Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Posted by Richard on November 8, 2006
As regular reades no doubt could guess, I’m not exactly cheerful about spending the next two years hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Judiciary Chair John Conyers. And I’m disappointed by the departure of Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, I’m basically a "glass half-full" sort of guy, and I think there’s some good news related to yesterday’s elections.
One big bright spot: the property rights protection movement racked up an impressive string of victories. Ten of twelve ballot measures passed, and eight of them are constitutional amendments (one victory, Louisiana, was in September). Only California and Idaho defeated citizen initiatives dealing with eminent domain. They were thrilled yesterday at the Institute for Justice:
“Election Day usually reveals how polarized public opinion can be as campaigns focus on highly divisive issues. Today, however, the vast majority of voters across the country all agreed that the fundamental right to property must be protected,” said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in Kelo before the Supreme Court. “Citizens around the nation agree that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo was wrong. As we’re seeing tonight’s results, this issue cuts across party lines, state borders and socioeconomic levels.”
…
“The American people are furious their property rights are up for grabs to the highest bidder,” said senior attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute. “They understand that the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on everyone’s property and the resulting momentum for eminent domain reform shows no sign of slowing. The significant margins in the votes today show just how wrong a narrow majority of the Supreme Court was.”
The margins were truly significant, typically three or four to one.
Here’s another bit of good news: Dennis Hastert won’t run for minority leader. I’ve made clear my low opinion of Hastert. I think he bears much of the blame for the Republican losses. Hastert helped create the "culture of corruption" by dismantling the 1994 ethics and accountability reforms. His lack of principles, inarticulateness, and focus on wielding the levers of power helped create the widespread distrust of the Republican Party.
If the Republicans really have been chastened and want to mend their ways, in January they’ll follow Human Events’ advice and elect Mike Pence minority leader. Furthermore, they should correct a mistake they made when DeLay departed and pick John Shadegg over Roy Blunt for the number two post, minority whip.
More good news came via Josh Poulson, who argued that the GOP lost because it "abandoned its libertarian wing," and cited a couple of interesting related items. One is this post at Economist.com about the growing clout of Libertarians:
GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn’t just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush’s much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America’s fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.
In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn’t been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
The other item is Sen. Tom Coburn’s statement on the elections:
“The overriding theme of this election, however, is that voters are more interested in changing the culture in Washington than changing course in Washington, D.C. This election was not a rejection of conservative principles per se, but a rejection of corrupt, complacent and incompetent government.
“A recent CNN poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe government is doing too much while only 37 percent want government to do more. The results of this election reflect that … the Democrats who won or who ran competitive races sounded more like Ronald Reagan than Lyndon Johnson.
“This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. In fact, these results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism.
“The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994 or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders. If Republicans present real ideas and solutions based on these principles we will do well in the future.
Read the whole thing. If you’re a discouraged limited-government type, libertarian or conservative, you’ll feel better — and you’ll be glad there are people like Tom Coburn in politics.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: coburn, corruption, elections, hastert, kelo, libertarian party, libertarianism, pence, politics, property rights, republicans, shadegg, voting | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 7, 2006
Captain Ed pointed to a remarkable column by Michael Kinsley posted last night in Slate and appearing this morning in the Washington Post. Kinsley did what apparently alrmost no one in the country bothered to do: to get a sense of what a Pelosi-led House would be like, he read the 31-page "manifesto" issued by House Democrats in June, "A New Direction for America." His critique, coming from a bona fide liberal with no love for Republicans, is devastating.
Kinsley noted that the Pelosi plan is heavy on bromides, promises of tax credits, misleading nonsense like calling for an end to the "Disabled Veterans’ Tax," and lots of new spending, but it’s light on fiscal responsibility (emphasis added):
Honesty is not just therapeutic. Fiscal honesty is a practical necessity. "New Direction" quite rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders and duly promises "Pay As You Go" spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue-raiser to balance the many specific and enormous new spending programs and tax credits.
But Kinsley put a dagger in the Democrats’ heart — remember, this is an anti-war liberal — when he looked at their "New Direction" for Iraq (emphasis added):
… For national security in general, the Democrats’ plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It’s mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.
Older readers may recognize this formula. It’s Vietnamization — the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document — although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for governing.
Read the whole thing. Read Captain Ed’s comments. Then go vote.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, democrats, elections, pelosi, politics, voting | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 6, 2006
Mirabile dictu! Someone at the Washington Post apparently decided that, if you’re going to claim that you support and respect the troops, you might want to occasionally listen to them and see what they think. The result was today’s remarkable story by Josh White, "Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results." White even left Baghdad and viisted troops in the countryside and at forward operating bases. He found a remarkable unanimity of support for the mission:
For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.
The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.
(How do I know the troops are remarkably unanimous? Well, this is the Washington Post. I don’t it’s a stretch to suspect that if White had found even one soldier or Marine who favored pulling out, the headline would have been "Soldiers Divided About Withdrawing" — and it would have gotten better placement than page A-13.)
Even a self-described liberal from New Jersey thought withdrawing U.S. troops would be disastrous:
"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It’s not ‘stay the course,’ and it’s not ‘cut and run’ or other political catchphrases. There are people’s lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn’t possible."
A captain from Texas talked about how his troops have helped Iraqi forces in Tall Afar and gained the trust of the local residents, and he described what it would mean if they left now:
"We’ll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.
"It’s still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."
Read the whole thing (log in with BugMeNot if necessary).
Captain Ed described the long-term, strategic consequences of withdrawal well:
If the US turns its back on the Iraqis now, Somalia will pale into insignificance in comparison to the disaster, both militarily and strategically, we will have brought upon ourselves. Native populations will never — never — trust us to stand by and protect them after risking everything to assist us. Tyrants and terrorists will laugh at our threats, knowing they can outlast us, especially if they can create enough propaganda to distract American voters.
The soldiers and Marines understand that victory cannot be replaced by "phased redeployment". If the tactics need changing or adjustment, then bring in better ideas — but we cannot allow retreat and capitulation become the only other option for Iraq.
That’s right — bring in better ideas, if you have them. But don’t be like Ed Perlmutter and pretend that finger-pointing is actually an idea or a plan. "Hold the President accountable," my aching backside.
UPDATE: Would it be churlish of me to point out that this WaPo article is the petard by which all those making the chicken hawk argument are hoist?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: iraq, military, politics, soldiers, war | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 3, 2006
Yesterday, I said Kerry probably didn’t intend to insult the troops because he didn’t intend anything. But today there’s new evidence that, even if he didn’t mean to say it, Kerry probably thinks what he said. In other words, in the great tradition of "fake but accurate," Kerry’s "botched joke" may have been "misspoken but honest." John Solomon of the Associated Press (can you believe it?) reported that Kerry’s comments in a candidate questionnaire from his 1972 congressional campaign "mirror" the statement that he now claims was an inadvertent gaffe (emphasis added):
After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities
Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’
Couple that with his organizing of the 1971 "Winter Soldier" hearings (full of liars and frauds, many of whom were never in Vietnam, and some of whom subsequently testified that Kerry pressured them into saying they committed war crimes) and his subsequent Senate committee testimony. Then add his accusations against U.S. troops in Iraq, such as this statement on ABC’s Face the Nation less than a year ago:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday.
The record strongly suggests that John Effin’ Kerry has for more than three decades consistently viewed the men and women of the U.S. armed forces with disdain, suspicion, and contempt. He may or may not have intended to speak the words he spoke this week, but they express what’s in his heart — misspoken but honest.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention: Kerry’s view was and is dead wrong — it’s not poor, uneducated, black and brown people with no alternatives who are fighting this war. According to a study I reported on last December, enlistees in the military are wealthier, better educated, and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old, and their ethnic makeup is just about representative of the general population.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: apology, democrats, elections, iraq, kerry, military, politics, soldiers | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 1, 2006
After practically every veteran in the country except John Murtha and Wesley Clarke called for his head, and Democratic candidates fell all over themselves canceling appearances with the French-looking senator (who, I’m told, served a few weeks in Viet Nam and subsequently testified under oath that U.S. military personnel routinely committed war crimes, and who just a few months ago accused U.S. troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children), John Effin’ Kerry has finally done what anyone with a lick of common sense — not to mention an ounce of basic decency — would have done 36 hours ago:
WASHINGTON — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, under intense fire from both parties for remarks made Monday in which he suggested U.S. troops are "stuck in Iraq" because of their education, issued an apology Wednesday afternoon for what he called "my poorly stated joke."
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop," Kerry said in a statement published on his Web site.
Kerry said he regrets that his words "were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."
Of course, Kerry’s apology was in keeping with his generally arrogant, condescending, and tone-deaf manner. Instead of standing in front of the cameras (as he did when he ranted about distortions by the "White House mouthpiece" and "right-wing nut jobs") and at least simulating looking the troops in the eye, he posted the brief statement on his website. And he managed to make it into one of those non-apology apologies: "I’m sorry you’re so stupid that you didn’t understand it was just a botched joke, and I’m real sorry that you can’t understand how Bush and his evil minions are twisting this and manipulating you for their nefarious purposes."
Truth be told, I’ve thought about it and decided his "botched joke" explanation and insistence that the insult was unintentional are probably true. My guess is that, as usual, someone told Kerry where to go and when to speak, and provided some words for him to say. He proceeded to read them with his usual level of awareness and involvement — meaning he was probably only marginally aware of what he was saying, didn’t realize that the education/Iraq bit was a joke, and maybe didn’t even realize he’d flubbed it or how badly. He didn’t intend to insult the troops because he didn’t really intend anything — except to go through the motions he’d been scheduled to go through.
John Effin’ Kerry strikes me as the quintessential empty suit. I am so glad Karl Rove got those Ohio voting machines reprogrammed! (That’s a joke, moonbats.)
Meanwhile, it’s clear to me that the morale of our troops in Iraq is high, that they’re defiant of fhe critics, and that they’re clever and funny:
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: apology, democrats, elections, humor, iraq, kerry, military, politics, soldiers | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 31, 2006
On Hannity & Colmes last night, Sean Hannity interviewed President Bush, and of course, the election was the first topic (emphasis added):
HANNITY: All right, so there you are. You think the GOP holds both houses. You’re confident. You made the statement that your opponents, Democrats, are picking out the drapes a little bit too early.
BUSH: That’s right.
Well, you know, in 2002, a lot of the pundits didn’t get the off-year elections right. In 2004, a lot of people thought I was going down eight days before the election. And in 2006, there is a lot of predictors saying that, you know, the Democrats will sweep the House and maybe take the Senate.
And I just don’t see it that way, because I think most people, when they take a look at the candidates and the positions of the candidates, realize that protecting this country and keeping this economy going are the two most important issues. And you can’t protect the country if you retreat from overseas, and you can’t keep the economy growing if you raise taxes. And that’s exactly what the Democrats in the House would like to do.
That’s the case for voting Republican about as clearly and succinctly stated as it can be.
You could fill a book with all the things wrong with Republicans (and match it page for page with one on the faults of Democrats). But when all is said and done, it’s hard to deny the importance of national security and taxes — and on those two critical issues, the Republicans get it mostly right, while the vast majority of Democrats are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bush, democrats, elections, national security, politics, republicans, taxes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 30, 2006
Ed Perlmutter is the Democratic candidate for Congress in Colorado’s 7th District, the seat currently held by Republican Bob Beauprez. It’s one of the most hotly contested congressional races in the country, and the Denver airwaves have been full of attack ads from both Perlmutter and his Republican opponent, Rick O’Donnell.
I think Perlmutter’s ad on Iraq perfectly illustrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democrats. It begins by saying that O’Donnell’s "latest idea" is to send 75,000 more troops to Iraq (CBS4Denver called Perlmutter’s claim "misleading") and continues in a shocked tone:
O’DONNELL GOES EVEN FURTHER THAN GEORGE BUSH, AND WOULD SEND 75,000 MORE TROOPS INTO COMBAT TO DEFEND A FAILED POLICY. ANOTHER BAD IDEA FROM RICK O’DONNELL. ED PERLMUTTER HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA.
Aha, here’s where Perlmutter succinctly outlines his brilliant plan for Iraq, right? Umm, yeah … right:
" IN IRAQ WE HAVE TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, AND HAVE REAL DEBATE IN CONGRESS. I’M ED PERLMUTTER AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IRAQ IS A MESS, AND SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE."
The Democrat’s brilliant solution to the Iraq problem: (1) Hold the President accountable. (What does that mean — hearings? impeachment? just more of the current carping and criticism?) (2) Have a real debate. (Still more hearings?)
Now why didn’t we think of this sooner? If we just critizice Bush enough and have enough critics testify in front of congressional committees, the Iraq problem will be solved! The Democrats don’t have to come up with a policy alternative — the hearings and criticisms, like magical incantations, will cause a solution to reveal itself!
Of course, that’s just the part of his Iraq plan that Perlmutter is willing to share with the rubes sitting in front of the boob tube. If you’re the more sophisticated, savvy, and activist type of Democrat who seeks out the Perlmutter website, you’ll discover (to your MoveOn-motivated delight, no doubt) that he’s a huge fan of Rep. John Murtha’s "expedited redeployment:" of U.S. forces in Iraq.
That’s Murtha’s insane plan to begin withdrawing from Iraq immediately and "redeploying" to Okinawa. That’s the plan for which Murtha cited U.S. withdrawal from Somalia (see Black Hawk Down) as the example we should follow.
So there you have it. Depending on which message you listen to, the Perlmutter plan for Iraq is either a vacuous call for more finger-pointing or a demand that we emulate one of the most ignominious events in U.S. military history.
If you live in Colorado’s 7th District please think carefully — do you want the next two years to bring higher taxes and the re-enactment on a larger scale of Mogadishu?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, congress, democrats, elections, iraq, murtha, perlmutter, politics, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 27, 2006
Larry Kudlow has been talking about a "remarkable shift" taking place in the Democratic Party — a move away from the hard left orientation of recent years and toward the center. According to him, this was "under the radar" of the mainstream media until yesterday’s LA Times article on the subject.
I don’t find this news all that new or suprising. I certainly recall reading that the Dems went out of their way to recruit candidates who were veterans — maybe I just assumed that they’d be more centrist or conservative, too.
I guess I didn’t realize the extent of the shift:
As Larry Sabato pointed out on tonight’s show, there’s somewhere north of twenty moderate to conservative Democrats poised to be elected to this new Congress. This crew is pro-business, pro-life on abortion, supported by the NRA and so forth.
Get this: Over thirty of the Democratic candidates for the House are conservative enough to have been green-lighted by the Blue Dogs or the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
If two-thirds of these more centrist Democrats actually win, I suppose that’ll be pretty remarkable, and in the long run, as Kudlow said, a "very good thing for the American people." But in the short run, those Dems will do just as the Republicans direly predict:
"They claim to be pro-life, pro-gun and anti-tax, yet their first vote in Congress would be to elect the most liberal speaker in American history," said Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which aims to enlarge the GOP majority in the House. "In the first hundred hours they will roll back tax cuts and open investigations into the administration."
Even some centrist Democrats privately fret that the chairmen-in-waiting may be harboring pent-up desires for a robust liberal agenda and partisan investigations that could hurt the party. "There’s a desperate need for fresh blood, a general changing of the guard," said one moderate Democrat who asked not to be named.
Maybe a Democratic Party leadership that owes its narrow House majority to its most conservative members will be somewhat chastened and cautious — but recent statements by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Charlie Rangel don’t inspire confidence in that possibility.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: centrists, congress, democrats, moderates, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 27, 2006
David Zucker is the Hollywood producer/director behind the classic comedy spoofs Airplane! and The Naked Gun. He was a lifelong Democrat until September 11, 2001. Lately, he’s been trying to use his professional talents to help the Republicans, who seem especially message-challenged this year.
Zucker’s Albright ad came out a couple of weeks ago, and I think it’s awesome — it’s not easy to balance zany and chilling, but Zucker does exactly that. According to Drudge, however, "jaws dropped" when he showed it to GOP strategists, who all thought it was "too hot" to use. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:
(If clicking the above doesn’t work for some reason, click
this link to watch it at YouTube.)
Zucker has a new ad out about taxes. It’s pretty wacky, too. Check it out:
It seems to me that the Republican Party could use a little audacity at this point, and blowing off Zucker is foolish and overly timid. I could be wrong — I’m not exactly attuned to the thinking of the average American — but I think one-minute versions of these ads or something like them could provide quite a boost for Republicans.
Apparently, at least some people at the Republican National Committee are OK with a bit of edginess and humor. America Weakly (promoted at the end of Zucker’s tax ad) presents "future history" — the news from 2007 after the Dems take control of Congress — and it’s funded by the RNC.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: advertising, albright, comedy, foreign policy, gop, korea, north korea, politics, republicans, taxes, zucker | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 23, 2006
Thank goodness I didn’t watch 60 Minutes last night. I couldn’t have taken Leslie Stahl’s fawning interview with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve heard and read enough of it this morning to conclude that CBS should be charged with an "in kind" campaign contribution. All the emphasis on what a wonderful wife, mother, and grandmother Pelosi is ought to make feminists gag — but of course, they like her politics, so you won’t hear a peep of protest.
The questions weren’t just softballs — most of them were whiffle balls. Stahl sounded tough one time — when she challenged Pelosi on the civility issue, pointing out that Pelosi has used terms like "immoral," "corrupt," and "criminal enterprise" to refer to the congressional Republicans and has called President Bush practically every name in the book:
"It sounds personal," Stahl remarks.
"This isn’t personal," Pelosi says.
"He’s "incompetent", he’s…," Stahl continues.
"Well, I think he is," Pelosi states.
"Well, that’s personal," Stahl points out.
"Well, I’m sorry, that’s his problem," Pelosi replies.
"How does this raise the level of civility?" Stahl asks.
"Well, this is a – well – we’re in a political debate here. We didn’t come here to have a tea party together, and toss a coin to see who would win on an issue," Pelosi says. "I have very thick skin, I don’t care what they say about me."
Note: I heard the audio clip of this exchange, and Stahl sounded less tough than you’d think from reading it. I suppose her inability to suppress giggles — for instance, when referring to Bush as incompetent — had something to do with that.
Nevertheless, Pelosi comes off rather mean-spirited and hateful, doesn’t she? Well, 60 Minutes can’t have that — time for some "moral equivalence":
And she needs that thick skin. She’s being used for target practice.
GOP ads have labeled her "liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi." One Republican ad says "she’ll reward illegal aliens with welfare, food-stamps, and free education. How do we stop her?"
Republicans including the president go after her saying if she’s Speaker, it’ll mean a weaker military, pampering of terrorists, and higher taxes.
Sure, Pelosi calls her opponents criminals, bigots, morons, and incompetents, and says they’re corrupt and evil. But just look — they call her liberal and say she wants to raise taxes and give food stamps to illegals. Same thing, right? Both sides are doing it. They’re just debating the issues — whether the Dems would raise taxes on the one hand, and whether Republicans are the spawn of Satan on the other. No difference at all. Let’s just move on.
Let’s get really serious and talk about the war. Here comes the slow pitch right over the plate — Stahl noted that Pelosi wants to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this year, and asked (emphasis added):
"Does that not open you up then to that charge of cutting and running? This is just what they’re saying," Stahl asks.
"The issue is them. The issue is the war they got us into," Pelosi replies. "If the president wants to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, he’s not right."
"Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?" Stahl asks.
"No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan," Pelosi says.
Well. By my reckoning, that’s not a home run, it’s a foul ball. Pelosi succinctly articulated the mindset that makes her and her fellow anti-war Democrats so dangerous. They believe that if we just captured Osama and his buddies, we could declare victory, go home, and return to the way things were on September 10, 2001.
If they have their way, a lot more of us are going to die.
I suppose 60 Minutes would just characterize my statement as another example of name-calling and incivility.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civility, congress, democrats, elections, media bias, politics, war | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 18, 2006
The polls all predict disaster for the Republicans, and everybody from the mainstream media to conservative commenters and bloggers seems to believe them. It’s a done deal. Glenn Reynolds even offered a much-discussed "pre-mortem" explaining all the reasons (and they’re good ones!) why voters are likely to punish the Republicans severely come November (see also Glenn’s follow-up).
Prognosticators are so certain of a crushing GOP defeat that the Washington Post seemed genuinely puzzled that this belief isn’t shared by the White House:
Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.
…
The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence — based on Bush’s and Rove’s electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command — or of self-delusion. Even many Republicans suspect the latter. …
Today in The Corner, Rich Lowry quoted a White House bulletin that suggested viewing all the recent polling data with skepticism (emphasis in The Corner):
A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month’s elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID. A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston’s analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.
Since 1992, the party ID differentials have ranged from +4% Democratic (1998) to +2% Republican (2002). Winston looked at the October polling samples from 8 different polling organizations. The smallest party ID differential was +5% Democratic by CBS/NYT. CNN didn’t provide party ID data. The other six ranged from +7% Democratic (Pew) to +11% Democratic (Newsweek).
Can you say "wishful thinking"? Or "attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy"? I wouldn’t bet against Karl Rove just yet.
My take? Glenn and other critics are absolutely correct regarding the failings, betrayals, malfeasance, and incompetence of far too many congressional Republicans. They richly deserve to be punished. But Rush is right when he says that they may deserve to lose, but we don’t deserve the higher taxes, slowing economy, increased federal spending, decreased national security, and other consequences that are sure to follow if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House and Charles Rangel chairs the Ways and Means Committee.
Voters who are pro-free-market, limited-government conservatives or libertarians should exercise some discretion. If you’re looking at a House or Senate race that’s got an absolute shoe-in incumbent of either major party (and that’s most districts), by all means use your vote in a way that sends the best message — vote Libertarian, Constitution, write-in, or not at all (don’t add to a big-government liberal’s vote total for any reason — that sends entirely the wrong message).
But if you’re in a competitive district or state, don’t just blindly punish a less-than-ideal Republican or tell yourself that this particular Democrat’s pretty moderate, doesn’t support tax increases, etc. — helping to elect that Democrat, no matter how decent and harmless, helps to put Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and friends back in control. What do you suppose the consequences will be for taxes, spending, regulation, national security, judgeships, … ?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, elections, gop, media, politics, polls, predictions, republicans, voting | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 16, 2006
Just about everything worth saying regarding former Rep. Mark Foley (and a lot not worth saying) has been said already thousands of times. But, since I’m a bit of a language pedant, allow me a bit of a rant. A Google search for "foley pedophile" (minus the quotes) returns 1,860,000 hits. The first few pages of results suggest that the vast majority of those hits accuse Mark Foley of pedophilia. And that’s simply wrong.
From Psychology Today’s Diagnosis Dictionary (emphasis added):
Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, an "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children. Pedophiles are usually men, and can be attracted to either or both sexes. How well they relate to adults of the opposite sex varies.
From the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (emphasis added):
Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children. … Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. …
Britannica Online says pedophilia is a (emphasis added):
…psychosexual disorder in which an adult’s arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The typical pedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult. Most pedophiles are men; the condition is extremely rare in women.
And Wikipedia helpfully describes the origin of the term (emphasis in bullet item added):
The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Vienna psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.[3] He gave the following characteristics:
- the sexual interest is toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty
- the sexual interest is the primary one, that is, exclusively or mainly toward children
- the sexual interest remains over time
Mark Foley seems to have been attracted to and exchanged sexually explicit instant messages with one or more males who were (depending on whom you believe) either 17 or 18 years old. Now, the parents of a 17-year-old boy undoubtedly consider him their child, and the law may treat him as a child in some ways (or as an adult, if he’s committed a crime). But biologically, boys and girls who are 16 or 17 are fundamentally different from boys and girls who are 7 or 8.
[Note to readers getting angry: I’m not defending Foley’s lecherous and contemptible behavior. I’m just saying it’s not pedophilia.]
Are there gray areas? Of course. Kids mature at different rates. There are some 13-year-old girls who are barely beginning puberty and others who are quite physically mature. But that’s no reason to lump someone attracted to boys or girls in their mid to late teens in with the guy who gets turned on by little kids on the elementary school playground. Because of sloppiness or legal/political considerations, people are using the word pedophile for both those categories, and as a consequence, we’re losing the ability to make an important distinction.
Interestingly, a news story from Sunday suggested that the blurring of that distinction — and the insistence that a 17-year-old is a child — is either recent or selectively applied. Former Rep. Gerry Studds, whose name came up quite a bit during the Foley brouhaha, coincidentally died on Saturday. Here’s how the AP described the scandal involving Studds having sex with a boy of 17:
In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after a 27-year-old man disclosed that he and Studds had had a sexual relationship a decade earlier when the man was a congressional page.
…
At the time, Studds called the relationship with the page, which included a trip to Europe, "a very serious error in judgment." But he did not apologize and defended the relationship as a consensual one with a young adult. The former page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him.
So in the 80s, actual sex with a 17-year-old was a consensual relationship with a young adult and not a big deal. But today, just talking sex with a 17-year-old is child molestation on such a monstrous and horrific scale that having been even vaguely aware of it without calling the cops is unforgivable.
Maybe it’s the New Puritanism. Can we blame Focus on the Family?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: childhood, definitions, foley, language, pedophilia, politics, sex, teenagers | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 14, 2006
Hi, there! Miss me? Sorry about the long absence (I can’t believe it’s been almost two weeks). I’ve been working toward a big deadline, and although I wasn’t really working killer hours (I don’t do that anymore — for one thing, my back won’t let me), I consistently found myself too mentally tired — or distracted — or lazy — or something — to sit down and blog. I finished up a couple of days ago, and have pretty much avoided the computer since.
I haven’t even been reading much or keeping up with world events during the last couple of weeks. I’ve been tossing most my newspapers in the recycle bin unread, and I’ve only glanced at a few blogs from time to time. Oh, I caught the news highlights, but I missed a lot of the details and follow-up stories.
For instance, I remember some Democrats suggesting that a gay man shouldn’t be permitted anywhere near a bunch of teenage boys. But somehow I missed the coverage of gay rights demonstrators demanding that those homophobes apologize. And did the Boy Scouts of America ever issue a statement of support for the Democrats’ position?
I heard a brief mention of Sen. Harry Reid’s illegal real estate dealings, but I never did hear details of the investigation that I’m sure was launched by the non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). And I missed the stories about legislators calling on Reid to resign.
And then there was that North Korean nuclear test. I heard how Japan immediately imposed a strict trade embargo. Surely, France denounced Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s unilateralism and failure to work with the international community, right? And John Kerry must have held a press conference to declare that if he were the Japanese P.M., he’d have deferred to the United Nations.
It’s really a shame that I missed such important stories. Why, by only hearing part of the news like that, I could easily get the impression that fairness, balance, and impartiality are sorely lacking nowadays.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: blogging, corruption, democrats, france, gay rights, harry reid, journalism, kerry, north korea, nuclear weapons, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 21, 2006
There was a rally in New York on Tuesday protesting the Iraq war. About 2,000 people attended. Apparently, nobody of any significance spoke (well, Jesse Jackson). But Reuters, AP, NBC, and other mainstream media organizations all covered the rally. The wire service stories were widely picked up throughout the world. AP and Reuters did mention that at the same time, about 200 Iranian-Americans protested against Ahmadinejad.
On Wednesday, there was another rally in New York. Across the street from the UN headquarters, 35,000 people rallied in support of Israel and to protest the man who wants to "wipe Israel from the map." Speakers included Gov. George Pataki, Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel, Ambassador John Bolton, and Professor Alan Dershowitz. Did you see anything about it on the TV news or in your morning paper? Me neither. Meryl Yourish searched widely for coverage:
Can you find a news source for the rally against Ahmadinejad at the UN yesterday? Correction: Can you find a non-Jewish media source, or a non-blogger source, for the rally?
I can’t. Except for the New York Sun.
I checked AP. Nothing. Reuters. Nada. I checked Google News. Nothing. 1010WINS. Nothing. I checked WABC, NY1, all the New York media sites. Gridlock alerts are the only thing you can find about the march. After all, it’s not newsworthy. The fact that 2,000 people marched a day earlier to protest the Iraq war? Oh, yeah, that made the news.
…
If you want to read about the rally, it appears that you have to go to the bloggers who were there, or whose readers sent in pictures. Or the Israeli press. Or the Jewish media. But nowhere else can you find any evidence that 35,000 people protested the Iranian president’s message of hate.
I think some in the media ignored this rally for political reasons — calling attention to it might benefit Bush and the Republicans. But I think there’s something else going on as well.
The mainstream media and the left (but I repeat myself) don’t see Jews as victims anymore they way they used to. Jews aren’t excluded from jobs, schools, and clubs anymore. As a group, they tend to be highly educated and successful. The Holocaust was long ago. Israel is a dynamic, vibrant, successful nation whose very existence is a reproach to its dysfunctional neighbors.
The mainstream media and the left love victims, underdogs, failures, fools, and incompetents — anyone who exhibits the highly desirable (to them) characteristics of dependency and dysfunctionality. But they are at best indifferent — and frequently hate-filled, contemptuous, and resentful — toward those who are competent, successful, high-achieving, and independent.
You know how folks on the left are always reminding us that they — the whole world, in fact — were united behind America immediately after 9/11? True, most of them were — but it only lasted until U.S. troops headed for Afghanistan. While smoke was still rising from Lower Manhattan and the nation was still on its knees and dazed, leftists throughout the world were brimming with sympathy. As soon as we got back on our feet and acted with strength and determination against the scum who attacked us, the sympathy began draining away and the criticism and denunciations began.
Most leftists feel the same way about the U.S. and Israel that they feel about rich and successful individuals — they despise them for their virtues.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: culture, eli wiesel, foreign policy, human nature, iran, israel, leftists, media bias, middle east, moonbats, politics, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 19, 2006
In Budapest, Hungarians rioted overnight because the government lied about the economy and unemployment. In Sweden, voters just elected a center-right government in part because the socialists have been massively fudging the numbers, claiming 6% unemployment when independent estimates are in the 15-20% range. Sweden’s Social Democrats had their worst showing since 1914. The Bullwinkle Blog and Rossputin.com connected the two events. The latter observed:
Maybe even true Socialists are seeing the light…just not American socialists. As George Will says, there are more Marxists on the faculty at Harvard than in all of Eastern Europe.
Publius Pundit, true to form, provided pictures of pro-freedom Swedish babes along with the election news and commentary:
As you may imagine, Sweden’s stock market went hog-wild, creating tons of wealth for lots of people across the board. Markets are forward looking and they see something they like in this victory that could unleash the energies of Sweden’s intelligent and itching to work young people.
It’s a great victory for markets and progress in a peaceful country that’s been socialist for way too long.
Meanwhile, over at TCS Daily, Nima Sanandaji of the Swedish free-market think tank Captus provided a fascinating look at one of the techniques used by the Swedish socialist government to "fight" unemployment. Jessica Petterson, an out-of-work 25-year-old Swede was pressured by the unemployment agency to meet with a work psychologist, who gave her some tests:
… To her surprise the psychologist said that Petterson should be classified as disabled since she wasn’t good enough at mathematics. Jessica was shocked to hear this: "I might not be a math genius, but I know how to count," she told the paper.
The unemployment agency explained that it was simply a matter of changing a code in her status as unemployed. If she agreed to be classified as mentally disabled she would be entitled to a range of government subsidies and programs. In fact, she could begin working at "Samhall" – a government project aimed at providing employment for the disabled. There she could get a job cleaning and building wheelchairs.
…
Alarmingly, what happened to Petterson is not an isolated incident in Sweden. The state unemployment agency is constantly attempting to force people to "admit" to being disabled. Today 19.3 percent of those seeking jobs at the unemployment office are being classified as disabled.
Stockholm University professor Mikael Holmqvist, who has done research on the subject of Samhall’s workers, believes that most of these people are in fact not disabled at all. They have been lured or threatened into agreeing to become classified as such. The reason for this is simply that if you are disabled you are removed from the statistics of open unemployment, something that the current Social Democratic government greatly appreciates.
Classifying job-seekers as mentally disabled? Well, I do know a few places where you’d have to be crazy to want to work there. 😉
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, europe, hungary, jobs, politics, riots, socialism, sweden, unemployment | Leave a Comment »
