Aren't They The Band That Did 'I Will Follow"?

From Viking Pundit, we learn that Bono will be on Meet the Press tomorrow. That should be quite interesting indeed. I've spoken before on my admiration for Bono's willingness to put results ahead of partisanship, but let me put on my rock and roll hat for a minute and just say there's a great moment in every U2 show where the lights go completely out, and the Edge begins the unbelievably spine-tingling intro to Where the Streets Have No Name...man, I get the chills just thinking about it. I've seen U2 live three times, and I'm gonna add my fourth in late October. Now that the Stones have completely sold out (and I love the Stones, but come on, now...at least put a decent album out!), U2 has no competition for the title of World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band.

Okay, I got that out my system...whew! It's gonna be a long wait until that Houston show...

It's The Tax Cuts, Stupid...

In a recent post on the shrinking deficit, I made the argument that tax reform is the best best for Bush and the Republicans, politically, since Social Security reform is seemingly dead in the water. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard echoes that thought, reminding us that Bush campaigned on making the first term tax cuts permanent. I'll let Kristol make the case:

The 2003 cuts in personal income rates, and in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, have helped produce economic growth of better than 4 percent a year--as non-tax-cutting European economies have stagnated. Unemployment here is down to 5.1 percent, while it remains 10 percent or more in Germany and France. The Dow is up by about 24 percent since May 2003, and capital spending by business is up some 22 percent.

And tax revenues are up. As Stephen Moore has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the supply-side Laffer curve has worked. Federal tax receipts are up by over 15 percent so far this fiscal year--and state tax receipts are up 7.5 percent. Individual and corporate receipts are up some 30 percent in the two years since the tax cut. The budget deficit looks as if it will be down by some $60 billion this year.

I'll repeat a point I made in the earlier post: Bush has run his last campaign, but the Republicans in Congress need something positive for 2006. Tax cuts are the answer, and they're good for us, to boot...

Quick Shots: Rounding Up Rove, Exposing Hobsbawm

Tom Maguire has the Karl Rove 'liberals are wusses' roundup to end all 'liberal wuss' roundups...

Gov. Pataki is saying no to wusses, too, at the World Trade Center, and little green footballs has the scoop (good on you, Governor)...

AJStrata was also alerted by the excellent RealClearPolitics to the Eric Hobsbawm piece I fisked below, and offers his own contribution...

The clear sign of the Marxist, particulary the academic sort (are there any others left?), is to write prose that is unmistakably dense, wrong-headed, and factually laughable. I had a vague idea who Eric Hobsbawm was, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I knew, the minute I started reading his horribly bad piece, that he was speaking the Marxist code. Looking for a refresher, I (what else?) Googled his name, and found this excellent takedown by David Pryce-Jones at the New Criterion. It's good; really good; in fact, it's so good that I'd say this:

If you read only one critique of a Marxist historian this summer, make sure it's this one...

(Feel free to use that blurb in your advertising campaign, David...)

A Late Candidate Arises

It's a shame I've already named my Weekly Jackass, because Eric Hobsbawm makes a strong late run with this piece of excrement from the Guardian. Titled 'America's Neo-Conservative World Supremacists Will Fail' (the title alone puts Hobsbawm in the exalted company of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn), it's a fantasyland Marxist portrait of a global scene that exists only in the author's deluded paranoia. Some highlights:

Three continuities link the global US of the cold war era with the attempt to assert world supremacy since 2001. The first is its position of international domination, outside the sphere of influence of communist regimes during the cold war, globally since the collapse of the USSR. This hegemony no longer rests on the sheer size of the US economy. Large though this is, it has declined since 1945...

Why is it that Marxists can't write? Awful...at any rate, the size of the U.S economy is helpfully charted at this link...that's some decline!

...as the Iraq war shows, even this unparalleled capacity to destroy [i.e., our unsurpassed military prowess] is not enough to impose effective control on a resistant country, and even less on the globe...

Because, you see, if there's one thing that unites Americans (and really, it's the only thing), it's our all-consuming desire to RULE THE WORLD! Bwwaaaaa-haaaaa-haaaa!...

The second element of continuity is the peculiar house-style of US empire, which has always preferred satellite states or protectorates to formal colonies...The American empire thus consisted of technically independent states doing Washington's bidding...

Why, you diabolical...the audaciousness of the plan! Instead of permanent occupation and colonization, we give the members of our 'empire' independence! A breathtakingly devious plan...

The third thread of continuity links the neo-conservatives of George Bush with the Puritan colonists' certainty of being God's instrument on earth and with the American Revolution - which, like all major revolutions, developed world-missionary convictions, limited only by the wish to shield the the new society of potentially universal freedom from the corruptions of the unreconstructed old world.

Ahh, yes, those dirty Je...er, neoconservatives, neoconservatives, I didn't say Jew! Of course, the American revolution was like no other revolution before it, or indeed, after it, but that doesn't fit the Marxist world-view, so, out you go, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights - you're nothing to me!...

Nevertheless, this does not quite explain the evident megalomania of US policy since a group of Washington insiders decided that September 11 gave them the ideal opportunity for declaring its single-handed domination of the world.

You remember that day, don't you? That cold November day, the snow was falling, a hush fell over the nation, as a group of Washington insiders declared its single-handed domination of the world - what? You don't? Jeez, I thought I was the only one...

It is reasonably certain that the project will fail. However, while it continues, it will go on making the world an intolerable place for those directly exposed to US armed occupation and an unsafer place for the rest of us.

God, Eric, I hope so...I hope indeed this world will become an intolerable place for the terrorists directly opposed to our military. Indeed, I hope every last one of them dies a horrible death and goes straight to Hell. Let's just pray you're right.

UPDATE 06/29/05 8:46 a.m. - many thanks to the great Arthur Chrenkoff for the link...

Quick Shots: More From the Reverand Doctor Tom Cruise

NOTE: Yes, I realize that I have the wrong spelling for Reverend above; unfortunately, I've already sent some trackbacks to the wrong URL, so I'm leaving it there so my stupidity may be preserved for future generations. Thank you for your time...

The Washington Post has a good takedown on insane idiot Tom Cruise and his love affair with the pseudo-religion of a hack science-fiction writer...

From the New York Times, of all places, we have this story of a Basra transformed that I highly recommend to you. Tell these folks we're losing the war...

Jeff at the Bernoulli Effect on the introduction of 'critical theory' to mathematics(!!); what can I say, it's disgusting...

Ryan James introduces PocketPC blogging...

Liberty Files joins the ranks of those who see in the trap in the latest manueverings of the diabolical Karl Rove...

A Guest Post From Blue State Republican

If you haven't visited the fine Mike Huckabee President 2008 site yet, you should do so. Blue State Republican is passionate about his candidate, and does a fine job. He's also been a good friend to this blog, and he asked me if I would post the following for him. It's a topic of much controversy, and, like the good Huckabee supporter he is, he doesn't want to risk confusing folks at his blog who might think he is repeating a Huckabee position, rather than one of his own. I'm happy to do it, so enough yakking from me; here's Blue State Republican:

I was relaxing in my living room a few days ago and I picked up my wife's issue of More magazine (June, 2005). It had Maria Shriver on the cover, so I thought I'd check out what she had to say about being First Lady of California. As I flipped through the magazine, however, I came across an article titled "Surprise, Surprise! Pregnant at 40+".

This article contained a statement that caught my eye. "A whopping 65% of unintended pregnancies in women over age 40 end in abortion--the highest percentage for any age group." The statistic was attributed to the Guttmacher Institute.

That eye-opening stat drew me in. As I read on, I was surprised to find that the article recounted the story of "Lori" a 44-year old executive from New York City, who had made the decision to have an abortion, and gave her reasons for doing it, which were:

1) "It would have been a stretch to afford full time help."

2) "Space - the couple live in a one-bedroom apartment."

3) "I wasn't sure we would be able to agree about child-rearing decisions."

"Lori" also revealed that she had had an abortion once before, while in college, because she "barely knew the guy and wanted to finish school."

I was struck by the frankness of the article and the cavalier attitude "Lori" presented toward ending her pregnancy. None of the reasons she gave for having the abortion had anything to do with rape, incest or the life of the mother. In fact, the article even states that "Lori's" ob/gyn conducted an ultrasound, told her 'It's a healthy fetus,' and encouraged her to think hard about it because it could be her last chance to have a child. Her husband even said 'This happened, so why don't we see it though?'

So here I am, reading this, thinking "I can't believe this woman would so openly talk about having two abortions for no reason other than birth control." It made me angry enough to march to my computer to start drafting a blog post about it. I was going to focus on how offensive and morally wrong I thought it was for "Lori" to end her baby's life because she couldn't have a full time nanny, extra closet space and a 'Leave It to Beaver' child-rearing relationship with her husband.

But as I researched the issue a bit more, I realized I was focusing my anger in the wrong place. I'm not angry at "Lori" over her reasons for aborting her baby. Disgusted, maybe, but not angry.

What I'm really upset about is something I confirmed as I researched abortion statistics. According to the Guttmacher Institute which is, by the way, a pro-choice organization that says its mission is "to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world," over 90% of all abortions in the U.S. are for no reason other than birth control.

Here's the breakdown :

21% Inadequate finances

21% Not ready for responsibility

16% Woman's life would be changed too much

12% Problems with relationship; unmarried

11% Too young; not mature enough

8% Children are grown; woman has all she wants

3% Fetus has possible health problem

3% Woman has health problem

1% Pregnancy caused by rape, incest

4% Other

So according to this pro-choice organization, only about 4% of the more than 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. each year are due to "rape, incest or life of the mother." Add in abortions due to a health problem with the baby and it reaches just 7%.

I've heard the mantra that abortion must be kept available for cases of "rape, incest or life of the mother" thousands of times throughout my life from politicians on both sides of the aisle and I happen to agree with it. I also agree with the other mantra, also advocated to one degree or another by politicians on both sides of the aisle, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

I think the vast majority of people can agree with these positions. Only the most hard core conservatives at the furthest fringes of the movement insist that all abortions be outlawed, regardless of circumstance. And liberals are moving quickly toward the center on the issue as well, agreeing that abortion should be made rare .

I'm angry with the politicians who love this middle ground because they can hide in it knowing, as the statistics show, that this "middle ground" exists only in theory. While our representatives talk incessantly around the fringes of abortion with placating catch-phrases, the reality is that it is overwhelmingly used in the U.S. as a form of birth control, which almost everyone agrees is wrong.

Babies should not be aborted because people cannot afford nannies. Babies should not be aborted because they will be inconvenient. Babies should not be aborted because people have small houses. Babies should not be aborted because they make it hard to get dates.

We have an opportunity right now to make a fundamental change in the way abortion is handled in this country. Yes, abortion should be safe and legal as an option in the rare instances of rape, incest and health of the mother. But that does not mean it has to remain open for massive abuse as a form of birth control. Its time for somebody to take a leadership role on this issue and push for legislation that regulates the circumstances under which abortions can be performed.

Democrats have moved dramatically to the center on the issue of abortion since the last election. Now is the time to draw them into a new middle ground we can all agree on: that abortion should not be used as birth control. They will be morally unable (and politically unwilling) to defend the way abortion is being abused in America today and real progress can be made.

Weekly Jackass Number Twenty-Eight Through Thirty-Two: Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The Supreme Court dealt a stunning blow to the freedom of Americans this week in the case of Kelo v. New London. You don't have to be a legal expert (and fortunately, the blogosphere is full of them, to help us understand the history of the case) to recognize the horrendous principle that has become the law of the land: in the words of George Will,

The question answered yesterday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes...

...Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

Notice the list of honorees, and you will see they comprise the more liberal Supreme Court Justices; the dissenters include Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia, the conservative heart of the court. This is not a surprise, for socialism remains the dirty little core of the liberal mindset, the notion that there is somehow something noble about the 'public good', while the conservative and the libertarian believe in a public composed of one person at a time.

Lest I be accused of slandering the Left, I note for the record that many, if not most, liberals would recoil at the suggestion they are socialists...that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the socialist notion that the collective trumps the individual, to put it in Ayn Randish terms, is at the heart of this decision, and so many other things that are wrong with 21st century progressivism.

Rarely does this contagion reach so high, though; one would have thought the Rehnquist court would not be the one to allow the 'public good' to be defined by every locality as it sees fit, in regard to the life-changing and often life-ruining power of eminent domain. When one sees the qualities present in many city council members - think of your own, whatever your location - this is a humbling thought indeed, bordering on the terrifying.

To conclude, I return to the essay that gave this post its epigram:

Private property rights are important to economic development because:

1. Recognized private property rights provide the legal certainty necessary for individuals to commit resources to ventures. The threat of confiscation, by either private individuals or public officials, undermines confidence in market activity and limits investment possibilities.
2. Clear property rights tend to make decision makers pay close attention to resource use and the discounted value of the future employment of scarce resources. Absent private property rights, economic actors will tend to be short-sighted in their decision making and not conserve resources over time.
3. Property rights are the basis of exchange and the extension of ownership to capital goods provides the basis for the development of financial markets that are essential for economic growth and development.
4. Secure private property rights, as indicated in the above quote by Thomas Jefferson, is the basis for limited and civilized government. The elimination of arbitrary confiscation and the establishment of regular taxation at announced rates enables merchants to calculate the present value of investment decisions and pass judgment on alternative allocations of capital.

Political freedom and economic freedom are entwined together; one cannot have the one without the other. The cord of our social fabric has frayed a bit more with this truly horrible legal precedent.

UPDATE 06/29/05 8:46 a.m. - many thanks to the great Arthur Chrenkoff for the link, as well as Jon Henke...

Paul Krugman: Let's Give Up, Already!

Paul Krugman, showing that famous perseverence of his, thinks Iraq is hopelessly lost and can't wait to hightail it on outta there; he also ensures us that the volunteer army is on the verge of collapse; indeed, he thinks the patriotic thing to do is tell everyone there's no sense in hoping for victory. Ay caramba, this stuff gets old. Tom Maguire has done his usual bang-up job of critiquing Krugman, and I can't hope to top his coverage, so instead I'm going to focus on a series of lies and exaggerations Krugman tells in the lead-in (I know, lies from Krugman? Shocking, isn't it?).

1. ...after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war president." I don't know about you, but I remember President Bush after 9/11...I remember him tearing up at a Cabinet meeting press photo op; I remember him giving stirring speeches at both the National Cathedral and a Joint Session of Congress; I remember a man who was strong, and sensitive, and resolute. I don't remember seeing any 'obvious relish'. I doubt you do, either.
2. In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right. Helen Thomas is perhaps the biggest partisan hack in the business who doesn't work at the New York Times. Anyone who quotes her approvingly outside of a comedy routine has instantly lost credibility.
3. Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. Vietnam analogy alert! It's a quagmire. Look, even if I grant Krugman's premise, unprecedented? Paul, ever heard of the episode when Thomas Jefferson sent the troops to the Barbary coast without even notifying Congress? The Gulf of Tonkin incident ring a bell?
4. The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. Ummm, here's a link for you, Krugman; I'm surprised you never heard of this, it got a lot of play...

There's also a tired reference to the Downing Street Memos; I've said all I intend to say on that non-starter already.

And with that, I leave you in the capable hands of Tom Maguire...

Congrats to Glenn Reynolds...

...on rolling over 100,000,000 on the Site Meter. Wow! Here's to the next hundred million...well done. Indeed. Heh...

Tom Cruise: Even More of a Jackass

I was ahead of the curve when I named Tom Cruise my sixteenth Weekly Jackass. Cruise's behavior is becoming increasingly inexcusable, even by the vain standards of Hollywood's spoiled superstars. Cruise's one-man Scientology-fueled crusade against psychiatry is beyond the pale; frankly, he should be hit where it hurts an egotistical bastard like himself the worst: socially and financially.

What I'm saying is, any self-respecting actor, writer, director, producer, or other Hollywood personality should cease any professional or social contacts with the out-of-control Operating Thetan. Cruise's career should be 'dead agented', and pronto...

UPDATE 3:02 p.m.: Shame on reporter Kari Huus for this credulous puff piece on Scientology, the fraudulent cult that exists solely to enrich its hierarchy. Interestingly, though, we find that Cruise is an Operating Thetan 6, and John Travolta an Operating Thetan 7. Well, here's a news flash: shortly before he died, head quack and rip-off artist L. Ron Hubbard made me the world's only Operating Thetan 398, and he said to kick both of you nuts in the butt...

The Full Text of Rove's Remarks...

...can be found here. Much, indeed, most of what he says has great merit - it's a shame he didn't choose his words more carefully...

Unilateral War As Practiced By...Thomas Jefferson

I am always amused by the appropriation of historical figures by modern partisans, as if they or we have any clue as to how Winston Churchill or George Orwell would react to, say, 9/11. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but guesses they remain.

Still, I find the following passage from Christopher Hitchen's new biography of Thomas Jefferson quite instructive:

Yusuf Karamanli, the ruler of Tripoli, had been rash enough to issue an ultimatum to the United States in late 1800, threatening war if his exorbitant conditions [regarding, essentially, tribute to avoid kidnapping] were not met. President Jefferson decided to take this latent declaration of war at face value. He secured agreement from his cabinet on the dispatch of a squadron, and further determined not to trouble Congress with the matter. Its members were in recess anyway, but surely the president in time of war had the authority to act alone?* Only three months after his inauguration, the squadron was on the high seas, and Jefferson did not inform Congress until the warships had sailed far enough to be effectively beyond recall. Over the next four years*, the Barbary coast was effectively "pacified" by a unilateral American expedition, laconically described by the president as a continuous "cruise".

*[emphasis mine]

By this standard, the Iraq War had near unanimous support...

Gail Collins Is Ruining the Times

Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration; the ruin of the 'Paper of Record' started long ago. Certainly, though, Collins is hastening its decline. Under her direction of the editorial board, the Times has an astonishingly poor track record. Yesterday, she gave up valuable space to an incredibly vapid, seemingly pointless piece about Al Gore picking up someone's dropped keys and thus restoring a Muslim's faith in America (I'm not joking); today, the Times comes out with a ringing endorsement of the Supreme Court's curtailment of private property rights in the land of the free (a much larger power grab than anything in the Patriot Act). Good luck getting people to pay for this...

The MinuteMan Uncovers Another Fool in My Own Backyard

The University of Texas is a fine institution, and the home of a truly impressive faculty, including one frequent visitor who seldom agrees with me, but is always interesting. Alas, like all institutions, it has its morons, as well. The MinuteMan (who also disagrees with me on Rove) has the scoop on law professor Brian Leiter, who has decided to 'out' a law professor who wishes to blog anonymously. The MinuteMan notes:

I had thought the blogosphere operated on a (sometimes disturbingly small) level of trust and mutual respect. For example, it is very easy to leave spoof comments under someone else's name, or to send faux e-mails, but very few people do it.

My opinion: take a big grow-up pill, Professor...

Seize THIS, SCOTUS!

Scrappleface has the best response to yesterday's court decision that I've seen yet...go read, forthwith...and enjoy your Friday...

Karl Rove Remains the Topic De Jour...

...and I will blog about other things today, don't worry; however, I feel compelled to refer you to John Cole at Balloon Juice, who has several great posts on the Rove comments and why they're wrong (even if strategically sound, as some have suggested). I could have picked any number of his posts, and I suggest you read them all, but this one has the best information and linkage...

Spurs Win!

Great game, and a great end to a series that stunk the first four games...some thoughts, for the basketball fans:

• With 3 of the last 7 Championships, San Antonio has to be considered a great dynasty;
• Tim Duncan is vindicated;
• the difference was the threes; Detroit couldn't buy one, San Antonio was hot;
• San Antonio did a great job passing out of the double-team to find the open shooter.

Way to go, San Antonio!...and nice job to Tim Duncan, who joins a select handful of players to be named the Finals MVP three times...

It's Tied After Three...

...and this is the funniest post of the day...

More Dissent on Rove!

Erick-Woods Erickson is kind enough to link to me at RedState.org, but he also takes exception to my call for Rove's apology; interestingly, he takes my argument and turns it upside down, saying Rove only said liberal, not Democratic; thus, the Dems, by taking such exception, admit they are the liberal party. Well, semantics aside, I have always taken it for granted that the Democrats KNOW they are the liberal party, and have shied away from the label, but not the substance.

In any event, in typical Democratic fashion, the reaction has been over the top; read Erickson's post for the ridiculous statement by one JFK II. And also, just because he's always so nice to me and my little blog (and because he's a great blogger, and a political junkie), pay him a visit at his regular site, too...

...and Tony Parker, you better pick it up!...

Karl Rove IS Infallible...

...if you believe the Instapundit, who takes another view of Rove's comments that reveals why he is the Machiavellian legend he is (though I wonder, is Glenn's tongue somewhat in cheek?)...

Ryan James has some Empire State fallout from the Rove comments: George Pataki is dead on, and let there be no mistake, I, too, thank God almost every day that Bush was the president during 9/11; I just think Rove was overly general in his statement...

Finally, Ankle Biting Pundits has a thoughtful post on why it was a strategic blunder for the Dems to call for Rove's resignation...

Jeez, it sure is lonely out here all of a sudden...

Oh, and....GO SPURS!...

Karl Rove SHOULD Apologize

To hear the conspiracy theorists tell it, Karl Rove can do no wrong; I guess we can put that thought to rest. Rove's comments were stupid; they don't reach the level of Dick Durbin stupid, but they are stupid nonetheless.

If you haven't heard by now, here's the statement in question from a fundraiser in New York:

Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals...Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Some of my conservative brethren are defending Rove's comments. What's wrong, they ask, with pointing out the idiocy of Durbin, and the calls from the Left to understand 'the root cause' of 9/11, and on and on? The problem is the monolothic versus the specific.

Had Rove said these comments in relation to 'certain elements of the Left', or even 'the Progressive element of the Left', he would have been right on the money and I would applaud him; but the equation 'Liberal=Durbin' has no more validity than the equation 'Conservative=Pat Buchanan'.

We need to get past these idiotic flareups, and remember: the enemy is not Democrats, not Republicans, not even Dick Durbin or Karl Rove. The enemy is those terrorists killing Iraqis and Americans every day. The enemy is al-Qaeda; the enemy is Saddam. One of the greatest Americans had this to say in his inaugural speech:

...Let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions...

...Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans, we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

The year was 1801, and the man, of course, was Thomas Jefferson.

I say to you today, we have nothing to fear from the Dick Durbins of the world, nor the Michael Moores, and we have no reason to smear our political opponents; our cause is the right and just one, and it will prevail.

NOW I Remember...

...why I don't like Joe Biden. Despite my tepid praise for him a bit earlier, I find him an indefatiguable publicity hound, and, if even half of this Robert Novak column is true (and it has that ring), Biden has no qualms about endangering the diplomatic stance of the U.S. to benefit a contributer. I said before that Biden has virtually no chance at getting the Democratic nomination, and I'm sticking to it; Novak's article will provide useful ammunition to his opponents should his campaign get past the speculative phase (I predict it won't).

David Brooks On Iraq: My Thoughts Exactly

In one of those coincidences that is not so coincidental, David Brooks has a piece about Iraq and the polls today that echoes many of the thoughts I had when I put together my little satire. I say not so coincidental not because I had read his piece before I did mine (I hadn't), but more because of my increasing belief in the concept of memes that run through society. As the meme that we have 'lost' in Iraq gains ground, those of us who still believe in the rightness and victory of our cause naturally want to remind people of similar moments in the past when the urge to just give up became overwhelming to a large segment of the population.

The whole piece is worthwhile reading, but the following particularly struck me:

On Tuesday, Senator Joe Biden gave a speech in Washington on Iraq, after his most recent visit. It was, in some ways, a model of what the president needs to tell the country in the weeks ahead. It was scathing about the lack of progress in many areas. But it was also constructive. "I believe we can still succeed in Iraq," he said. Biden talked about building the coalition at home that is necessary if we are to get through the 2006 election cycle without a rush to the exits.

Biden's speech brought to mind something Franklin Roosevelt told the country on Feb. 23, 1942: "Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us."

That's how democracies should fight, even in the age of polling.

Amen to that (and kudos to Biden, who's talking a lot more sense than most Democrats and quite a few Republicans)...and let's hope the Bush administration is listening...

Quick Shots: The Blogging Lifecycle

Via Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit, here's a very amusing look at where I've been and what I can look forward to...

The Instapundit and Michelle Malkin have roundups on a very un-property rights-friendly Supreme Court decision (and you can make a damn good case that property rights are at the core of political and economic freedom)...

Jan Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune has an excellent post looking at Bush's short list for future (near future?) Supreme Court nominees; in light of the above decision, it may already be too late...

If D-Day Occurred Today

Hundreds Dead on the Shores on Normandy

The day after the bloody invasion of France, Congressional critics and the public are growing increasingly unhappy about President Roosevelt's conduct of the war. A new poll by CBS News shows only 35% of Americans now support the decision to assist the French in their liberation from German dictator Adolph Hitler.

An impromptu anti-war rally was held on the steps of the Capitol Rotunda, as speaker after speaker denounced the 'rush to war that brought the U.S. into this raging conflict far from our shores', in the words of the leader of the opposition party.

Many battalions were wiped out completely; the death count is sure to rise higher, as many of the dead were killed by snipers before they could even reach the shore. "This administration has squandered the lives of countless Americans needlessly," said the head of Americans for the People, an anti-war group founded by Hollywood celebrities opposed to the war. "Hitler was contained; there is no evidence to support rumors of his so-called 'death camps', nor his WMD program."

Adding to the administration's woes is the discovery of the 'Pennsylvania Avenue Memo', a document produced by an attendee at a high-level administration meeting in 1940, during which Roosevelt and his advisors discussed ways to aid Britain despite the lack of a declaration of hostilities from the Congress. Roosevelt's Secretary of State was quoted as saying at the meeting, 'It would seem war is inevitable'.

Today's Must-Read: The Ten Commandments for Developing Countries

I'm more than a day late, and God knows far more than a dollar short, but Minh-Duc at State of Flux has a truly excellent post based on a list by Kishore Mahbubani, former ambassador to the UN from Singapore. Highly recommended, and well worth your time...

Kristol: There Will Be A Supreme Court Vacancy This Week...

...and it WON'T be the Chief Justice. William Kristol in the Weekly Standard drops what has to be a bombshell...he says Sandra O'Connor, not Rehnquist, will go in the next week, and he says Bush will name Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as her replacement. Kristol says this is well-informed speculation.

All I can say is wow...if Kristol is right, things are about to get really interesting...and quickly.

UPDATE 10:33 p.m. central: Fellow Chillin' RINOs AJ Strata and the Commissar have more, including the rumor that Rehnquist is the one resigning...either way or both, any or all of the above, things will be kicking into high gear soon...

Color Me (Un)Impressed

Am I a hopelessly out of touch geek with a blog? Is Time Magazine trying to be 'hipper than thou' and failing miserably? Or, more likely, are both true? Those are the questions I put to you as Time presents it's 50 coolest websites for 2005. I spend hours a day online, and of the 50, I've maybe heard of 8. Decision '08, regrettably, came in 51st, or so I've heard, and thus missed the list - but then again, no political blogs - zip, squat, nada - are present. Who knows, check it out anyway, maybe there's a hidden gem or two among the winners...

2008 News...and A Reminder

Thomas Friedman wishes Dick Cheney were running; then maybe, so his theory goes, Bush'd be more careful...

Dick Morris is all over the map in this piece (Hillary's being helped by Republicans, her popularity is at an all-time high, and she faces a tough challenge for the Senate)...

Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe plays compare and contrast with McCain and Romney and concludes: McCain's his own man (is that anything like a 'maverick')?...

The New York Observer plays coy with a Bill vs. Hillary in a 2008 story that's probably not what you think...

Hat tip for the above links to the excellent RealClearPolitics...

Meanwhile, AJ Strata is asking for your submissions for the second Carnival of the Chillin', and he's got the perfect topic if you're drawing a blank...

On the Need to Get Your Story Straight Before National Television Appearances

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway spotlights an incredibly inept interview Edward 'Hack Job' Klein had with Sean Hannity regarding his new smear-all on Hillary, in which he backs off, then reinforces, then disavows, then...well, just read it for yourself...

Quick Shots: Hillary Bashing Is Not In Season

To the relief of those of us who want to see Hillary defeated on the battlefield of ideas, not through slurs on her character, the Klein 'expose' continues to be mostly ignored or reviled on the right. Michelle Malkin has her usual wonderful roundup...

Head RINO (remember, NOT rhino-headed 'speak truth to power' actor Tim Robbins) the Commissar has a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger moment that you should read; I totally agree with his decision to evolve and move on. If it's big traffic you want, sure, you can just get more and more outraged, day by day, and yeah, at times there are outrageous things that need to be highlighted; however, it's not as fun for the blogger, or, I think, the audience as trying to be original...

The Washington Post (whose editorial policy, by the way, is INFINITELY more sensible than that of the New York Times) asks the Democrats, "Now that you've defeated personal accounts, how the hell are you planning to save Social Security?"...

Lots of good 2008 related stuff today...I'll post another roundup this afternoon or evening...

Don't Look Now, But We Won the War

That's the message of this piece from the American Enterprise. Recently I tried my hand at an Iraq status report, and I also concluded that by many measures, we've already accomplished what we set out to do. The author of the AE piece, Karl Zinsmeister, has been to Baghdad, though, for three extended periods, once in 2003, once in 2004, and once just recently, and he says the change is striking:

With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.

Well, you may say, that's far too optimistic; what about all the mayhem we see on the news?

Policing and political problem-solving are mostly tasks for Iraqis, not Americans. And the Iraqis are taking them up, often with gusto. I saw much evidence that responsible Iraqis are gradually isolating the small but dangerously nihilistic minority trying to strangle their new society. With each passing month, U.S. forces will more and more become a kind of SWAT team that intervenes only to multiply the force of the emerging Iraqi security forces, and otherwise stays mostly in the background.

This is the kind of good news we need to hear more of, and quickly, before certain elements of the media and the Left convince Americans our great victory has been a defeat.

Hitchens Takes Up Residence on Downing Street

...and, like all right-minded people, concludes there is absolutely nothing there that wasn't already common knowledge, or indeed, already in print (reminding us of the Wolfowitz quote from Vanity Fair). His literary conceit this time around is a comparison with the Da Vinci Code, and Hitchens being the devout atheist he is, he can't resist a dig at the Church. Still, it's Hitch, so you know there will be some high points. My favorite:

I am now forced to wonder: Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy, and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat Saddam "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof.

Bono and Bush: A Cautious Admiration Society

Long-time readers know I'm a huge fan of U2 and its iconoclastic lead singer, Bono, who has the good sense to know he's been blessed, and uses his celebrity to fight the good fight in Africa. Unlike most activist celebrities, Bono is educated and involved with his pet cause, spending time on the ground, lobbying politically, and lending his voice to the DATA project.

Bono has wined and dined with Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, Billy Graham, and other figures on the right, instead of staying in the comfortable liberal celebrity cocoon, a sign of his seriousness. And he's found an ally in the Bush administration, which is doing more for debt relief and the fight against Aids in Africa than any previous administration by a wide margin. Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard about the partnership forged between the rock star and the President:

"Bono has come to see me," [President Bush] said. "I admire him. He is a man of depth and a great heart who cares deeply about the impoverished folks on the continent of Africa. And I admire his leadership on the issue."...

...Bono has been taken aback by attacks on him for working with the president. But he hasn't backed off. He sent a note of thanks to the White House after the president stuck up for him at the press conference. Several days earlier, Bono ate dinner at Bolten's house along with the Roves and the Gersons. "He's an impressive guy," Gerson says. "He's knowledgeable. He's morally focused. He's also willing to praise the president when he does good things."

Highly recommended...

We've Got A Game Seven

I have really mixed feelings about the NBA; basketball is my sport, but the college game is so superior that I have a hard time getting excited about the pros. I wasn't always this way; back in the glory days of the 'Bad Boy' Detroit Pistons, I was a fanatic. Ironically, the Pistons are in the Finals again against the San Antonio Spurs from about an hour south of my house in Austin. The first four games were blowouts, but things started getting interesting in Game 5.

Robert Horry hit an awesome three pointer to send the fifth game into overtime, despite being skewered in this Slate article as an overrated clutch player. The Spurs went on to win that game, but came up short tonight at home in Game 6. So, on behalf of a fairweather fan who's never really gone away, a belated Go Spurs!...onward to victory in game 7...

Even More Quick Shots: What Goes On Here?

Is the Kos being reasonable? Is it possible? Well, watch out for that cloven-hoofed fellow buying ice-skates next to you...The Minuteman has the details...

Craig at Carpe Bonum comes out swinging with a right to the solar plexus entitled 'George W. Bush, Master of the Double Dope-A-Rope'...

If you're one of those people who prefers viewing humiliation to reading about it, Trey Jackson has got you covered...

AJStrata's got the last call for all you Chillers that want to go to the Carnival...

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water, the Andrew Sullivan Freak-Out Advisory has been raised to 'disgusted'...

The Latest From Durbin: Good Enough

Although some will doubtless accuse me of riding the RINO bandwagon, I have to join my coalition brother Rusty Shackleford in accepting what, if not perfect, is at least a pretty decent apology. Durbin says he's come to realize he used an extremely poor choice of words, and comes close to being a belated signatory of the Bipartisan Anti-Inflammation Pledge of 2005 when he acknowledges that the Holocaust is not to be trifled with as a point of comparison. The key portion:

During his apology, which Durbin delivered while looking directly into a TV camera broadcasting the proceedings, the senator said: "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."

He also reached out directly to Holocaust survivors, adding: "I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy."

'Nuff said, for now (though I reserve the right to haul his butt back in as an object of ridicule in 'extraordinary circumstances', to be defined by me, of course).

Quick Shots: What Does Paul Krugman Have In Common With Convicted Felons?

They all vote Democratic...okay, that's an unfair comparison, and a stereotype, but tell me what's fair about these two stories?

First up, Ryan James alerts me to some distortions and misdirected accusations that are brazen even by Paul Krugman's exceedingly low standards. I urge you to read the details here...

Next up is Blue State Republican, with a truly outrageous political play in Iowa, where Governor Tom Vilsak has issued a blanket order restoring voting rights to all Iowa felons who have served their sentences. This decree from above wouldn't have a chance of passing a legislature or citizen vote, so Vilsak took matters into his own hands in a naked power grab. Here's David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register:

...let's forget all this high-minded talk about people having paid their debts to society, rehabilitation and humanity. This is all about winning elections.

If all those other things were so important, why did Vilsack wait almost seven years as governor before he acted? If he were all that concerned about integrating criminals back into society, he would have taken action earlier in his term - not when he doesn't have to face voters for re-election.

And he wouldn't have dropped his little political bomb on a Friday afternoon, traditionally a time when politicians unload controversial stories in the hope they'll get downplayed in the weekend news void.

Yes, indeed, something's rotten in the State of Iowa, with all apologies to the Bard...

Durbin: We Must Support the President

Everyone's favorite Senator - I'm talking about Dick Durbin, who else would I be talking about? - has called on the critics of the administration to back off:

"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."

An amazing turnabout? A spoof? A late April Fool's Joke? No, no, and no...for the details, you'll have to pay Ed Driscoll a visit (hat tip to the Instapundit)...

The Gallery of That OTHER Coalition

Not the Chillin', but the much more important Willing (with a hat tip to head RINO the Commissar, not to be confused with Rhino-headed Tim Robbins)...

Claudia Strikes Again

The indefatiguable Claudia Rosett has not forgotten Oil-For-Food, and no one else will, either, if she has anything to say about it. Roger L. Simon, who has done his own part to keep the pressure on, highlights this piece by Claudia and a Fox News executive editor that uncovers another case of opportunistic nepotism, this time by Dmitry Yakovlev, a long-standing U.N. staff working in the area of procurement, who managed to 'procure' quite a bit of work for his son's firm. Someday, Claudia, you must write a book on all this...please?

Another Take On Bolton: Filibuster Fatigue

The always intriguing Viking Pundit says it's time to chill again, with reference to the Bolton nomination:

By staging another failed cloture vote by the Senate Democrats, Dubya is setting up "filibuster fatigue." Between the chronic blocking of democratic up-or-down votes and the agreement to only filibuster nominees for "extraordinary circumstances," it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to block a Supreme Court nominee. While the Democrats expend energy blocking that all-important position of U.N. ambassador, Bush is keeping an eye on the judicial branch.

An interesting theory, to be sure...

UPDATE 2:00 p.m. central: After Frist declared the battle over, he reversed course after meeting with Bush for lunch (can anyone say 'smackdown'?). Eric's theory looks more and more likely...

Our Long National Nightmare is Over

Power Line has the Form SF-180s signed by Kerry, and all appears to be in order. Never say never, but this appears to finally be the end of a long, sorry saga. I've said it before and I'll say it again; John Kerry is perhaps the stupidest politician in America for not taking care of this long ago, during the campaign, when it might have made a difference. Good riddance (hat tip to Michelle Malkin)...

Don't Miss the Second Carnival of the Clueless

There's all kinds of Dick Durbin-ish goodies, a mention for yours truly, and surprises galore, so what are you waiting for? And don't forget the call for the second Carnival of the Chillin'...

Good News From Iraq, by Arthur Chr- Check That - by Kofi Annan(??!!)

An upbeat appraisal on Iraq's prospects today from an unlikely source: the embattled U.N. Secretary General himself. Annan focuses on the political situation and enlarges on the point that success lacks the visibility of failure:

In a media-hungry age, visibility is often regarded as proof of success. But this does not necessarily hold true in Iraq. Even when, as with last week's agreement, the results of our efforts are easily seen by all, the efforts themselves must be undertaken quietly and away from the cameras.

In reality, though, Kofi's piece is yet another sales pitch for the services of the U.N.; if your knowledge of Iraq came from this article, you would never know that the United States, Britain, Australia, and our other brave allies were even involved; indeed, you would think the entire operation was a U.N. affair:

In aid of the transition, the United Nations is at work, both inside and outside the country, to support donor coordination, capacity-building of Iraqi ministries and civil society organizations, and delivery of basic services. Reconstruction of schools, water-treatment and waste-treatment plants, power plants and transmission lines, food assistance to children, mine clearing and aid to hundreds of thousands of returning refugees and internally displaced persons - all of these activities occur every day in Iraq under U.N. leadership.

Well, yes, under U.N. leadership, and under the protection of coalition forces who are literally dying to bring a better future to the Iraqis. Never mind, though; for once I'm grateful for Annan's publicity stunts; anything that takes the focus off of the insurgents is a good thing.

Kudos to AJ

AJ Strata has been on a roll lately, with a lot of good work on the biases of the Downing Street Memo reporter, and this post on a fellow I'm all too familiar with, having lived in Austin for (gulp!) almost twenty years now...so what are you waiting for? Drop by and pay him a visit, won't you?...

A Proud Day For The Commissar

There are moments in a man's life when he knows he has truly witnessed greatness, when all the everyday cares and workaday blues just fade into a feeling of reverence and awe; this is not one of those moments...

UPDATE: I'm being sarcastic...I actually love the Commissar's work...show him your appreciation by visiting a RINO today, without delay...

One Reason I Soured On Bolton

Lee Hamilton has an alarming piece in the Indianapolis Star regarding the nuclear terrorism threat and our lackluster efforts to combat it. As many, including myself, have noted before, one of the rare points of agreement between Bush and Kerry in the '04 debates was the assertion that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat facing our nation.

Read Hamilton, and then consider this excerpt from the Washington Post article I've already referenced once:

For years, a key U.S. program intended to keep Russian nuclear fuel out of terrorist hands has been frozen by an arcane legal dispute. As undersecretary of state, John R. Bolton was charged with fixing the problem, but critics complained he was the roadblock.

Now with Bolton no longer in the job, U.S. negotiators report a breakthrough with the Russians and predict a resolution will be sealed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an international summit in Scotland next month, clearing the way to eliminate enough plutonium to fuel 8,000 nuclear bombs...

...A program designed to dispose of 68 tons of weapons-grade plutonium stalled in 2003 when agreements expired. The Bush administration would not renew the pacts unless they included stronger language holding Russia accountable for any nuclear accidents in its territory and protecting U.S. contractors building disposal facilities from liability, even in the case of premeditated actions. Russia refused, and the Bolton-led talks went nowhere for two years.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), one of the architects of the plutonium program, grew incensed that such a technical impasse could hold up a program of "global importance." He showed up at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee last year to berate Bolton on the matter.

"I submit that Mr. John Bolton, who has been assigned to negotiate this, has a very heavy responsibility" for the impasse, Domenici said at the hearing. "And I hate to say that I am not sure to this point that he's up to it."

It seems to me that Bush and Bolton were right that the language was very important; liability for our contractors would be astronomical in the event of a nuclear mishap. Still, the State Department is the department of diplomacy, and it was Bolton's responsibility to move the ball on a problem that surely dwarfed any other in his purview. I haven't heard any positive arguments that would even the scales. 'Getting tough with the U.N.' doesn't even come close...

Bolton Blocked: Bully Busted By Blowhards; Bush Baffled

If anything, the failure to reach cloture on the Bolton nomination tonight only reinforces my opinion that the Bush administration should see if it can salvage any leverage at all by dropping the nomination. I'm not in favor of the recess appointment, though I think it's at least a 50/50 proposition at this point. Bolton has become a liability, and politics requires, at times, the facing of facts. Bush has gone beyond the call of duty on this one; it's time to let it go...

Geldof, Bono DON'T Slam Bush

People love to make fun of celebrities and their wacky political views, and God knows I've done my share of it. How refreshing, though, to see Bob Geldof and Bono acknowledging the important work Bush is doing for Africa. I'm sure neither of them particularly cares for his policies on, say, Iraq, but kudos to the both of them for crossing the ideological divide and giving credit where it's due (Bono has done this sort of thing, before, however; he's always put results ahead of ideology).

Andrew Sullivan: Durbin Said Nothing Wrong

Yep, that's right. You can read it here (hat tip to RealClearPolitics). Has anyone ever mentioned Andrew is a little excitable? Perhaps that's why he appears to have momentarily lost his sense of proportion...

NOW It's Starting to Make Sense

Whenever something totally off the wall is going on, such as John Conyers' recent make-believe hearing on Downing Street with its rather interesting guests, you should check the corners of the room for Lyndon LaRouche. Lo and behold, Daly Thoughts has found him skulking around the fringes...read more here...

Anti-Semitism Rears Its Ugly Head

Like most sensible people, I paid little attention to publicity hound John Conyers and his 'hearings' Thursday on the Downing Street Memos. The memos are harmless, and Conyers is clearly playing to the moonbat bleachers. Turns out there was a distinctly anti-Israel undertone, though. Now, I'm not one to throw around accusations of anti-Semitism lightly, but what is one to make of this?

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

Of course, it should be quite acceptable for people to question U.S. ties and aid to Israel without incurring the anti-Semitic label - but the airing of the worst paranoid conspiracies about 9/11 is pretty damning.

Tom Maguire is wondering why, exactly, one fairly prominent New York paper known to be friendly to Democrats doesn't see fit to cover the story; after all, it was a big enough deal to draw condemnation from Howard Dean, much to his credit. Richard Baehr, however, wonders if that apology would have been forthcoming had the Washington Post reporter not been present, and says the presence of McGovern, whose views on the matter are well-known, should have been a tip-off.

I'm willing to give Dean and the Democrats the benefit of the doubt here, but the episode highlights a curious matter: why are so many on the Left so hostile to the only functioning democracy in the Middle East? For once, I hope the answer is just partisan politics, because the alternative is ugly to contemplate.

UPDATE 06/22/05 3:22 p.m. central: Welcome to any and all Beltway Traffic Jam readers!...

Jonathan Klein's Schizophrenic Approach to the News

A piece in Newsweek on CNN President Jonathan Klein reveals, once again, a man who is all talk...and that's meant literally. Klein seems to feel that if he says he's focusing on serious, 'hard' news, that makes up for the drivel routinely served up on the now perennial second-place cable news network. The Newsweek article is yet another in an endless series of 'how Klein is remaking CNN' pieces that seem totally out of touch with the results seen on the screen. Indeed, the overwhelming impression to a reader of the article is that Nancy Grace is far more influential than Klein could ever hope to be.

Talking to Newsweek a few days after the Michael Jackson verdict:

Klein said he regretted the 'endless parade' of stories CNN aired with 'Michael dressed like Captain Crunch, walking out of the limousine.' He marveled at opportunities lost: 'We could have done 60 stories during that time.'

This is vintage Klein: bemoaning the lack of substantive programming as if he had nothing to do with it.

The most baffling aspect of Klein's endless makeover is his desire to increase the focus on hard news by...storytelling. To wit:

His unorthodox, even heretical game plan: serious news that doesn't put viewers to sleep. "There's a palpable thirst out there for the broad scope of stories if they're told in a compelling way," Klein says...Forever roaming the halls and popping in on producers, he's transformed CNN culture - news meetings are now singularly focused on finding characters and discussing storytelling technique. In the past, CNN was plagued by a bumbling media image. Klein has imposed strict message discipline and many staffers refused to talk on the record about the network for fear of losing their jobs. Privately, though, many staffers express discontent with the new regime...

One can be forgiven for wondering if this is a news network or a movie studio. Klein's fatal flaw is a mistaken premise. Those who want serious news don't need it couched in terms of 'character development', as if the world were a screenplay; while those who do want personality-focused news are surrounded by it, swimming in it, indeed unable to escape from it. The sad thing is that the president of Cable News Network has yet to learn this reality.

The Shrinking Deficit: Revenge of the Supply-Siders

I got my Bachelor's in Economics; however, like most things you don't use daily (I didn't become an economist), I've long since forgotten a good part of my studies. Some basic principles (and a college infatuation with Ayn Rand) have left me with certain entrenched beliefs. One is in the verity of the Laffer curve, a graphical representation of the idea that, at the margin, tax rates make a tremendous difference.

It's with considerable interest, then, that I greet the news that the deficit is receding, and the debate over the reason. I think the tax cuts have a great deal to do with it; also the spending on the war, and an economy that's in a lot better shape than it's given credit for. None of that is to say that spending doesn't need to be reigned in. Probably the biggest disappointment of the Bush administration is the lack of fiscal discipline. Bigger things have been going on, of course, and on those Bush has been mostly right. Still, given the near impossibility of getting Social Security reform through at this point, Bush should embrace tax reform to ensure his domestic legacy. The tax cuts need to be permanent, and the code simplified, with much greater transparency, lower rates, and far fewer loopholes. The Republicans need something positive to focus on; tax reform, it seems to me, would be a political winner for the 2006 midterms.

Monday Morning Quick Shots

As too many steves suggests in the comments here, it may be too late to trade Bolton for anything of value; certainly this Robert Novak piece suggests that is the case...

Good news from Lebanon as the anti-Syrian slate has scored a major victory...

Timothy Kane says an 'exit strategy' is no strategy at all...

A New Poll For A New Week

Once again, Decision '08 readers have spoken, and declared the War on Terror to be the most likely leading issue in the 2008 primaries, with the economy a distant second. This newest poll, as you can see, is quite important, so be sure to put on your thinking caps. Enjoy your week, everyone...

Is The Bolton Confirmation Worth It?

At the risk of being labelled a heretic, I must confess that I'm not overly concerned with the Bolton nomination. Let me get some basic principles out of the way before I address why I'm unmoved by this particular battle. First, there is a longstanding principle that nominations of this sort should generally go to the President's choice unless there is a compelling reason to deny confirmation. I'm not at all convinced the Democrats have demonstrated such a concern, and indeed, I feel that quite the opposite is the case; clearly, their stalling tactics are political, partisan, and petty.

All the same, I fear that we are wasting valuable weeks squawking over what is, in all actuality, a fairly insignificant post. Of course, I'm also cognizant of, and somewhat sympathetic to, the view that the less Congress gets done the better. Nevertheless, it may be time to do some horsetrading through back channels and see what kind of deal we could cut with Democratic Congressional leaders in exchange for dropping Bolton. Here's why:

• The post is frankly not that important. What does a U.N. ambassador do, really? I submit the major part of the job is to present publicly the policies decided upon by the administration. After all, the post is often used as an 'honor' to friends of whatever administration currently is in office. Does it really matter THAT much who occupies the post?
  
• 'Getting tough with the U.N.' is not as easy as it sounds. What, realistically, would a Bolton appointment do to reform the U.N., other than perhaps sending a message (a message that his mere nomination has already delivered)? Bolton would have no authority over U.N. personnel. A far more productive approach would be to tie U.S. funding to U.N. reform, and indeed, such an effort is underway in the House right now.
  
• Bolton may, in fact, be a bad diplomat. This Washington Post article paints a picture of a State Department that is glad to be rid of him; he comes off as an ideologue who was impeding progress in a number of important areas. To be sure, this is one article, no doubt fed by leaks from those who oppose him. Still, it may be that the Democrats are right, in spite of themselves; he just might be the wrong man for the job.
• We have bigger fights we need to concentrate on. The foundering Social Security reform effort is one; taking back the PR initiative on Iraq is another; judicial nominees also come to mind. Far too much oxygen is being sucked out of the room in a fight that just isn't worth it.

Many would call this a 'sell-out', or 'giving up', or 'going back on principles', or...well, a thousand other things. I don't believe that's the case. I say we get something for nothing, yet again, and see just how much it's worth to the Democrats to put this one away. Sure, they'll crow and celebrate; let 'em. They did the same over the judicial deal, and have since learned to regret it; let's give them another victory, the pyrrhic kind.

A Bit of Fun...

...we've all seen these quizzes - what kind of [fill in the blank] are you? - by now, I think. I thought it might be kind of fun to try this one, which I found care of the Llama Butchers. The results surprised me, but not that much. My only quibble is this sounds kind of 'new age'-y, and anyone who knows me can tell you that I'm repulsed by anything that is even remotely in that vein - for example, you could not interest me in the slightest in chiropractors, yoga, astrology - well, you get the picture. In other words, I'm one of those people who classifies themselves as a believer in both a higher power, and in the scientific method, and I have little tolerance for quackery. Perhaps, then, it's no surprise that I scored a zero on Fundamentalist (and who's that guy in the picture, anyway?).

Enough already, here are my results (and of course, I'm well aware that this is just some quiz put together by someone, so take this with about four hundred grains of salt):

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern 79% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 57% Classical Liberal 50% Modern Liberal 43% Neo orthodox 43% Roman Catholic 36% Reformed Evangelical 21% Charismatic/Pentecostal 14% Fundamentalist 0% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Biden Throws His Hat In The Ring

Senator Joe Biden, oblivious to the futility of the gesture, is entering the field for 2008, he announced today on Face the Nation. (Well, Eric, at least we now know why he's been appearing on the Sunday shows every single week for the last decade, it seems). I didn't have time for a candidate profile this weekend, and there are so many hopefuls now that it is getting quite ridiculous, but suffice to say, Biden has as much chance of getting the Democratic nod, much less the Presidency, as, say, Julio Iglesias. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity (hat tip to Alexander McClure)...

The Downing Street Memos Redux: Are They Real?

AJ Strata and Captain Ed have been blogging pretty heavily on a confession by reporter Michael Smith, who first obtained the Downing Street Memos, that they aren't originals (he destroyed the originals, he said, to protect the source). I'll refer you to them, for now, as I feel fairly confident they are genuine, but admittedly, have not examined the new allegations. Why do I feel strongly they're accurate? Because, as AJ says, they are so innocuous. As I've stated before, there's nothing in these memos that the whole world didn't know, and know at the time, to boot.

If this was a media conspiracy, it would be the most poorly drawn out and executed conspiracy to date; however, as I said, I've not had an opportunity to look into things much, so kudos to AJ and Captain Ed for bringing this strange behavior on the part of Smith in focus.

UPDATE 7:08 p.m.: Kevin Drum is throwing cold water on this one, and I believe, as stated above, that he's right. There are too many principals involved who haven't questioned, or indeed have confirmed, the authenticity of the memos. Kevin suggests Rathergate nostalgia, and perhaps he's right...

Quick Shots: Iran's Sham Election

Adam at SophistPundit alerted me to this very disturbing post at Publius Pundit (disturbing, but not surprising in the least) regarding a visit he made to an Iranian polling station, full of vitriolic propaganda of the worst sort. Whatever this election was, it wasn't democracy...

With all the miles of ink spilled on the worthless Senator Dick Durbin, leave it to Mark Steyn to write the best of all:

One measure of a civilized society is that words mean something: "Soviet" and "Nazi" and "Pol Pot" cannot equate to Guantanamo unless you've become utterly unmoored from reality. Spot the odd one out: 1) mass starvation; 2) gas chambers; 3) mountains of skulls; 4) lousy infidel pop music turned up to full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Durbin doesn't have the excuse that he's some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have an insanity clause?

Frank Rich's latest substitute for kitty litter is up, and guess what? It's about fake news...holy crap, what a shocker! Rich hasn't written an original column in, what, 20 weeks now? Like his colleague MoDO, he keeps harping on the only tune he knows, this time ludicrously trying to tie in Tom Cruise and War of the Worlds. Rich also manages to throw in a reference to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I'm not joking. Can anyone say, 'Hack?'...

Happy Father's Day From Chilly

Hey, everyone, it's me, Chilly, the Coalition mascot, with my good friend Giant Bunny, wishing you a Happy Father's Day. I heard about this Carnival of Dogs, and of course, if there's one thing beagles love more than self-promotion, it's a carnival, so here I am! Keep chillin'...

A Father's Day Must-Read: Robert Kagan on The Consequences of NOT Going to War

One of the overriding themes of this blog, though I never intended it when I started it, has turned out to be an attempt to bring some perspective to events. It's rather unfortunate that the level of invective in many blogs is constantly striving to reach record heights. In that spirit, I attempted an analysis of recent events in Iraq yesterday, but of course I am an amateur, and it's quite refreshing when a pro comes along and does it right.

I'm speaking of Robert Kagan, and his simply masterful piece in the Washington Post entitled Whether This War Was Worth It. Kagan points out that there is never a 'clear-cut' justification for most any war, and even the universally acknowledged 'successes' such as World War II have tremendous downsides. For that reason, we must consider the cost of not going to war in making our assessment. Or as Kagan puts it:

That is a question to which we will never have a definitive answer, and yet it is critical to any judgment about the merits of the war. The most sensible argument for the invasion was not that Hussein was about to strike the United States or anyone else with a nuclear bomb. It was that containment could not be preserved indefinitely, that Hussein was repeatedly defying the international community and that his defiance appeared to both the Clinton and Bush administrations to be gradually succeeding.

Highly recommended...

Miscellanea: Another Take on Amnesty, From One Who Should Know

I don't want to give away too much of the post, because you should read it for yourself, but Minh-Duc has some very strong opinions on Amnesty International that were formed by hard experience. Please read on...

AJ Strata weighs in on the left vs. right debate re: the blogosphere, and has some kind words for yours truly; a successful first month, I would say...

The Commissar discusses a brutal assessment of the EU from a surprising source...

The vastly underrated Punditish is announcing his imminent return, and I, for one, anxiously await it...

Jeff at the Bernoulli Effect is chillin' in my beloved Texas Hill Country...hope it wasn't too hot for you this weekend!...

Shamefully, I have yet to comment on this story in my own backyard, but Ryan James has the scoop (and the right assessment)...

The Terry Schiavo case was never my cup of tea; the whole thing left me quite uncomfortable. The release of the autopsy results, though, has resulted in quite a bit of crowing from those who seemed awfully interested in seeing her dead. For a different, more thoughtful perspective, I recommend blogging pastor J. A. Gillmartin...