clock. We must kill or eviscerate ALL the potential terrorists before the weapons with which they can strike become even more terrible. Bringing democracy, contract law, and independent judiciaries to the Muslim world will ultimately succeed in coopting the source of new suicide attackers, but it is a process which will unfold in decades, not years.

We don't have that kind of time.

We are undertaking some of the active measures required, as evidenced by the recent killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan of key al Qaeda operatives. Libya seems to have preemptively succumbed to the threat of force. But we need to step it up dramatically.

As mentioned in a comment above, the terrorists who will carry out these attacks don't care if they die. When their lawyers, bankers, patrons, and apologists, who never seem quite so anxious for martyrdom, start paying the price, their organizational back may be broken ~ but not before.

I have no doubt that John Kerry would respond forcefully, perhaps even including such drastic measures, to a WMD attack on America. I have no such confidence that he would pursue Islamist terror with similar vigor preemptively.

Frankly, I'm not sure that George Bush will take preemption to its necessary extremes to succeed, either. But he will surely be more likely to do so than Kerry would.

# posted by Adjoran : 11:22 AM "

The Old Gray Lady, she ain't what she used to be

2004-09-26T18:20:00.000-07:00

The Ace of Spades is fuming about the ten-page spread in the NYT, which manages to highlight several leftist bloggers while virtually ignoring conservative sites with consistently higher traffic and greater influence - and failing to mention the blogosphere's role in exposing the faked CBS documents at all.

Sadly, it is par for the recent course of events at the Old Gray Lady {who has also deserted her nickname it seems; perhaps now she should be called "The Old Rainbow Lady?"}. The New York Times was long the most reliable newspaper in the world. It has taken only a few years to turn the once-great paper into little more than a bad journalistic joke.

Under the leadership of Executive Editor Abe Rosenthal, the Times maintained its old traditions. The editorial pages were unmistakably liberal, including Rosenthal's own columns, but if a story appeared in the news columns, you could take it to the bank and get a deposit slip. Unfortunately, old Honest Abe retired shortly after Sulzberger, Jr. was given the newspaper as his personal toyland. Evidently the family realized that Junior wasn't going to be able to land a position otherwise {for good reason}.

Junior brought in Howell Raines and a new attitude. Although Raines was a casualty of the Jayson Blair scandal, his editorial style has persisted. The paper is now little more than a semi-official organ of the Democratic Party, particularly the left wing.

Despite the ballyhooed post-Blair reforms, fact-checking remains little more than a theoretical obligation, and balanced presentation of the facts is unheard of. The errors and excesses of writers like Krugman, Dowd, and Kristof are legion, and the stuff of modern legend.

It is truly sad to watch the death throes of an icon of the newspaper business. The principal remaining value of the Times to its readers is fish wrap.