Okay, I Was Wrong

I freely admit it; I predicted Frank Rich would mention 'fake applause' in his latest, and he did not. He doesn't even really go off on 'fake news' for at least the first time in a month (though he suggests Bush is a liar many, many times of course). He also parrots the now-familiar Times litany of all the things that are wrong in Iraq, and assures us the public has had enough (as, I'm sure, Rich's Fifth Avenue millionaire friends undoubtedly have). Out in the real world that you and I occupy, though, Bush's speech did exactly what Rich claims it did not: polling after the speech showed substantial gains in public support for the war and Bush's conduct of it. Being the good polemicist that he is, though, Rich doesn't let facts get in the way of his argument...

An Anniversary I'm Glad to Have Missed

24 days ago, my one-year anniversary of quitting smoking passed by, and I didn't even notice. I smoked for 18 years, and I had about a pack and a half a day habit. According to a little piece of software I downloaded back when I quit, I've avoided nearly 12,000 cigarettes and saved almost $2,000 in the 389 days since I quit. That's not why I quit, though; I quit because I wanted to...and until you want to, you will not quit. For those of you that never smoked or have quit, good for you...those of you who still smoke, I'm not trying to rub it in, and I don't lecture smokers. You'll quit when you're good and ready...just know that you can quit, and you know something? It wasn't nearly as hard as I thought it would be...

I'm glad I didn't notice my one-year anniversary...I think that's a good sign. If I still thought about smoking a lot, I would have surely noticed...here's hoping I miss all the other ones, too...

A Most Excellent Fisking...

...by head RINO the Commissar, who takes one lousy sentence of Ted Kennedy's and turns it into a tour-de-force dissection of the Left's stance on judges. Bravo, comrade...

Final Live8 Thoughts

Well, a real raspberry to MTV and VH1 for the astonishingly poor coverage...seldom was one song even finished in its entirety, before we had to listen to the DJs tell us what an amazing thing it was...shut up, already! Here's a hint: people tuning in to an eight country musical extravaganza might, maybe, want to hear some music...

Even DVR/Tivo can't save this, since fast-forwarding only takes you to another three quarters of a song...again, I just hope there is a DVD coming out...what I saw of the music looked pretty good, but then again, I saw precious little...

Surprising, After All This Time...

...how much of an emotional wallop Pink Floyd's music still packs...I still remember, twenty-two years ago, at the age of 15, bringing home The Wall, putting on my headphones, and listening to the whole thing in one sitting...then sitting in stunned silence for a full five minutes...then rewinding and listening to the whole thing again. It remains one of the most literate of rock concept albums, a classic tale of alienation, and along with Dark Side of the Moon and the Final Cut, it certainly makes the case for Pink Floyd as one of the Top Ten rock bands ever. Good to see Roger Waters and David Gilmore sharing the stage again...

Did Rove Out Plame? Maybe...But We Don't Know Yet

Long-time commentor Nancy takes me to task for focusing on non-news like the Supreme Court vacancy, and urges instead that we focus all our attention on the old, stale Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame story. First, the reporters shouldn't go to jail; I think it was another bad Supreme Court decision (not to step in, I mean) in a term that was full of them.

Did Karl Rove out Plame? Frankly, I don't give much of a damn...but if he did, it's going to take more to convince me than the word of MSNBC's resident lunatic, good friend of John Kerry, and West Wing writer Lawrence O'Donnell. There may be some truth to the story, but we'll find out soon enough.

Suppose it's true...I'm sorry, I still can't bring myself to care much. We're in a war, we've got a Supreme Court nomination coming up (or two), and Karl Rove is an overrated political operative, as I've said before. Yes, he did a great job on the two Bush elections, but he's not Einstein, or even the political version, and he's not the be-all and end-all of the Bush administration. If he did wrong, punish him...just don't wake me up, I've got some sleep to catch up on...

UPDATE 4:19 p.m. central: Okay, that's a little glib and flippant, perhaps...first, Rove: I love the guy, and I appreciate what he's done for the party and the administration, but he's starting to suck a lot of oxygen out of the room, and if he becomes a distraction, and if he's the super political genius he is rumored to be, he should be the first to realize he needs to get out of the way. Am I suggesting he resign? No, not yet...but if the smoke of the Plame case turns into fire, and he's playing the role of the gasoline, I'm not going to be in a very forgiving mood...

If you have no clue what I'm talking about here, or just want to know more, Tom Maguire has the most comprehensive roundup on this matter that I've yet to see...

A Live 8 Observation

Just like the original Live Aid, the inane patter of the 'Vee-Jays' is ruining it...hopefully, they'll come out with a DVD uncut and uninterrupted...

I'm also highly amused that Snoop Dog's performance has been bleeped about 40 times, yet he's been allowed to say 'M-F' about 50 times. What are they possibly bleeping?...

UPDATE 2:42 p.m. central: I haven't checked around, there may be a lot of people liveblogging it...I do know Environmental Republican, a Raging RINO, has been posting frequently...

General McCaffrey: We're Within Sight of Victory, But It Could Still Slip Away

Pay attention, Krugman, Rich, Cohen, and the rest of you whiners: this is how to gripe about Iraq. General Barry McCarffrey repeats many of the same points the anti-war folks do, but instead of seeing problems as an invitation to give up, he wisely suggests we redouble our efforts. Some highlights:

...In my view, if the constitutional process can be nurtured to a successful conclusion and allow elections of a new government in December--then we will see the high point of the insurgency pass this coming January. The energy will begin to drain out of the violent maelstrom of Iraq and by the fall of 2006 we will see the beginnings of a stable and viable Iraqi state.

This will continue to be hard work in Iraq. Progress will be nonlinear. Casualties will be a trailing indicator of successful political integration. Iraq will be bloody at least through the coming summer even given the positive findings I believe are likely. To succeed, we must sustain both a robust U.S. military presence and continuing significant U.S. taxpayer economic support to develop Iraq's infrastructure for the coming three to five years. If we adopt a publicly articulated "exit strategy," we risk reversion to a bloody civil war that will destroy all that we have accomplished through the great daring and courage of the military, State Department and CIA interagency team...

...The U.S. Army and the Marines are too undermanned and underresourced to sustain this security policy beyond next fall. They are starting to unravel. Congress is in denial and must act. In addition, the American people are losing faith in the statements of our Defense Department leadership. Support for the war is plummeting along with active-duty and National Guard recruiting.

The U.S. Army needs to increase by 80,000 personnel and the Marines by 25,000. In addition, serious targeted recruiting educational and economic incentives need to be provided by Congress. Finally, the challenge of recruiting dedicated young men and women to the Armed Forces calls for public support and involvement by America's political leaders, educators, coaches and parents. Supporting a strong Armed Forces is not the responsibility of Marine and Army recruiting sergeants but all of us who benefit from our national defense...

...Our troops in the face of danger are now growing worried--will the American people sustain them to achieve victory or ignore their struggles on the frontier of the war on terror?

Now is the time for nonpartisan, collective leadership to support and guide our strategy in the ongoing operations in Southwest Asia. Lack of political will and clarity will surely snatch failure from the impending realization of our objectives if we do not act to support those who have given so much to America's defense.

In other words, quit whining, roll up your sleeves, and get with the home team. Highly recommended...

Miscellanea - Three Day Weekend!

Ted Kennedy is not happy with the President's SCOTUS nominee - whoever that might be!...

Few people are less funny than Molly Ivins...and that's on a good day. This wasn't a good day (hat tip to Michelle Malkin)...

Punditish has the scoop on the 'Dean Scream contest'...

Rick Moran: worrying about Iran now a full-time job (yeah, but how are the benefits?)...

Lawrence O'Donnell also has a new full-time job: looking for his sanity...

The TV coverage of Live 8 hasn't even begun, and I've already missed the first highlight!...

On A Musical Note...

Sadly, Luther Vandross died yesterday; Luther had a great voice. A friend of mine from my college days turned me on to his music; one of my all-time favorite video clips is of Vandross bringing down the house at the NAACP Image Awards from oh, almost twenty years ago now, with his senational rendition of "A House Is Not A Home"...Rest In Peace, big guy...

Of couse, today is Live 8 day. I've seen a lot of pooh-poohing of the concept, usually revolving around the fact that the G8 members don't give a damn what Bono, McCartney, Geldof, and company have to say. I don't think that's true; they certainly care what their constituents have to say, and millions will be watching today...I think it's an effective platform, a great idea, and sure to contain some great music, so boycott it if you wish, but as for myself, I'm planning on recording the whole thing, and enjoying some great rock 'n' roll...

The Coalition's Victory, As Told By...David Corn???!!!

I would be hard pressed, if given an entire weekend, to come up with even three areas of agreement that I have ever shared with David Corn, the Washington editor of far-left rag The Nation, but lo-and-behold, he has just (disapprovingly, of course) laid out perhaps the best justification for the Coalition of the Chillin' I have yet seen. Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right:

Let's be clear about this. During the nuclear option fight, the Democrats were not able to court enough Republicans to prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from killing the judicial filibuster in an up-or-down vote. It took a tilted-to-the-GOP compromise fashioned by so-called moderates in both parties to thwart (perhaps temporarily) Frist's desire to eliminate the judicial filibuster. Any fight over a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court will eventually have to come down to a with-us or-against-us vote. That means if Bush nominates someone who the Democrats believe warrants a filibuster, there will be a replay of the nuclear option drama. Only this time it will be more dramatic. The Democrats will threaten a filibuster; Frist will threaten the nuclear option. And those same six or so Republicans whom the Democrats tried (and failed) to win over as a bloc on the nuclear option fight will again be the targets for the Democratic leaders. But what would make these GOPers side with the Democrats this time, especially when the stakes are higher? And, unlike the last episode, these Republicans will not be saved by the bell of a compromise that kicks the can down the road (to mix metaphors). There will be more pressure on them to stick to the party line when a Supreme Court nomination is at stake.

Right on the money...

Will The Coalition Still Chill?

Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, and with Rehnquist possibly to follow, the Coalition of the Chillin' hovers in limbo...as Jeff at the Bernoulli Effect says, we stand 'maximally positioned and properly chilled', and I think our embrace of the compromise has been vindicated. Speaking only for myself, though, one of the reasons I DID embrace the compromise was the belief that if we had to go nuclear, we should do it when the stakes are the highest...and on the judicial front, it obviously doesn't get higher than this.

So consider two possible outcomes: the Dems do filibuster, or they don't...if they do, I think it is reasonable to say all bets are off. We can go nuclear, if not gladly, then it least with the knowledge that we gave it all the ol' college try. The more likely outcome, though, is that we can expect, regardless of who the nominee is, an overblown reaction, full of bluster and apocalyptic rhetoric, followed by political impotence. Simply put, there is not much that can be done to stop the confirmation of Bush's nominee(s), unless he sends up someone unacceptable to both sides (a very remote possibility, indeed), but Harry Reid, and the rest of the Democratic leadership, will be unable to resist the chance to pose and preen and just generally make complete jackasses of themselves. And I intend to be there watching and loving every single solitary minute of it...

Who will that nominee be? Let's check in once more with Erick-Woods Erickson, who has been all over this story like Garfield on lasagna. He says...well, I'm not going to tell you, you need to read it yourself, it's fully of juicy gossipy goodness...

The Top Ten Liberal Reactions to the Retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor

10. Say goodbye to our democracy, and hello to our Southern Baptist overlords.

9. This is a very sad day for human rights in the USA.

8. Just as wacko Thomas was Poppy's "screw you" to the black community. [sic] CuckooBananas will put up a "screw you women" candidate to replace O'Connor. Remember, these people think ideologically, not rationally.

We're going to see three nominees here. All will be very ideological, and very right wing. If they get approved, which is very likely, we're going to be f***ed for a long time.

7. Has this moron ever done anything in his worthless life that can be for the good of anyone but HIMSELF? This is terrible....a freaking war criminal who can't be stopped. And now this. What a horrible day in America.

6.This is going to boil down to "My God is better than your God." Or, to paraphrase: "My beliefs are better (or more right than) your beliefs."

Wait and see.

That's what is at the core of the abortion issue.

Bye bye, right to privacy.

5. I shudder to think of the damage that Bushco will do as a lame duck. With no care except getting in their last looting wherever they can, no consequences, and no sense of ethics, they will be tossing hand grenades around the Oval Office as they carry off the furniture.

Executive orders to cancel all environmental regulations... free pardons for Kenny Boy and Scooter... they're gonna strip this country down to its axles and leave it up on blocks.

4. A tyrant like Bush will never let go of power. He will bring us all down for his selfish purposes. His lust for power will grow with his illegitamcy [sic]. He really believes he is doing the right thing, the Christian thing. Wait until he gets to the pearly gates and meets Jesus. Our dear leader is in for a surprise.

Opposition to Bush on all fronts is widespread, but not organized enough to stop his maniacal mendacity. His own party will have to bring him down, but that is unlikely. They enjoy power too much and their leadership is as corrupt and dishonest as the leaders in the Administration.

The move toward fascism in America is alive and well and continues unabated.

3. Ya know.. I am getting heart pains (I am NOT old either) literally, am not really even stressed but then I look at my little girls and think about 3 more years and two justices.. and I feel a bit stressed.. I think I am in denail/shock re: how unstressed - stressed I am.. I just know that I am going to start looking at our situation money wise.. looking at what it would take to emigrate to a place like Sweden or antoehr [sic] civilized state where Women are actually RESPECTED and not seen as chattle.

2. ...this is Armageddon for liberalism, the final act. O'Connor is the swing vote, the one favoring compromise. Replacing Rehnquist and Stevens will seal for a generation, what Bush achieves by replacing O'Connor. Since FDR's court-packing scheme panicked the gilded Age SCOTUS in letting the New Deal go forward, liberalism has depended on the court to confirm and support liberal progress as a matter of idealistic principle.

With a SCOTUS led by Scalia and Thomas, atop a Federalist Society judiciary, liberalism will be castrated, impotent for a generation or more. There is no law or program at a State or Federal level, which they could not eviscerate. And, they would. These are people, like our Attorney General, who dismiss the whole body of law and international treaty, which prohibit torture and abuse of prisoners.

Gay rights? Forget it. Due process in criminal matters -- if we are lucky enough to get a Scalia instead of a Thomas, there's an outside chance that at least the formalities will survive. Employment law? You're lucky you have a job!

Roe v. Wade? Will abortion return to a matter of State regulation? Or, will fetuses acquire rights?

And now, our winner!

1. The reaction at my office in nyc [sic] is like 9/11 all over again. no [sic] one can work, people are freaking out.

we [sic] cannot expect anything positive to come from this... we just have to mitigate the horror as much as possible.

until [sic] bush [sic] sends a moderate to the senate [sic], I want a government shutdown. I don't care what the effect is. Every last remaining shred of basic democratic ideals could die because of this resignation.

is [sic] our party redy [sic] to fight? because [sic] this needs to be a no holds barred, all chips on the table, fight to the DEATH.

Ahh, these calm, rational liberals...

UPDATE 7:17 p.m. central: Many thanks to the Commissar, Say Uncle, and Viking Pundit for the links...

UPDATE 07/02/05 9:40 p.m. central: Many thanks to the great Arthur Chrenkoff for the link, as well...

UPDATE 7/05/05 10:24 a.m. central: Thanks also to Erick at Red State, as always, for the link...and thanks as well to Conservative Grapevine, a new service from John Hawkins of Right Wing News fame...

Breaking News - Sandra Day O'Connor Leaving Supreme Court

Hot off the presses...more to follow...

Erick-Woods Erickson, who has been all over this story from the get-go, says Garza will be the nominee...

Ryan James says Gonzales...

UPDATE 1:09 p.m. central: More reaction: the Commissar catches the Kossacks freaking out (how's this for overblown responses?):

The reaction at my office in nyc is like 9/11 all over again. no one can work, people are freaking out. We cannot expect anything positive to come from this... we just have to mitigate the horror as much as possible. Until bush [sic] sends a moderate to the senate, I want a government shutdown. I don't care what the effect is. Every last remaining shred of basic democratic ideals could die because of this resignation. Is our party redy [sic] to fight? Because this needs to be a no holds barred, all chips on the table, fight to the DEATH...

Umm, dude, they can do marvelous things with Paxil and Xanax these days...you really should see a doctor...

More great Kossack reaction: the despicable Armando says he has good sources that say Gonzales is in the mix (no sh**, Sherlock?), and that he will (shockingly) oppose such a nomination...cry me a river, Armando...man, this is going to be fun!...

Erick-Woods Erickson is again right in the thick of things, and says folks are saying John Cornyn, from my own great state, has been seen at the White House, and his staff has disappeared...just to make things interesting, Priscilla Owen now has her name in the mix, as well...

Hey, You RINOs!

Don't forget the special all-star patriotic Fourth of July link- and love-fest...yep, I'm talking about the second edition of RINO Sightings, and yours truly is the host...we're getting some good responses, but I'd hate for you - yeah, that's right, I'm talking about YOU! - to be left out, so send your submissions to mark-dot-coffey-at-gmail-dot-com (you do know to replace the dots and ats, right?). I'll accept submissions all the way until noon on Sunday...enjoy your Friday, folks!...

Weekly Jackass Number Thirty-Three: Paul Krugman

In a remarkably defeatist screed, delivered practically on the eve of the anniversary of our nation's Declaration of Independence, Paul Krugman declares unconditional surrender in Iraq. Krugman's lack of faith in his nation is stunning. He declares we are held hostage by the man we elected twice as our president in a free expression of our will:

America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight. Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.

How many lies can you pack in one paragraph? The war Bush 'wanted to fight'? As if the President were some bloodthirsty conqueror oblivious to the tragedy of war...Iraq posed no threat? The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean Saddam didn't want them - would Krugman have preferred us to wait until Saddam had the weapons and was unstoppable, in the manner of Kim Jong-Il? Is there a better authority to quote on the centrality of Iraq to the War on Terror than the man who knocked down the World Trade Centers? Should Bush quote, God forbid, Paul Krugman?

Krugman then implies that our poor little ol' army just isn't up to the task:

...Time is running out for America's volunteer military, which is cracking under the strain of a war it was never designed to fight.

So what would happen if the United States gave up its open-ended commitment to Iraq and set a timetable for withdrawal?

Mr. Bush claims that such a step would "send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission." But what the troops need to know is that their country won't demand more than they can give.

Krugman then glibly asserts three 'truths' that aren't evident to anyone but himself:

Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory. But it's time to face up to three realities [sic]. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm.

What is it with the Times and its magical series of 'realities'? How is it that Kofi Annan can see the progress in Iraq - Kofi Annan, mind you - but Paul Krugman can't? And for God's sake, a time limit on our occupation? This is nonsense of a most dangerous breed.

Krugman winds it up with a series of paragraphs remarkable even by his exceedingly low standards:

The Iraq that emerges once U.S. forces are gone won't bear much resemblance to the free-market, pro-American, Israel-friendly democracy the neocons promised. But it will pose less of a terrorist threat than the Iraq we have now.

Remember, Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we went there. All indications are that the foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome.

The point is that the presence of American forces in Iraq is making our country less safe. So it's time to start winding down the war.

Where to begin with this excrement? Pro-Israel? Paul, we'll settle for an Iraq that no longer pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...how's that for a breeding ground for terrorists? The American forces can't stop the terrorists, but the pathetic remnants of the Baathist party can? Bull...

Krugman's submissiveness to our enemies would be laughable if it weren't for his influence...unfortunately, hundreds of thousands will read this garbage, by virtue of its appearance in the Times. Sadly, this is becoming all too typical of the editorial stance of perhaps the world's most influential newspaper. The Times is becoming an instrument of defeatism.

That Krugman would lend himself to the cause is not surprising. His partisanship has always trumped any qualms he might feel about spreading lies and distorting statistics. If it's harmful to Bush, that's good enough for Paul. Many, many people have taken down this mental midget and his woefully transparent misinformation on numerous occasions. Tom Maguire remains the essential antidote to the Krugman disease; this post is a sample both of Krugman's treachery and Tom's excellent debunking of such.

Krugman, like Noam Chomsky, is deserving of the Weekly Jackass any given week; however, given what's at stake in Iraq, and Krugman's irresponsible advocacy of laying down our arms and leaving 1,700 dead Americans behind for no good reason other than his hatred of George Bush, I can't think of a better week than this one to actually present him with the honor.

UPDATE 8:26 a.m. central: Thanks to head RINO the Commissar for the link, and to Jon Henke as well...

Okay, I'm Really Late On This One...

...but if you haven't read Peggy Noonan's latest, you really should. I don't always agree with Ms. Noonan; big whoop. Who says you always have to agree with someone to enjoy their work? She's a helluva writer, that's why I like her, and when she's on, she's up there with the great ones.

Her latest, on the pomposity of senators, is a lovely thing - observe as she masterfully deflates the pretensions of one Barack Obama:

This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."

Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.

Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.

That's good stuff...and keep in mind, I kinda LIKE Barack Obama...but his swipe at Lincoln (he doesn't really buy the 'great emancipator' image) and his phoney-baloney comparison of his struggles to those of the Great One are, as Noonan suggests, the first signs that the ego-inflating atmosphere of the 'World's Most Exclusive Club' is getting to him. Once again, for those who still need convincing, a wonderful example of why the Senate so seldom produces presidents (hat tip to PoliPundit, who was generous enough to link to my Obama musings, not once, but twice - many thanks, kind sir!)...

Richard Cohen: Insurgency is a Legitimate Nationalist Movement

Richard Cohen (who recently suggested the test of a legitimate war is if you are willing to forcibly send your grown man of a son to, presumably, die in it, in the mode of the biblical Abraham) is back with another insipid, whimpering walk down memory lane as he attempts to relive the glory days of Vietnam. Cohen asserts, incredibly, that the terrorists have the support of the Iraqi people. Think I'm lying? Let's take a look:

In Vietnam, it took the U.S. forever to recognize that it was not fighting international communism but a durable and vibrant nationalist movement led by Communists. Something similar may be happening in Iraq. Yes, foreign terrorists are flocking to the country. But the Sunni insurgency is a different thing. The Sunnis may work with foreign terrorists and gladly use their expertise, but their goals are not the same. The salient and depressing fact remains that no insurgency can survive for long without either the cooperation or the apathy of the populace.

Cohen takes time to scoff at our allies who are putting their lives and treasure on the line:

...Bush cited the "8 million Iraqi men and women" who voted, the "30 nations" with troops in Iraq (a total joke, and the President knows it), the "40 countries" and "three international organizations" that have pledged "$34 billion" in reconstruction assistance (another joke).

If those are jokes, Richard, I guess I've lost my sense of humor...but then, no one but you is laughing.

Thus, Cohen joins Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich as a charter member of the "Vietnam is the only point of comparison I have, so by God I'm gonna use it" club. Let's get one thing straight...the ability to blow yourself up and kill others is not a strategy, and it sure isn't victory. If it was, the Palestinian government would be holding court in Jerusalem...

Sadly, This Is Goodbye

I have decided that it's time to end this blog. Effective immediately. That's the bad news...the good news is I'm replacing it with Decision '08, the magazine! That's right, this is the inaugural post - er, article! Article! - of the all-new format (which, ironically, is identical to the old format in every way, shape, and form).

So, if there are any FEC folks poking around here, welcome to my bl - ahem, magazine! (hat tips to the Instapundit, Trey Jackson, and the Talent Show)...

Thursday Afternoon Quick Shots

Holy cow, will this week ever end? Hurry up and get here, three-day weekend!...

Sissy Willis has further news of the latest meme taking over the moonbat side of the blogosphere, 'fake applause' - remember, I've gone on the record in predicting a mention in this week's Frank Rich column...

Tom Maguire has the scoop on the latest odds from the sportsbooks on election '08: SportsInteraction.com has totally unrealistic odds on Bill Richardson; TradeSports has Biden number two on the Dem side - sorry, I'm not buying that. Also of interest, on the TradeSports front, is the assertion the Hillary has a 48% chance of getting the Dem nomination. HRC is undoubtably the frontrunner, but I'd bet against Hillary with those odds; I don't think it's nearly that cut and dried. Remember, at one point, it was a virtual certainty that Howard Dean would be the 2004 nominee...

This weekend, I intend to, hopefully, put up at least one candidate profile, and do a complete overhaul of the existing odds. One other housekeeping note; the blog redesign is proceeding, slowly but surely, and I am shooting for a tentative changeover around the end of August to the hosted environment / WordPress format; thanks for the support, and stick with me...it's only gonna get better from here...

Bob Herbert - It's A Quagmire, I Tell You!

Perhaps attempting to fill the void left by fellow hack MoDo, whose sabbatical mercifully continues, intensely partisan New York Times whiner Bob Herbert assures us that Iraq is, what else, a quagmire. In fact, he manages to use the word quagmire four (4) times in his latest column. In case you missed the point, here's his conclusion:

Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not - and I did not [no fooling? Who could have guessed?] - the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.

This is the kind of nonsense that is now a bigger threat to our success than conditions on the ground. Defeatism on the home front must be mercilessly fought, tooth and nail; we are winning, we will win, and Bob Herbert's in desperate need of an attitude adjustment...

CAFTA In Senate Today

Things are looking hopeful for passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the Senate today, but the House is not scheduled to take it up until July, and it is expected to face a tougher fight there. Few things get my unhesitating support regardless of circumstance, but free trade is one of them. The critics who claim that measures such as NAFTA cost the U.S. jobs are just flat wrong; these measures, instead, enable capital to be employed where it is most efficient, and less prosperous countries have a significant advantage over advanced industrial nations when it comes to low-skill labor. Keeping jobs of this sort in the U.S. artificially only hurts the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and takes money out of the pockets of consumers...

Hey, All You Ragin RINOs!

Don't miss out on the second edition of RINO Sightings; it's sure to be a star-spangled spectacular! The post will go up on July 4th, and though Stephen said you have until Friday, because I'm feeling generous on this Independence Day weekend, I'll accept your submissions until noon on Sunday, July 3rd.

In other words, get off your butts and get raging! Send your contributions to mark-dot-coffey-at-gmail-dot-com and don't miss out on this once-a-year sales event!...

Happy Birthday To One of the Greats

Economist and pundit extraordinaire Thomas Sowell is 75 today; be sure and read his birthday column, and celebrate the best way possible, by grabbing one of his many excellent books (hat tip to Power Line)...

Churchill on Fragging: Trey Jackson Has the Video

Trey Jackson has come through again, this time with the video (well, audio, anyway) of supreme idiot Ward Churchill and his 'just for grins' musings on fragging. While the rest of the world ponders the best move to secure the peace in Iraq, Churchill contemplates the best ways to make our military less effective. You can call that what you want; I call it treason (hat tip to the Instapundit)...

UPDATE 11:02 p.m.: Dean Esmay says not so fast, he's just asking a question...well, I think it's quite a loaded question, but I grant Dean's point that we don't know the full context. What we do know is pretty damning, though...we have Chuchill comparing the relative effect on a combat unit of (1) removing a piece of 'cannon fodder', the conscientious objector, or (2) killing an officer. Churchill makes it clear which he finds more effective...but, as always, judge for yourself...(and thanks to Trey for the link back!)...

Quick Shots: I Left My Heart (On Downing Street)

The more you consider the Downing Street Memo, the more reasonable it seems. I'm beginning to think the conservatives should bring it up more. Why? Well, here's a few reasons...

Resistance is futile...so go vote already!...

It's just one month, but this is very good news, indeed: the army has exceeded its recruitment goals for June...

Payback's A ____ (Rhymes With Witch)

Longtime reader Fred emailed me this story earlier, but I haven't had a chance to get to it yet, so I'll direct you to Ryan James for the details...it seems one of the justices who went with the majority on the horrendous Kelo decision has had his own property symbolically attacked by a voter who is proposing to seize it and place a hotel on the site. Ahh, it's things like this that make it all worthwhile...

Kos On Iraq: Things Are Terrible...and Mission Accomplished!

The great Arthur Chrenkoff catches our old buddy the Kos engaging in a particularly galling bit of cynicism: he offers two paths for Democrats to seize the high ground in the Iraq debate:

1. Promote a withdrawal of forces since we have achieved our mission of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people; and
2. We need greater accountability because the situation on the ground mocks the assertions in (1) above.
   

Confused? You needn't be; Kos isn't offering either of these as things to actually believe in; no, it's enough to assert one or the other (doesn't really matter which), and thus show your moral superiority. Disgusting...

Freedom Tower Redesign: A Step in the Right Direction

The project to rebuild Ground Zero has, thus far, been an embarrassment. We've had the spectacle of designs, redesigns, lack of tenants, both real and potential, and the insertion of political correctness into the mix. Of course nothing can ever detract from the site's resonance with the American people, but we can do much better than we have so far.

With that criticism in mind, I'm cautiously pleased with the redesigned Freedom Tower. Aesthetically, it wears a little better to my eye, but more importantly, some of the security flaws that proved so fatal on 9/11 are addressed at last. The building has been pushed back from the street substantially, and the utilities and elevators have been reinforced. There will be a 200-foot base, or pedestal, on top of which 69 floors of rentable office space will perch.

It also has the original design's extra-wide emergency stairs, a dedicated staircase just for firefighters, enhanced elevators and 'areas of refuge' on each floor. Stairs, communications, sprinklers and elevators will be encased in 3-foot-thick walls.

The redesign has resulted in another year's delay; the estimated date for occupancy is now 2010. We've reached the 'put up or shut up' time now; let's push forward now and get this thing done. Further delay in the center of world capitalism will do us no credit, with our friends or enemies.

Today's Worst Op-Ed...

...comes from Ruben Navarrette, Jr., in the San Diego Union-Tribune, who defends Tom Cruise's recent Scientology-fueled rant on the Today show as an important contribution to the debate over over-reliance on prescription drugs, particularly the use of ritalin on the young.

Lauer thought that Cruise was being judgmental, and that he should keep his opinions to himself. He also thought Cruise should stipulate that - while the actor didn't approve of taking antidepressants - those for whom the drugs had worked should be free to take them. Why should Cruise keep his opinions to himself? Shields didn't keep her bout with mental illness to herself. She advertised it to sell books. Cruise is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else. The problem isn't that celebrities have opinions. It's that the rest of society is quick to treat them as experts. They're not experts. They're movie stars with opinions. And they should be free to express their opinions, and the rest of us should be free to discount them if they don't hold up.

Bull - Lauer didn't ask Cruise to keep his opinions to himself, he asked him to acknowledge that drugs may help some people with mental disorders. Cruise denied that it was even possible, or that chemical imbalances even exist. It was Cruise who set himself up as an expert by asserting to Lauer that he 'just didn't know the history of psyciatry' like Cruise does, and basically suggesting the Lauer was the one who needed to keep his opinion to himself. Navarrette's defense of Cruise is wrong-headed, shallow, and unconnected to the facts.

Today's Must-Read: Claudia Says Watch Your Wallet!

The ever-resourceful Claudia Rosett has a piece up on Kofi's latest effort at U.N. 'reform'. Ms. Rosett notes how the threat from Congress to withhold funds has sent Kofi into overdrive again, and she uncovers this little nugget in the latest reform proposals:

...If there is one item in all Mr. Annan's talk of reform that should provoke distinct horror, cold sweats, and mighty fears over the trajectory of the U.N., it is a small cipher embedded in Mr. Annan's tastefully printed and expensively bound proposal for U.N. reform, "In Larger Freedom," Annex item No. 5(d). That would be the proposal that developed countries contribute 0.7% of their gross domestic income to the cause of "official development assistance."

That's the Jeffrey Sachs number, not the number that more realistic folks like Bono are asking for; but what's amazing is that Kofi has, in what has become a very bad habit, co-opted the idea and placed it under the U.N. banner in yet another naked grab for power and money. The man has a lot of nerve, I'll give him that much...

The Heavy Thinkers Come Out Swinging

One thing about a presidential speech, or the prospect of one, even, is it refocuses the debate; for that reason alone, Bush's speech will have a laudatory effect. There are plenty of excellent contributions out there already; unfortunately, none of those excellent contributions will figure in this post.

Nope, this post is about those heavy Democratic thinkers, or, as they've come to be called, the Party of No:

John Kerry's suggestions to the President are eviscerated by the Belgravia Dispatch...

The ever-reliable Tom Maguire notes that the divisive, combative Nancy Pelosi is judged 'scary' by a group of kids (from the mouth of babes!)...

And Charles Rangel, hack congressman extraordinaire, has a post up at Huff 'n' Puff so bad, so poorly written, so devoid of any meaningful content, that I shall quote it in its entirety:

As we're waiting for the President's speech, I'm telling you -- as an American with a heavy heart -- that this war is going to get much worse. Even some of the hawkish members of Congress are disheartened. The President's going to say that if you don't support the war, you're against the troops. That's nothing but politics. He doesn't believe that Americans are entitled to know how we got into the war, and refuses to reveal how he plans to get out. The President is like a person in a dark room feeling the walls for the light. We want to make certain that the President tells us what he is doing, and we won't agree to anything less.

Charles Rangel: the voice of reason for a new generation (hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the BD and Rangel stories)...

In Case You Missed It...

...the Political Teen has the President's speech right here, and the Indepundit has a good roundup...

A Sampling of Early Speech Reactions

Mickey Kaus - too presidential!...

Ryan James - good speech; not a Joe Biden fan...

John Hinderaker at Power Line: excellent speech - clear, confident, substantive...

Lorie Byrd - one of Bush's best; in fact, may have written it herself...

Kos - obsession over fake applause (prediction: Frank Rich will incorporate 'fake applause' into his 'fake news' bit for the next column - remember, you heard it here first)...

Kevin Drum - ho hum...

Oliver 'Like Barbecue Sauce to a Big Plate of Ribs' Willis: all salad, no steak...

Quick Shots: The Speech And The Poll

The President's speech, I thought, was solid, not spectacular; I don't think it will have much of an impact in and of itself. As I've said many times now, we must press forward aggressively and follow up on this speech with other events, speeches, and opportunities to get media time that focuses on the positive...

On a much happier note, normblog has the results of his movie star poll, and I must say I couldn't be happier with the two top choices, Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. They don't make stars like that anymore; it's a cliche, but some cliches are true. Indeed, I can't quibble much with the entire top ten...

America and the Spread of Freedom

Lots of talk about this Michael Ignatieff piece in the New York Times. It's a longish article on the promise of Jeffersonian democracy, both realized and yearned for, and whether it's a chimera or the world's birthright. Ignatieff both pinpoints the problem and suffers from it at the same time (then again, maybe it's the defining political puzzle of our age); both the author and most of Europe's leaders seem to have a problem differentiating between imperialism and - well, what? What is spreading democracy?

Whatever it is, it is not imperialism; imperialism, by definition, cannot involve the export of freedom. Throwing off one tyranny and replacing it with another is not what our foreign policy is about. The cynics don't understand that Bush's premise is quite simple: a free Middle East is the only way to ensure the prosperity and stability that will make state-sponsored terror, or the harboring of independent terrorists (if there's really a tangible difference), an unacceptable risk.

The following passage is quite telling:

The fact that many foreigners do not happen to buy into the American version of promoting democracy may not be much of a surprise. What is significant is how many American liberals don't share the vision, either. On this issue, there has been a huge reversal of roles in American politics. Once upon a time, liberal Democrats were the custodians of the Jeffersonian message that American democracy should be exported to the world, and conservative Republicans were its realist opponents.

Indeed, things have flipped; if neoconservatism has a meaning anymore, it is best defined as the belief that the best foreign policy for America's security is the export of democratic ideals and institutions.

What changed? Again, Ignatieff:

It was Reagan who began the realignment of American politics, making the Republicans into internationalist Jeffersonians with his speech in London at the Palace of Westminster in 1982, which led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy and the emergence of democracy promotion as a central goal of United States foreign policy. At the time, many conservative realists argued for detente, risk avoidance and placation of the Soviet bear. Faced with the Republican embrace of Jeffersonian ambitions for America abroad, liberals chose retreat or scorn. Bill Clinton -- who took reluctant risks to defend freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo -- partly arrested this retreat, yet since his administration, the withdrawal of American liberalism from the defense and promotion of freedom overseas has been startling. The Michael Moore-style left conquered the Democratic Party's heart; now the view was that America's only guiding interest overseas was furthering the interests of Halliburton and Exxon. The relentless emphasis on the hidden role of oil makes the promotion of democracy seem like a devious cover or lame excuse. The unseen cost of this pseudo-Marxist realism is that it disconnected the Democratic Party from the patriotic idealism of the very electorate it sought to persuade.

John Kerry's presidential campaign could not overcome liberal America's fatal incapacity to connect to the common faith of the American electorate in the Jeffersonian ideal. Instead he ran as the prudent, risk-avoiding realist in 2004 -- despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that he had fought in Vietnam. Kerry's caution was bred in the Mekong. The danger and death he encountered gave him some good reasons to prefer realism to idealism, and risk avoidance to hubris. Faced with a rival who proclaimed that freedom was not just America's gift to mankind but God's gift to the world, it was understandable that Kerry would seek to emphasize how complex reality was, how resistant to American purposes it might be and how high the price of American dreams could prove. As it turned out, the American electorate seemed to know only too well how high the price was in Iraq, and it still chose the gambler over the realist. In 2004, the Jefferson dream won decisively over American prudence.

But this is more than just a difference between risk taking and prudence. It is also a disagreement about whether American values properly deserve to be called universal at all. The contemporary liberal attitude toward the promotion of democratic freedom -- we like what we have, but we have no right to promote it to others -- sounds to many conservative Americans like complacent and timorous relativism, timorous because it won't lift a finger to help those who want an escape from tyranny, relativist because it seems to have abandoned the idea that all people do want to be free. Judging from the results of the election in 2004, a majority of Americans do not want to be told that Jefferson was wrong.

Ignatieff has this part right; the missionary for democracy is a crucial element of the American self-definition. Concluding with Ignatieff, once more:

A relativist America is properly inconceivable. Leave relativism, complexity and realism to other nations. America is the last nation left whose citizens don't laugh out loud when their leader asks God to bless the country and further its mighty work of freedom. It is the last country with a mission, a mandate and a dream, as old as its founders.

All of this may be dangerous, even delusional, but it is also unavoidable. It is impossible to think of America without these properties of self-belief.

Just so; this is what we mean when we speak of American exceptionalism: it is the premise that that the nation was, yes, ordained for the mission of spreading liberty, whether the ordaining presence was Providence, the Judeo-Christian God, or just fundamental human nature.

More on this topic from Wretchard of the Belmont Club (hat tip to Roger L. Simon)...

A Gitmo Story That Won't Get Much Traction

Four senators have just returned from Guantanamo Bay, two Republicans and two Democrats. Their conclusion:

Two Democratic senators just back from reviewing U.S. detention facilities and interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said they saw no signs of abuse and said it would actually be worse to close the facility and transfer the detainees elsewhere.

"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, who toured the U.S. facility along with Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat.

The obvious riposte is that folks were on their best behavior for the senators, but consider the following:

[Republican Senator Michael Crapo of Idaho] said there have been 400 visits by 1,000 reporters to the facility and that nearly 20 senators, a larger number of House members and 100 congressional staff members have visited the camp.

A delegation from the House of Representatives made a similar trip during the weekend, and one member reported similar findings.

"The detainees' meal was as good as any I had in my 31 years of Army Guard service, and I can see why the prisoners this year gained five pounds over last year," said Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican.

Asked how they knew they were seeing real operations rather than a staged display, both Republican and Democratic senators said that they had access to everything and that they trusted the troops they talked with from their own states.

Those who are clamoring for the closure of Guantanano Bay need to consider the alternatives: letting the people go, or detaining them elsewhere. Neither is satisfactory; ironically, especially in light of the recent turmoil, Guantanamo Bay just might be the most humane prison in the world (hat tip to Betsy Newmark)...

Winning In Washington, As Well As Baghdad

Good piece by Brendan Miniter in the Wall Street Journal today on the growing defeatist chorus in Iraq. Best line:

...the Vietnam metaphor is apt today because the U.S. is in a war it can win and is winning, if only those inside the Beltway would stop preferring defeat to victory and disgrace to honor.

Of course, Bush will be giving a prime-time address tonight, but that's not enough. Few people who aren't political junkies will actually tune in, so we've got to keep a full-court press offensive on, one that's almost as important as the war on the ground; we've got to win this war in Baghdad, and in Washington, and on Main Street, U.S.A....

Quick Shots: Establishing Positions

Our good friend Fargus thinks the Supremes got the Ten Commandment decisions just right...

AJStrata seems fine with the SCOTUS decisions, as well...

Ditto Mark Daniels...

Keith B8 let me know I got Luttig's name wrong in the poll above - d'oh!...

Ryan James spotlights the latest words of wisdom from JFK II...

Don't miss the third Carnival of the Clueless...

And all you Raging RINOs out there, don't forget to get your submissions in for the special July 4th RINO Sightings. Here's the schedule:

July 4 - Mark Coffey, Decision 08
July 11 - Larry Bernard
July 18 - Andy WWR
July 25 - Counter Top
Aug 1 - All Things
Jennifer
Aug 8 - Searchlight Crusade
Aug 15 - open
Aug 22 - open

Please send your preferred link to mark-dot-coffey-at-gmail-dot-com...

Today's Must-Read: Will on the Establishment Clause

George Will takes on the Supreme Court decisions on religious displays by giving a short history lesson of what the founders thought, then ends with this Coalition-worthy conclusion:

Nowadays many people delight in being distressed. They cultivate exquisitely tender sensibilities and practice moral exhibitionism, waxing indignant about minor encounters with thoughts and symbols they dislike. So, just to lower the decibel level of American life, perhaps communities should refrain from religious displays other than in religious contexts.

But this is a merely prudential, not a constitutional consideration. On Monday the justices churned out 140 pages of opinions and dissents about the Texas and Kentucky displays. Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: "Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional."

Read it all...

It's True, It's True!

Every horrible thing you've heard about Gitmo is true! In fact, it's worse than you thought! Click here for the proof...(hat tip to those Raging RINO Llamas - wait, that can't be right, can it?)...

A New SCOTUS Poll

Who will be the next Supreme Court nominee? Bush administration officials are sure to be watching closely to see who gets the coveted Decision '08 readership nod, so vote early and often...in our last poll, you overwhelmingly chose dinner with Triumph, as the Insult Comic Dog easily steamrolled over second place Bill Clinton. Poor Dick Durbin was the only potential dinner date to get no takers at all...

Andrew Sullivan Freakout Advisory - Code Red!

People, this is not a drill...you may have noticed the Andrew Sullivan Freakout Advisory is at 'Filled With Heart-Ache At Such Gob-Smacking Vileness'. Ace has the details here. Remember: stay calm. If Sullivan sees panic in your eyes, it will only make him MORE excitable. This is the day we've drilled for, folks; take your positions, and Godspeed!...

Quick Shots: Handicapping the Candidates

Political Derby is the name of a website with a 2008 focus that is the home of the Power Rankings; currently the Jockey has Mitt Romney and HRC in the lead...

Via Michelle Malkin, we learn that Ward Churchill is now not so subtly suggesting troops frag their officers...

If Erick-Woods Erickson's source is correct, not only is Gonzales out of the SCOTUS derby, but so is my horse, McConnell. His source(s) also say a vacancy will occur in the next ten days...

Did Barack Obama Slam Lincoln?

Drudge sure thinks so, latching on to the following phrase from Obama's essay in Time:

...I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn't immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

Of course, Obama wraps that passage up in a largely positive portrait of Lincoln. So let's take Obama up on it, and go to the source:

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

Sounds pretty unambigious to me; I'm not quite sure what Obama's beef with this is: the wording wasn't flowery enough? Beats me...in any event, I think Lincoln's reputation will survive Obama's curiously tepid response. It seems to me, in a time of war, that a military document proclaiming freedom would be worth far more than a ringing speech calling for justice. Regardless of the motivation, this document quite literally freed the slaves, or most of them; that it took generations for the seed he planted to bear fruit can hardly be layed at the feet of Lincoln.

UPDATE 9:15 p.m.: Done With Mirrors lightly takes me to task for saying the Proclamation quite literally freed the slaves by making the excellent point (I'm getting sloppy in my old age) that Lincoln's proclamation only freed the slaves in areas in active rebellion, i.e., in areas where he had no power or jurisdiction, while at the same time failing to address the situation in the areas that he did control.

UPDATE 2 11:23 p.m.: Lots of good stuff in the comments. Gulf Coast Bandit agrees with Done With Mirrors, but don't miss Fred's impassioned defense of the Proclamation as 'simply the most radical document produced by 19th century America'.

UPDATE 3 06/28/05 10:41 a.m.: Many thanks to PoliPundit for the link; you can read his thoughts (hint: he's no Obama fan) here...

Michael Barone: A Home Run, As Usual

Leave it to Michael Barone, one of the more astute observers of the political scene, to articulate so well what I have often called the 'progressive' infestation of the Democratic Party. Here's Barone:

One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

Those who do not think this split is real should consult the responses to pollster Scott Rasmussen's question last year. About two-thirds of Americans agreed that the United States is a fair and decent country. Virtually all Bush voters agreed. Kerry voters were split down the middle.

Pay particular attention to that last sentence: Kerry voters were split down the middle - as to the question of whether the U.S. is a fair and decent country! Make no mistake, the Democrats need to jettison the progressive elements, even if it means more losses in the short term. When close to half of Kerry's supporters cannot even agree on the proposition that the U.S. is fundamentally decent, how can that party hope to earn the trust of the electorate?

Barone concludes:

Half the Senate Democrats attended the Washington premiere of Moore's movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] and laughed and cheered its ridicule of Bush and denunciation of American policy -- at a time when Moore proclaimed on his website that "Americans are the stupidest people in the world."...

...a party that happily allies itself with the likes of moveon.org and many of whose leading members have lost the ability to distinguish between opposition to an incumbent administration and rooting for our nation's enemies has got serious problem.

Indeed it has...

Krugman Makes Sense? Believe It

Rare is the Paul Krugman column that doesn't cause me to sneer in disdain, but the most recent one, probably because it doesn't deal with the Bush administration, is pretty much on the money, as far as I can see. Sure, Krugman being Krugman, there are the quick snide remarks thrown in the administration's general vicinity, but they aren't the focus. Instead, Krugman talks about the Chinese challenge.

Krugman sees a China that is America's strategic rival in ways Japan, with its limited population and land mass, could never be. Does anyone doubt that an increasingly market-oriented, more prosperous China will change the equations? As the Chinese economy grows, they will continue to demand more and more oil, for example; in addition, as Krugman points out, they've got a lot of dollars to spend, and the Unocal bid is a good example of their increased economic clout.

North Korea is worrisome because it is ruled by a madman; China, however, is a longer term - well, that's the question, isn't it? A longer term threat? Or longer term opportunity? How the U.S. manages its relationship with China may yet be the large canvas the 21st century is played out on...

No SCOTUS Retirements

At least, at the moment...while we wait, Slate has a nice piece spotlighting some of the leading candidates and their positions on various issues. Pay special attention to Edith Brown Clement if it is O'Connor that retires; I still think if Rehnquist goes, the most likely pick is Michael McConnell.

Novak On SCOTUS: Bush Faces a Hard Choice

Robert Novak writes today on the Supreme Court, specifically the potential nomination of Alberto Gonzales. Novak says Gonzales would alienate the base, practically pro-lifers, but that all the other possibilities would probably face ugly confirmation fights, so the choice, Novak says, is between the base and a take-no-prisoners confirmation battle. Novak also confirms the new conventional wisdom that O'Connor is more likely to retire than Rehnquist.

Meanwhile, in other SCOTUS news, the Court has just ruled 5-4 against courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments, inside the courthouse, although it allows outdoor displays like the one in my own backyard here in Austin.

The Court also declined to hear the appeals of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper regarding their refusal to testify to a grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case (a case in which the aforementioned Novak plays a very prominent role). The case has important ramifications because it impacts upon the confidentiality between reporters and their sources.

RINO Sightings

The first round of RINO Sightings is in, and it's a beaut, so be sure and check it out, won't you? Lots of great reading...and don't forget I'm the host for next week, so be sure and send me your best, and I'll do my worst. Email to mark-dot-coffey-at-gmail-dot-com before noon, July 3rd...

Today's Must-Read: The Good News From Iraq

Arthur Chrenkoff has his 30th installment of Good News From Iraq, and from the standpoint of the political climate, it couldn't be more timely. The Wall Street Journal, in its featured editorial (registration may be required), speaks of the insurgency's bombs hitting their target - in Washington. Despite increasingly gloomy reporting, and a public souring on the war, there is plenty to celebrate. Chrenkoff has once again performed a real service. We've got to do whatever we can to counter the pessimism...

Wretchard Strikes Again

If you were to ask most serious bloggers, at least the moderates and conservatives, who their own personal favorite bloggers are, I bet you would find Wretchard of the Belmont Club pretty high up the list. He's famous (well, at famous among bloggers) for his thoughtful, lengthy posts that seldom fail to show real insight into pressing problems.

His latest is of a similar quality (hat tip to RealClearPolitics). He asks the question, what is victory against an insurgency? Do the insurgents win if they merely stay alive? Wretchard puts forth his own definition:

Seizing state power over a definite territory is the explicit objective of nearly every guerilla armed force in the world today: if they can achieve that, they win. If they cannot achieve that and have no realistic prospect of ever achieving that, they are defeated, however long they may continue to exist.

Then Wretchard summarizes the current state of the insurgency:

...No national united front; no united hard core of leadership; no victorious armed force. This in addition to no territory and increasingly, no money and what is there left? Well there is the ability to kill civilians and to avoid being totally exterminated by the Coalition; but that is not insurgent victory nor even the prospect of victory.

In the face of increasing gloom and doom among the press and the public, we cannot stress this often enough or forcefully enough: Not only are we not losing, we have, in many ways, already won.

Candidate Profile Twenty-Two: Joe Biden

I don't TOTALLY dislike Joe Biden; he takes national security issues seriously, and he understands what's at stake in Iraq. Biden gives new meaning to the old joke about 'most dangerous place in Washington is between ___ and a camera', though; his floating of a 2008 candidacy is hard to understand as anything but a vanity project. Here we go:

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. - official Senate bio

Biden2008.com leads to an 'under construction' announcement as of this profile date; not a good sign for a candidate who's already declared!

RESUME: 6-term Senator from Delaware; former private practice attorney and New Castle County Council member; adjunct professor at the Widener University School of Law; top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; long leadership history on 'law and order' issues; former presidential candidate in 1988

The real issue with a Biden candidacy is whether a Catholic can win the presidency - no, wait, sorry, I was reading my JFK notes instead. No, the real issue is who, exactly, is Biden's national constituency? The Kossacks hate him (by the way, have you seen Kos's redesign? I liked the old one better (the look - the content is the same ol' crap, either way)), the rank-and-file are indifferent, he's got a plagiarism scandal in his past, and Delaware - well, we love you, Delaware, but your three electoral votes don't exactly make for a 'favorite son' argument.

No, we lose sight of what this is all about if we use reason; this is the gesture of a pompous, self-important Senator, who sees an opportunity to grab more headlines and continue his permanent co-hosting of the Sunday morning talk shows (if it's Sunday, you can bet your a** that Joe Biden is on television somewhere).

There's a reason senators always want to run for President; they are a dreary, arrogant bunch, by and large. There's a reason the electorate nearly always rejects them: they are a dreary, arrogant bunch, by and large. One of the many things we have to be thankful to the Founders for is their foresight in giving us a bicameral form of government. The populist hysterics of the House meet the solemn dignity of the Senate, and somehow the Republic survives. It's nothing short of miraculous, really...

Back to Biden, though...does he have a shot? Sure, anyone has a shot; this is America, after all...but not much of one. We don't need to spend a lot of time here...

CURRENT ODDS: 38-1

UPDATE 07/04/05 10:57 p.m. central: >I suppose all those 80 million TV appearances have paid off...people are given Biden's candidancy more credence than I think it deserves. Nevertheless, a big bump...

CURRENT ODDS: 18-1

Carnival News

AJ Strata has posted the Second Carnival of the Chillin', and very timely it is, so please check it out.

Also, yours truly will be hosting the second edition of RINO Sightings for the long July 4th weekend (three-day weekend! Woo-hoo!), and, as the description of my blog suggests, it's never too early (submissions will be accepted through noon, July 3rd, so no excuses - email at mark-dot-coffey-at-gmail-dot-com (you know the routine, replace the dots and ats, etc., etc.)). Look for the first edition of RINO Sightings tomorrow at Say Uncle...

The Patterico-Bainbridge Debates: A Word From the Founding Father

How's that for a portentous (or is that pretentious) opening?

Once again, our beloved Coalition of the Chillin' is under attack, this time from that famous pontificator, Patterico. As longtime readers know, the Coalition is a loose (very, very loose) confederation of bloggers who felt the reaction to the judicial deal of May 23, 2005, was way overblown. In light of the truly disgusting Kelo decision, Patterico wants to know if the Coalition is ready to disband, and has been engaging the just-appointed Attorney General of the Coalition, Professor Stephen Bainbridge, in just such a debate.

First, as to Coalition membership: SayUncle says he's through chillin' and has officially withdrawn. Earlier, the Anchoress had said she wasn't going to chill anymore, either; that's fine - I like both bloggers a lot and this doesn't affect that one iota. Anyone else who is through chillin' - well, it's not like there are membership dues or anything (but hey, don't think you can just drop out and show up at the kegger!).

As to the substantive issue, i.e., whether Kelo has invalidated the Coalition stance on the judicial compromise, my answer, predictably, is no, it has not. Why?

• There is no such thing as a predictably conservative or predictably liberal judge, as much as we might believe there is. Until that human being, with all his/her shortcomings and foibles, gets on that bench, we can't really say with any confidence how the rulings will go down, particularly on any given case before the Court.
• After years of inaction, Bush has gotten through about a half-dozen very controversial judges after the deal WITHOUT going nuclear.
  
• There is nothing at all in the deal that would prevent the Republicans from going nuclear during the Supreme Court nomination process; all that would be required would be a statement from the leadership that the agreement had been broken because the Democrats were filibustering without an 'extraordinary circumstance'.
• As Professor Bainbridge argues at length, we may want to preserve the filibuster for judicial nominees in the event that the shoe is on the other foot.

Most importantly, though, and the reason I started the Coalition in the first place, is that this fight isn't taking place in a vacuum. I maintained then, and I still hold the opinion, that going nuclear would be a disastrous move for the Republicans in the court of public opinion, and the decisions of that court will have a far more substantial and long-term impact on conservative judges than one justice ever could. Simply put, if we allow ourselves to alienate the electorate through overwrought rhetoric, we lose the electoral advantage of being able to paint the Democrats as obstructionists, and no conservative judges whatsoever will ever be nominated if we lose control of the Congress.

The deal was a win for the Republicans, and Kelo doesn't change that; I argued from the start that if we go nuclear, let's do it in the highest stakes scenario. With the rumors swirling that a justice may retire as soon as tomorrow, we'll find out soon enough who's holding what cards.

Frank Rich Is Certifiably Insane

In my world, the real world, the media asks tough questions about the War on Terror and Iraq incessantly; I just watched Tim Russert grill Donald Rumsfeld pretty hard for half an hour on national television. In the world of Frank Rich, the Bush administration controls the media, public broadcasting, the Internet, and the price of tea in China, all through their unbelievably effective 'propaganda machine' (so effective that the public now thinks we are losing a war that has already been won). And who the hell besides Rich is still talking about Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon? Jeez, Frank, earn those big bucks for a change!

The following list is hardly comprehensive (and I'm using my own posts, since the Times hides its stories behind a money-grubbing wall), but it will give some idea of Rich's range:

February 17th: Rich focuses on fake news
May 17th: I do a crudy parody of Rich's focus on fake news
May 21st: Rich does a column focusing on fake news
June 11th: Rich does a column, yep, focusing on fake news
June 19th: Rich, for a change of pace, focuses on fake news
June 26th: Yep, fake news

Wow, Frank, you are a giant among journalists....here's a neat idea for next week's column: fake news!...

Linked to the Fatwah Festival at My Pet Jawa...

Kofi Annan: Reform the U.N., Just Let Me Keep This Great Gig!

That's the gist of yet another guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Kofi Annan. Give the man credit, he knows what paper his critics are most likely to read. In the World According To Kofi, there is, of course, no mention of the latest Oil-For-Food flareup, wherein it was revealed that Annan flat-out lied to the Volcker Commission regarding his son's nepotistic relationship with Cotecna. Kofi looks at the latest U.N.-bashing legislation in the House, and he, naturally, warns us that we need the U.N. more than it needs us...um, yeah, okay...um, sorry, Kofi, gotta run...out here in the real world, we've got our hands full. Keep up that navel-gazing, though, you're doing a wonderful job!

Bono on Meet the Press

Well, I thought the Irish lad acquitted himself admirably. He praised Bush effusively for what he has done, he avoided getting sucked into a position on Iraq or the War on Terror, he challenged Bush and the Americans to finish the job we've started, and he didn't ask for the .7% of GDP (the Jeffrey Sachs plan) from the U.S., but rather a boost to about .3 or .4% from our current .17% (I'm assuming his figures are accurate, he seems quite knowledgable on the subject).

Rumsfeld also appeared, and said the assertion from Chuck Hagel that we are losing the War in Iraq is flat wrong. Rumsfeld said we see all the bad news, little of the good, the volunteer army is alive and well, and while things aren't rosy, it's unrealistic to expect rosy from a war zone.

Let's pray that he's right...

Today's Must-Read: Public Use? The Sky's the Limit

Jeff Jacoby has an excellent editorial in the Boston globe railing against the actions taken by our Weekly Jackass honorees in the 'eminent domain' case. The highlights:

In effect, the majority in Kelo v. New London held that the words ''public use" in the Fifth Amendment -- ''nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" -- can mean wholly private use, so long as the government expects it to yield some incidental public benefit -- more tax revenue, new jobs, ''maybe even aesthetic pleasure," as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Would your town's tax base grow if your home were bulldozed and replaced with a parking garage? If so, it may not be your home for long.

As a result of this evisceration of the Public Use clause, ''the specter of condemnation hangs over all property," the dissenters warn. ''Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

This decision was a flat-out disgrace...