Michael Writes

I think you may be accused of a poor memory if you do not amend your statement "I can't think of one successful war of independence within the last century that was waged by a people against its own totalitarian regime."

Were the British in India Totalitarian? What about Apartheid in South Africa? The Philippines? I think there are many more and better examples that will crop up if you examine the question.
- Michael

Michael,

Let's examine the question. I established the conditions as follows:

1. It has to occur within the 20th Century;
2. It had to be successful in that it overturned a totalitarian government and replaced it with a long-term, democratic form of government;
3. It had to be waged by a people against its own government.

The British in India were colonial but not totalitarian. Could you possibly imagine Gandhi's March to the Sea under a classic totalitarian government such as the Nazis or Soviets? Further, Indian independence was fought for, and attained, against a foreign colonial power,not a native and indigenous totalitarian regime. Therefore, that does not meet my criterion of "own totalitarian regime."

"The Philippines". Michael, so nice that you just toss this out without any explanation. Are you talking about the Philippine rebellion against Spain in the 19th century? That doesn't meet my threshold of taking place in the 20th century and while the United States certainly was a colonial power in the Philippines, I would not consider its' role that of a totalitarian power as evidenced by the fact that the United States was committed to granting Philippine independence, which originally was to take place in the late 1930s-early 1940s, but which was delayed by World War 2. The United States eventually granted Philippine independence with the successful conclusion of the war. Again, this does not meet the criterion of being fought by a people against its "own totalitarian regime." While Philippine independence took place in the 20th century, it does not meet the threshold of criteria 2 and 3.

South Africa- I would certainly consider the white South African government totalitarian in nature, it was engaged in armed conflict with anti-government forces, and the government was changed to a more democratic form, at least for the time being. There appears to be growing evidence that this nation's government may be tilting in the direction of failure as evidenced by its support of Robert Mugabe's thoroughly totalitarian regime in Zimbabwe. Let's put South Africa on "Pending".

I think a better argument might be made by using the Polish revolution lead by Lech Walesa and his Solidarity movement, which took place prior to the demise of the Soviet superpower and with it, its retreating sphere of influence.

The demise of the Soviet Union was the result of a broad economic collapse. In any event, it now appears that the old Soviet Union, although somewhat diminished in size and reformulated as Russia, has again become totalitarian and under the control of Vladimir Putin of the KGB. Therefor, I would say that the Russian people continue to live under a totalitarian system.

TRM

Tyranny and Freedom in Iraq?

No matter whom you believe, and no matter what you believe to be the proper course of action, one thing is certain: Iraq is a mess.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone who is giving an opinion as all sides have a rooting interest. Leftists delight in the fact that the president was wrong in launching this invasion and occupation. Rightists are like those three monkeys; see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil, as they ignore what seem to be some very harsh realities staring them in the face.

What are those realities? I know only what I read in the papers but here is what I perceive. Iraq is simultaneously engaged in both a war of independence and a civil war. The war of independence is being waged against is past history of tribalism and totalitarianism.

Since its creation by the British from the remnants of the a portion of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in the aftermath of World War Iraq, a collection of disparate tribal entities, has been ruled by military strongmen who have never allowed democracy to take root there. I can't think of one successful war of independence within the last century that was waged by a people against its own totalitarian regime.

Iraq was firmly in the grip of the Saddamists before the Unites States invasion and there was no viable internal opposition to his tyranny. Totalitarian regimes are like that, as their police state sows fear in the heart of the populace while using its powers to crush--murder--any opponents to the regime. What the United States is trying to do at present is to impose a form of democratic republicanism that has not been nourished internally for more than 100 years, if ever. Further, we are trying to do it in an atmosphere where primitive tribal interests and religious imperatives--Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd--overwhelm any desire to define or work for a common "Iraqi" purpose.

Thus, we find ourselves in the middle of a political condition that we are unable to define in a manner that would enable us to exert influence in any real and meaningful way. It is now up to the Iraqis to struggle to set their own agenda. The United states cannot impose its own agenda. Instead, we might be able to quietly influence various factions to promote a stable government as we go about our business of killing the monster we created, Al-Qeuda in Iraq.

This retrenchment of our position will enable us to face the greater threat in the gulf--Iran--and the re-formed Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, respectively.

GENIUS!!!

I just took a look at the schedule the Democrats have constructed for themselves.

The geniuses at the party decided to, get this, hold the convention August 25 through 28, in Denver. Read that again, August 25-28.

Let's see. Don't these guys know that almost all of America is on vacation then? Who wants to watch a convention when you're paying good money for some hotel near the Grand Canyon? If you're staying with the in-laws, well, maybe. But really!

Utter genius!!! Go Dems!

I'm Tired!!

The current state of the Democratic race brings to mind the famous words of Lili von Shtupp:

I'm tired,
Tired of playing the game
Ain't it a crying shame
I'm so tired
God dammit I'm exhausted

Tired, tired of playing the game
Ain't it a crying shame
I'm so tired

The Dems are in the equivalent of the Bataan Death March and I think they have exhausted not only themselves, but everyone else involved in the political scene. Hillary and Barack have nothing new to add to the dialogue, while the press continues to impress only itself with the never-ending game of "Gotcha!" with which it is currently enthralled.

I found it interesting that not only did I miss the last debate on ABC, but several politically involved friends also absented themselves from the program. There is nothing worse for a political party than to inspire nothing but boredom in the electorate.

Those most closely involved in the Democrats' campaign seem to have taken on an air of irrationality. Obama supporters say that they will not back Hillary if she wins the nomination. Hillary backers are saying that if Obama wins, they stay home on election day. Both sides are lying, of course. It's one thing to fully back your candidate, it's quite another to threaten to stay home and allow the Republicans to again win the White House. When the nominee is chosen they will all make nice and rally 'round the candidate, so don't believe any of the whining.

Best Political Comment You Won't Read in an American Publication

From The Economist, April 5th, 2008 pg.19

"The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whiskey and and a loaded revolver."

MUST READ!

Today's Altercation blog was turned over to soldier/historian LTC Bob Bateman.It is so good that I am reprinting it here in its entirety.

Thank you, Colonel Bateman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before the politics, the analysis, the emotion, and counter-emotion about what he said, or what Gen. Petraeus did not say, or what anyone thinks he should have said, come bubbling up, I think perhaps it's time to break my silence.

You all, perhaps, have noticed that I have been absent of late. That has been intentional. It's politics time, and around politics time I feel less comfortable about everyone who is political. Uh, except my wife. But since she is serving in Sri Lanka right now, I don't even deal with that much.

I do not think it is a soldier's position to get into the middle of things, and I generally avoid it myself. Believe it or not, to my eyes it is clear that while he is good at it, General P doesn't much like being there either. But that is now his job. But with all of the sentiment, real and postured, seen on Capitol Hill these past 24 hours, I thought it might be useful to introduce some real emotion.

This essay is dated, though perhaps you might not find it so. I wrote it, and it was published in a small venue, Vietnam Magazine, six years ago. I hope that perhaps, on a host of issues, it reminds you about some of the things we all believe in. Beyond the debates of this day, or this war. Beyond the ideas of policy and strategy versus tactics and structure. I enjoin you for a moment, as one senator pleaded not long ago, to look past, to look beyond. In this small way, by a mild act of distraction, and sentiment, and perhaps hope, I enjoin you all to take a few moments to reflect. That is all. I do not care upon what you reflect. But it is something that others beyond our shores have suggested that we might do better as a nation, and I agree. In listening to them, it occurred to me I might help in this way. By giving you something from the heart upon which to reflect, and contemplate, so that you might have a moment to yourself to delve into complexity.

You should know also that with this tale I am not advocating. I am relating. The subject, my friend, had come to hate war as only those who have been in war can hate war. This, therefore, is not jingoism. This is the story of one man. That is all. There is no one "message in this essay." You may each take from it what you will. And in the process, be complex.

All within it has been given freely, by the author, and the subject, I assure you.

Garryowen,

Robert Bateman
7th United States Cavalry
permalink

Rick Rescorla

I heard his voice long before I ever met him: "Gaaaa-rry Owen, Garry Owen, Garry Owen / In the Valley of Montana all alone / There'll be better days to be for the 7th Cavalry / When we charge again for dear old Garry Owen ..."

It was the summer of 1995. I was a company commander in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, George Armstrong Custer's old outfit -- and an audiotape made at An Khe, Vietnam, in the spring of 1966 had found its way into my hands. "Garry Owen," or more properly, Garryowen," is the motto of the 7th Cavalry. The voice pounding through on the scratchy tape was a voice out of the pages of history for me -- the voice of Rick Rescorla.

As a 7th Cavalryman I had heard of Rescorla. He was made famous by the account of his actions during the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965, America's first major battle of the Vietnam War. He became a legend in the unit for his unflappable behavior in combat, and his face became an American icon when a young reporter named Peter Arnett snapped his photo. That photo became the cover of the book We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young, by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway, two who were there. The book, and now the movie, We Were Soldiers, tell the story of the fight. Rescorla was a second lieutenant then, but was already experienced in combat.

Born in Cornwall, on the English coast, Rescorla had seen man's darker side already, first from service with the British army on Cyprus, and later in a "security force" in Rhodesia. The epitome of the young warrior, he was the sort that England seems to have bred in abundance for centuries: the type of young man who in times past went forth from Britain and created an empire upon which the sun never set. England happened to be fresh out of wars in the 1960s, so Rescorla became an American and fought in ours. He thought there was something to America.

In 1965 Rescorla knew war. His men did not, yet. To steady them, to break their concentration away from the fear that may grip a man when he realizes there are hundreds of men very close by who want to kill him, Rescorla sang when the shooting was hottest. Mostly he sang dirty songs that would make a sailor blush. Interspersed with the lyrics was the voice of command: "Fix bayonets ... on liiiiine ... reaaaa-dy ... forward." It was a voice straight from Waterloo, from the Somme, implacable, impeccable, impossible to disobey. His men forgot their fear to some degree, concentrated on his orders and marched forward as he led them straight into the pages of history: 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry ... "Hard Corps."

When I started interviewing these veterans of my regiment decades later, I was struck by the emotions Rescorla's men still felt for him. His old radio telephone operator (RTO), Sam Fantino, 30 years later still seemed to maintain that constant "where-the-hell-is-the-lieutenant-now" look out of the corner of his eye. When a lieutenant and his RTO click, the radioman takes on a host of new roles -- part radioman, part scrounge, part mother hen looking over "his" lieutenant. With Fantino and Rescorla it was something special to watch, three decades later. Many other survivors of the platoon acted the same way. Over time, I came to believe that they would have followed Rescorla in an assault upon the gates of Hell, even then, for he did not order, he led. Literally.

After his time as a rifle platoon leader, Rescorla technically became what we call a "liaison officer." But in reality he was running a sort of miniature, brigade-level long range reconnaissance patrol team for the commander, Colonel (later Lieutenant General) Hal Moore. They called it a Ground Reconnaissance Infiltration Team, though Rescorla told me he preferred to call his group a GRIT patrol. One hundred fifty men tried out, from whom Rescorla chose 15 for a trial patrol. From those 15, three men were selected to accompany Rick on the ground, one of them a former British commando. Walking deep into areas such as the "Crow's Foot," well ahead of the rest of the brigade, Rescorla and his team bridged the gap between division reconnaissance elements (higher) and battalion scouts (lower). It was a no-man's land that defies description. That was his idea of a "cushy staff job."

Twenty-nine years later, the tape made in 1966, in a claptrap officers' club, made its way into my hands, and for the first time I heard the voice that at that time I had only read of in history books. It was a strong voice, booming out the solos and leading the chorus of young American officers trying to forget, or perhaps to remember with honor, their soldiers who now lay still. I doubt there was a sober voice in the pack. In the background there is the recurrent booming of 105mm howitzers firing. This was the 1st Cavalry Division, in war. It was eerie to know that nobody had heard this tape in almost 30 years. I made seven copies so the tape would not disappear into history, and sent one to Rescorla himself.

I am really lucky. Over the course of my life I have met men who, to my eyes, have walked into the room off the pages of a history book. Sometimes I get to meet my heroes.

A few months after receiving the tape from An Khe, I had the chance to attend the annual reunion dinner of the veterans of the fighting in the Ia Drang. That weekend I also had the honor of meeting Rick in person. He was bigger now, rounder and downright jolly in some ways, but in his eye I caught the glint of mischief that so many of his former soldiers talked about. He was now a civilian. After returning to the States in 1966 he had spent a year teaching at Fort Benning, Georgia, and then got out -- sort of. He stayed in the Army Reserve, advancing to colonel before he retired in 1990. Along the way he had picked up a master's degree in literature and a law degree. He wrote poems and screenplays and was conversant in philosophy. But something in his makeup would not allow him to entirely abandon the idea behind our profession. Rick Rescorla eventually became the director of security for Morgan Stanley in their offices at the World Trade Center.

He had not, however, forgotten his origins as a warrior poet. That first reunion I attended, approaching him almost as a religious supplicant, I asked him to sign my copy of We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young. We would talk much more later, and I would listen as he and others told their stories, but that was our first contact. He apparently knew something of me though. He asked me to wait a moment, got himself a drink, and sat staring into the middle distance for a moment. When he handed my copy back, the inscription read: "To: Captain Bob Bateman / Old Dogs and Wild Geese are Fighting / Head for the Storm / As you faced it before / For where there is the 7th / There's bound to be fighting / And where there's no fighting / It's the 7th no more. / Best, / Rick Rescorla, Hard Corps One-Six [his radio call sign in Vietnam]"

We met again, several times in fact, after that, historian/soldier and warrior/poet. I even managed to coax him up to West Point in the Spring of 2001. It was a grand day.

When Islamic fundamentalists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Rick was there. Apparently songs don't work as well on civilians as they do with us soldiers, and so Rick had some difficulty in getting people's attention and calming them down while trying to get them to evacuate. To stop the panic and get them the hell out of there he had to do something. And so, he jumped up onto a desk and bellowed out to the flower of American capitalism and propriety that he would moon the whole lot of them unless they @%^$ listened.

Nobody I ever met said Rick could not make a statement. People stopped, that's for sure, and Rick proceeded to do his job, saving lives by moving people out of the tower. And that's what he was doing again on September 11, 2001. Various employees of Morgan Stanley report his presence across all 20 floors occupied by the company. Just as in combat, he was everywhere -- calm, jocular in the face of panic, reassuring in his personal presence. There is no way to exaggerate the number of human lives he saved that day. Not just the Morgan Stanley employees, but every single person on a floor above theirs owes a nod in his direction. Thanks to him, just about every one of the employees of his company made it out of the building, all 20 floors of them. Of all their thousands, all but seven got out. Think about that. One man saved at least 2,000, and probably 3,400 lives. His legend in the company helped (people remember when somebody on an executive salary threatens to moon the staff), and that, and his voice, was enough to keep those people moving, which allowed others to follow, to leave -- and to live.

My friend Rick Rescorla would no more have left that tower before every single person was outside than I would start standing on a piano and singing show tunes from Broadway. When he called his wife not long after the first plane hit the other tower, he told her not to worry, he was getting everyone out. Despite the fact that an announcement was made over the building speakers telling everyone to stay put after that first strike, Rescorla apparently said, "Bugger that!" and started the evacuation immediately. When it appeared that everyone was out ... Rick went back in, heading up those stairs with the rescue workers. That is where he was last seen by a survivor, somewhere around the tenth floor. He was heading up. He was inside, being himself, when the tower came down on him.

My hero, my friend, died that day. But heroes never really die. Rick will live on. So long as my pen has ink, and my voice bellows out to those manning the ramparts with me today, he will live on. Rick was a volunteer in a draftee army. In some ways that made it hard for him. It's easy today. Today we are all volunteers, and the young men and women I serve with will hear Rick's story because I will tell them, and they will remember. It is our professional strength: We remember.

Peace for the majority has always exacted a cost from a few. Rick knew that. He lived that. I suspect that he's waiting now, down in Fiddler's Green -- the mythical bar located "halfway down the trail to hell," where all cavalrymen pull off the road for a drink. (We never, thereby, ever make it all the way.) He is there and composing his next bawdy ballad and telling those men from his platoon whom he last saw in the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam, what they missed over the past 30-plus years. He'll be telling them lies, of course, but they will be huge magnificent glowing and poetic lies, and every one of them will have a punch line to bring tears to your eyes. Shoot, he's probably tending the bar by now.

"... So after you read this, get your canteen cup, / And fill it with mead, or scotch, or rotgut, / Then pour it right out, on the ground, on the floor, / For the heart of the Seventh, Rescorla's no more. " ~Bateman

Rick Rescorla, an American from Cornwall. Please remember.

You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com
permalink

Republican Lite?

A note to correspondent NYC LIBERAL, who often claims that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is, at best, Republican Lite, if not full blooded Republican. Lieberman, the long time Democrat and one time vice presidential and presidential candidate, lost a primary to anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont, and then ran and won as an Independent. Lieberman continued to caucus with the Democrats and helped to reserve their one vote majority in the Senate.

But that was not good enough for the left wing purists, who continue to scourge Lieberman,especially since he accompanied the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, during a recent mid-east trip.

To them, I present the results of a study performed by the esteemed Votemaster, who says:

To start with, it is all blue on top and all red on the bottom (with senators Sanders and Lieberman counting as honorary Democrats since they caucus with the Democrats). With three exceptions, all Republicans are less liberal than the most conservative Democrat, Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD). The three exceptions are the two ladies from Maine, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who are strongly pro-choice. If NARAL and abortion were not in the list, they would drop dramatically. The other Republican who floated to the top is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who, unlike John McCain, really is a maverick.

...

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is quite liberal, more so than the Barbaras (Boxer and Mikulski, both of whom are known as real firebrands). But Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is the most conservative Democrat, despite the demographics of the two states being pretty similar. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who is often referred to in the blogosphere as a crypto-Republican actually has a more liberal rating than the other senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, who ran for President as a liberal.(emphasis mine-TRM)

The full Votemaster report is the one dated April 9,here.

Lies, Damned Lies...Pt. 2

Some additional thoughts on yesterday's post.

What we really have to do is change this paradigm where we are controlled by the unknown. We have to develop a goal, a policy, and stick with it with the fullest political and national resolve. We have to impose our will, whatever that is, on the situation in Iraq. If our national will calls for withdrawal,so be it. If we, as a nation, decide that more aggressive actions are called for, then let's do it.

What is murderous is playing Hamlet on the Euphrates, unable to decide, and unable to take action. That is how we wind up with soldiers dying for no worthy cause.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

With Gen. Petreaus and Amb. Croker hauled before both Senate and House committees, as well as three presidential candidates, we have an opportunity to witness, in one fell swoop, a bunch of people displaying their total ignorance.

Everyone trots out their statistics to buttress his or her position: we are winning , we are losing, we have already lost. We leave tomorrow. We leave next year. We stay for one hundred years.

It seems to me that the truth is very simple but no one wants to say the dreadful words: "We really don't know a damned thing!"

we don't know if we are "winning", however you might define that . We don't know what the Shiites will do. We don't know what the Sunnis will do. We don't know what the Kurds will do. We don't know what the government will do. We don't know what Muqtadar al Sadr will do. We don't know what Syria will do. We don't know what Iran will do.

We don't even know what we will do!

That's a hell of a lot of ignorance on display! And that's why we have our hands wrapped around this tar baby without one solid idea of what to do next.

If anyone says they "know", run, because their sole intention is to pick your wallet, pluck out your teeth and settle in some nice villa somewhere!

Funny Thought

It looks as though things might be loosening up a bit in Cuba now that Fidel has turned over the reins to brother Raul. the younger Castro is allowing Cubans to buy cell phones and other consumer electronics (how do they have the money to do that?) and to stay in hotels previously restricted to foreign tourists.

So imagine what happens when they start to import new cars. All these years that have performed feats of magic keeping their beloved old Detroit Iron, such as Desotos and Studebakers, on the road. Now they will want to replace those old classics and they will find that modern American cars are crap.

Hilarious!

Lawyer Joke

Adobe tried to sneak this language through on the free Photoshop Express application they just made available to the public. Someone actually read the license agreement and found this example of the lawyerly art:

Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.



Adobe said, "Uh, never mind!", and is re-writing these doozy of a license agreement

Stupid is as Stupid Does

I've been reading about the current mortgage meltdown and the subsequent crisis in the world of credit and I am sorely vexed.

If I get it right, unscrupulous lenders offered money to unqualified borrowers so they could buy homes that they couldn't otherwise afford. The lenders then acted like deli countermen and sliced up the mortgage packages into little tiny bits of debt that were purchased by investors hoping to make a big gain when the mortgages reset.

It was a party where everyone was drinking the easy credit Kool Aid.

So now the borrowers who couldn't afford it can't, and the lenders who shouldn't have lent are broke, and the investors are holding worthless paper. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?!

So all the big boys on Wall Street with the slicked-back hair, high priced apartments, and fancy whores are quivering in fear just like the people who are losing their houses. It's interesting to see those two groups huddled together holding out tin cups over at the Treasury

And now the federal government is going to throw a cash lifeline to all of them.

The argument for doing this is the credit markets are now so leery of handing out cash to borrowers that they are zipping their pockets. No lending means no business expansion. No business expansion means recession. And since this is an election year the Republicans can't allow that to happen, because how would Mr. McCain defend Republican government policies which cause people get tossed out of their homes? People on the street makes for good television for the Democrats. Then again, if the administration did nothing, the Democrats would point to all of those poor people on the street and say, "Look at what those heartless Republicans did to you!"

The truth is that the markets have to be stabilized, despite all the right-wing Republican bovine by-product you hear at all other times about getting rid of government intervention. The right-wingers want their investment dollars protected and it's your money they want to accomplish that goal.

Meanwhile, the people who, driven by their own greed and stupidity, borrowed more than they could ever afford, because they thought they would be able to make their fortune from their houses, will be bailed out too.

And so the money for this financial boondoggle will come from the pockets of all the hardworking Joes and Janes who saw through the scams and who didn't get caught up in the cycle of greed and stupidity.

Does this make you feel better?

Perhaps the only good that might come out of this debacle is the imposition of the same regulation and oversight on these investment houses as currently exists for banks. If they want to take government money, they have to accept the regulations that go with it.

Kevin Writes...

This should be the most important argument Clinton can present to superdelegates. She has won primary states that can yield more electoral votes come November.

Also, part of McCain's appeal is his honesty and willingness to, well, be trusted. On the war, McCain's gotten it right. You can't hold him any more accountable for the start of the war than Hillary Clinton: both voted for it, and both voted for the bills that upheld the war. The only difference is that McCain stuck to his votes, and even differed with the President when he thought it necessary. Recently, things have turned around in Iraq, largely due to the troop surge which McCain was calling for long before anyone else.

March 24, 2008 10:28 PM

Poll Watching

I previously reported on poll results,especially the latest ones that showed a statistical tie in either an Obama-McCain contest or a Clinton-McCain battle. Those polls always showed population preferences.

Leave it to the Votemaster to take all the data and wring out the most interesting insights.

In today's (3/24)posting, he looks at the individual state results in the possible presidential match-ups to see who might win the most electoral, rather than popular, votes, and he comes to an intriguing conclusion.

In an Obama-McCain election, the winner is McCain! And by a comfortable margin, with the vote at 292-231.

On the other hand, a Clinton versus McCain match-up has the Democrat winning 268-246.

So how do we resolve the difference between the popular vote polls which show statistical ties, with this analysis of the electoral vote based on individual state polls? We don't! It's still far too early to draw any conclusions about the mood and focus of the electorate. Frankly, I was quite surprised by the voter polls that showed McCain in a statistical tie with either Democratic candidate. When you consider the war, the economy and the general disapproval, if not disgust, for the Republican president George Bush, for McCain to show as much strength as he has must be rather cheery news for him and his team.

Remember,in politics a week is an eternity, and things will change.

Bahgdad Tears

From MSNBC:

NOT GIVING UP HOPE IN IRAQ

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:47 PM
Filed Under: Baghdad, Iraq

By Rose Rasheed, an Iraqi translator for NBC News

BAGHDAD, Iraq - I remember vividly the moment when the bombing started five years ago. The sound of the air raids and the sirens still echo inside me.

Within minutes of the first siren, columns of smoke climbed the sky and thunderous explosions could be heard everywhere. It brought mixed feelings for many Iraqis; feelings of delight and anxiety, which were overwhelming to me and my family.

On the one hand, there was a strong sense of hope and expectation that this war would lead us to a better future and away from a life that had witnessed many wars and much destruction. On the other hand, there was anxiety that it could all end in disappointment.

On April 9, 2003, our neighbor came running to our house like an excited child, saying that U.S. forces were on the main road of our neighborhood. We did not believe her.

Then we saw them. Some were on the top of a house; others positioned on the ground. A big convoy of tanks and armored vehicles followed shortly. My mother, sister, the neighbor and I went running toward them.

My sister said "hi" to a soldier who looked like the actor Tom Selleck. The convoy spread over the whole neighborhood, as Iraqis greeted soldiers with cheers and big smiles and simple words like "welcome mister" or "hello." Everyone, I mean everyone, was welcoming the troops.

Now, five years later, we can only find but a few optimistic Iraqis in comparison to the many we saw back then. Pessimism has rapidly grown and overwhelmingly dominates the mentality of most Iraqis.

Hopes of a brighter future are dashed by the bad security situation and the difficult living conditions. One now sees people attack the same forces they had once welcomed, even going so far as to attack those who work or cooperate with the troops.

The same place, the same forces, and the same people, yet so much has changed.

Despite the negative turn in Iraq, I hope to celebrate the next anniversary, the sixth, in a prosperous Iraq with wide smiles drawn deep from the heart and reflected on Iraqi faces. I have not given up.

Ach du Lieberman!

I swear that I have not partaken in illegal herb but I think John McCain can really make a powerful move for the support of the political center and center right by picking Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) as his running mate.

Lieberman, Al Gore's vice-presidential running mate, basically broke with the political powers of the Democratic Party when they supported newcomer Ned Lamont in an primary run-off. That pissed off the career Democrat and he declared himself an Independent but he continued to caucus with the Democrats. With a one vote majority in the Senate as long as Lieberman was with them , the Connecticut Senator had the best of all possible political worlds. He continued to proclaim his independence, while the Democrats allowed him to do as he wished in order to maintain their majority.

The November election could see a major shift in the Senate with the Democrats in line to pick up from six to eight seats. While not giving them a filibuster proof majority, they surely would no longer need Lieberman on their side. It makes sense for McCain to ask Lieberman to join him on the Republican ticket and for Lieberman to accept. Two so-called maverick centrist Senators--one a full-fledged Republican despised by the right wing of his party, and one a former Democrat despised by the left wing of his party-- together on a ticket that is both geographically, politically and ethnically balanced could be a win-win for for both Senators. (I wonder if anyone has every run for vice president with two competing political parties?)

Silence From the Left

Why am I not surprised that the left has been silent concerning China's brutal repression of Tibet? I suppose it's because they can't demonstrate against America.

No Stare Decisis ? No Second Amendment?

Stare Decisis:

[Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''

The Washington Post takes a look ahead at the always controversial Second Amendment and its upcoming date with the Supremes, here.

Calculus in Israel

The always interesting Reut Institute in Israel considers some of the political and military options currently possible. None of them are really good, but the issue is, what is possible? For the full article, go here.

Here is a taste:

Essence of Warning

During negotiations with the Palestinians in 1999-2001, Israel presented a number of security demands that included, among other things, the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, control and use of its air space, supervision of its external envelope and early warning stations.

These demands were based on a number of Israeli assumptions at the core of which was the belief that the goal of the Palestinian national movement was to establish an independent Palestinian state. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, the Palestinians would be willing to give up certain attributes of sovereignty.

In recent years however, the relevancy of these Israeli assumptions has been eroded. Palestinians from across the political spectrum are undermining the logic of establishing a Palestinian state. Some of those who oppose a state alongside Israel do so for strategic and ideological reasons. Others meanwhile oppose it for tactical reasons such as the realization that Israel's need to end its control over the Palestinians will force it to compromise on its demands. Either way, Palestinian willingness to compromise its sovereign authority is decreasing.

Under such circumstances, the challenge to the State of Israel and its negotiation team is to balance between the need to end Israel's control over the Palestinian population in the West Bank and the importance of security arrangements. Therefore the basic dilemma for Israel is deciding between:

* Military Logic that requires undermining Palestinian sovereignty and maintaining a significant Israeli presence in the West Bank. This logic accepts the risk of not achieving an agreement thus leaving Israel exposed to a strategy aimed at causing its internal collapse due to its control over the Palestinian population.

* Political Logic that requires the end of Israeli control over the Palestinian population even at the price of a significant reduction of its military presence in Palestinian territory and approximation of Kassam rockets towards the country's center. This logic requires Israel to identify and concentrate on the minimum security demands necessary for agreement.

Policy Options

Establishing a national security doctrine within Israel's borders - Israel should prepare for the possibility that it will be forced to withdraw from the West Bank without realizing all of its security demands (and possibly none at all). Therefore, Israel should formulate an all-inclusive national security doctrine towards the Palestinians based on deterrence and operating military forces within Israel's territory rather than on arrangements around the external perimeter of Palestine.

Distinguishing the wheat from the chaff - Not all of Israel's security demands have the same importance. For example, demands to control Palestine's airspace seem more essential than demands for areas for military preparation. Therefore, Israel should prioritize its demands and concentrate on the most important ones.

Reframing the negotiations: security demands for Palestinian demands to 'intrude' into Israel's sovereign space - Israel can 'leverage' Palestinian claims to intrude into its sovereign space (safe passage, desalinization plants, use of sea and air-ports and others) as a 'bargaining chip' to achieve Palestinian concessions regarding security issues.1

As an example, creating a connection between establishing a safe passage in Israeli territory between Gaza and the West Bank and Israeli use of Palestinian air space could help ensure this Israeli demand.

Exchange of territories with Egypt as a condition for demilitarization arrangements - The reality in Rafah of two cities connecting to one another underneath the Gaza-Egypt border completely prevents enforcing demilitarization arrangements in Gaza. Therefore, if Israel decides to maintain its current position on demilitarization, it should consider an exchange of territories in the Gaza region so the Gaza-Sinai border will pass to the west of Rafah. In exchange, Israel can give Egypt territory from the Negev that could be considered a deposit for a later exchange of territories in the West Bank.

Click here for full document.

Poll Watching

SurveyUSA has Obama leading Hillary 49% to 41% in North Carolina. Im a little surprised that the margin is only 8% (n=713 likely voters, moe=3.7%). As SUSA reports

In a Democratic Primary in North Carolina today, 03/11/08, eight weeks to the vote, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 49% to 41%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WTVD-TV Raleigh. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released one month ago, before Obama won Virginia, Maryland, and Wisconsin, and before Clinton won Texas and Ohio, the contest in NC is largely unchanged. Then, Obama led by 10, now by 8. In Charlotte, Obama led by 2 points a month ago, by 7 points today. In Southern and Eastern NC, Obama led by 4 points a month ago, by 8 points today. Only in Raleigh and Greensboro did Clinton slice into Obama, trimming his lead from 16 points a month ago to 8 points today. Among women, Obama and Clinton are effectively even, as they were last month. Among men, Obama leads by 13. Clinton leads 5:3 among whites. Obama leads 5:1 among blacks. Obama leads among voters under age 50. The two are tied among voters age 50+.

Pennsylvania shows Hillary ahead 55% to Obama's 36% (n=608 likely voters, moe=4%). The problem with those numbers is that Hillary's support seems to erode the closer voters get to the actual vote. And since the Dems allocate their delegates proportionally, Hillary has to score big in order to eke out any advantage. All Obama has to do is hold his own and the delegate lead he has will be insurmountable.

In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 03/11/08, six weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 55% to 36%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Wilkes-Barre. Obama and Clinton are effectively tied in Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia, but Clinton leads everywhere else. She is up 2:1 in SW PA, which includes Pittsburgh; is up 5:4 in South Central PA, which includes Harrisburg; is up 4:1 in West Central PA, which includes Johnstown; is up 5:3 in NE PA, which includes Wilkes-Barre; and is up 4:1 in NW PA, which includes Erie. Clinton leads 2:1 among whites; Obama leads 3:1 among blacks. Clinton leads by 5 among men, by 30 among women. She leads by 12 among those under age 50, leads by 26 among those age 50+. On the Economy, which is most important to Democratic voters in PA, Clinton leads by 24 points. On Health Care, next most important, Clinton leads by 32 points. Among voters focused on Iraq, the two are effectively tied.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman gets some local Penn color (coaldust?), here.

Happy Birthday!!!

A Birthday Shout-Out to .. JAMES MADISON.. Fourth president of the United States of America and father of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights! (he was a busy man!)

Thanks Loads, Jimmie! Ya done well, lad!

Read more here.

Square Bricks

Square Bricks. Yep, that's what the Clintonistas are creating from the depths of their panic. The is no other way to explain the fact that they are suing the Texas Democratic Party (!) over the outcome of the primary/caucus system that took place in that state. The Dallas Morning news has that story here.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

The Clinton campaign wrote they received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic Texas turnout, which was perhaps the nation's largest caucus ever.

With about 41 percent of precinct caucuses reported, rival Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent.

"It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed," the letter states.

The letter came after the Clinton campaign said party officials told them this week it would not verify the eligibility of all caucus-goers before March 29. The county and district caucuses will whittle down the delegates before the state convention in June, when the final delegate count for the Texas caucus will be known.

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said Saturday the party has not yet had the opportunity to make any decisions on the Clinton campaign's request.

"We're not surprised Senator Clinton's campaign has engaged with their attorney, but right now the TDP remains extremely pleased by the record-breaking turnout," Nieto said.

Nieto said state party officials had not received a similar request from Obama's campaign. A message left to the Obama campaign Saturday was not immediately returned.

Suing your own party is something that outsiders and losers do. It's a Ralph Nader type of move. And the former First Lady and two-term senator ain't an outsider. "Somethings in the Air Tonight" and it's called "Panic!"

By the way, a close reading of the Constitution of United States reveals that there is no position called "First Lady", so any claim that Hillary makes regarding the wealth of experience she gained in that position should be considered with a long tonne of salt. That's sort of like me claiming I know how to practice law because my wife is an attorney. And the only bar I'd like to stand behind makes a mean Beefeater martini.

Adios Admiral Fallon

So the administration has canned the head of Central Command,Adm. William Fallon, for speaking out against an invasion of Iran. Or at least saying that it ain't gonna happen.

Required reading in Esquire, here.

When your boss stops taking your phone calls, you know it is the time to pack up your office.

But I have to think this one through.

Is this administration suicidal enough to start a war in an election year? I fear the answer might be "Yes".

What proof would the administration present as a casus belli? Let's just say that Bush's credibility on issues like this is nil. I remember a story concerning the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy was talking to DeGaulle and offered to show DeGaulle the reconnaissance photos. DeGaulle supposedly refused the offer and said there is no need for him to doubt the word of the American president. Bush would be ross-examined by world leaders, and found guilty of lying, irrespective of any evidence he might provide.

Where would we get the troops?

We would find ourselves in engaged in ground combat against Muslims in a geographic area ranging from the Fertile Crescent of Iraq to Pakistan.We would radicalize even more Muslims, and we would unite Sunni and Shiites against us, well, even more than they are now.

We would unite the Iranian people against us. I know it sounds funny, but Iranians seem to be displeased with their government because of two issues: the internal economy is collapsing, and they believe their image as a sophisticated people is suffering badly.You have to ask yourself, How committed is Iran to an Islamic Revolution when the women are all concerned about getting nose jobs, and here and here? In how many totalitarian governments do you find only 50% of the electorate going to the polls? "Something is happening there, and what it is ain't exactly clear". I would say that the best course of action would be to pressure that government through diplomatic and economic sanctions, but for those to be effective both Russia and China would have to be on board,and it seems that they are interested in two things: Iran's oil, and keeping the United States boxed in and isolated.

So far, with the cooperation of the Bush administration, they are achieving their goals.

Random Thoughts

I never see the American left demonstrate against Chinese suppression of human rights.

I never see the American left demonstrate against Chinese capture and oppression of Tibet and Tibetans.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the oppressive Myanmar (Burmese) government.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the atrocities of Darfur.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the resurgence of Russian imperialism.

I guess these issues are all beneath them.

maybe they are just too busy working.

The American right..ah, those guys.

They love talking about freedom, but are always eager to impose their ideas on everyone else.

Who gave them the right to get involved in the Terry Schiavo tragedy? This was a family matter.

Who gave them the right to prevent gays from living their lives in peace and quiet.

Who gave them the right to dumb down the education of American kids?

Who gave them the right to lie us into an unnecessary war?

A pox on both their houses!

Messy Dems

Another good one from the Votemaster , who asks:

what would have happened if the Democrats had used a statewide winner-take-all rule. In other words, suppose the statewide winner got all the delegates. Where would be be now? Here is the answer.

In other words, what is the Dems had used Republican rules. Well, for the answer, please go to the Votemaster's March 11th page, here. (This link will take you to the most recent Votemaster page. Please use his "Previous Report" link on the top right to work back to the March 11 report)

But the short answer is that the mess the Dems find themselves in would not exist.

For those of you who are looking for yesterday's great Votemaster page on competence versus experience, look under the section on his page that says "Data Galore" (yes, she was in a James Bond movie).

For Hire:

Excellent piece from the Votemaster today, March 10.

How good Are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?

David Levine and the Votemaster perform an interesting analysis of experience versus excellence in our presidents. Guess what? It's really a great big crap-shoot.

Take a look at this fun analysis.

P.S. In the above example Votemaster was not talking about Hillary and Barack. Read the article to see exactly who he was referring to.

On the Balz

The Washington Post's Dan Balz has this assessment of the Dems "Superdelegates" quandary.

Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall.

"You're going to see a lot of delegates remaining uncommitted," said Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.), who has not endorsed either candidate. "There's a sense that this is going to Denver not resolved."

Not resolved? What an odd locution. What he really means to say is this, "Voters, please make up your minds so we don't have a bloodbath in Denver. If we Superdelegates have to decide this nomination we are put in the position of either pissing off blacks, if we choose Hillary, or pissing off women if we choose Barack. HELP!!!!"

NYC LIB adds this...

From Huffington Post (remember when Arianna was a conservative?)

Gary Hart: Breaking the Final Rule


It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned. By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power ... Read the rest atHuffingtonPost.com

© 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC

Illinois Central

I would like to share this analysis from the always interesting Votemaster concerning former Speaker Dennis Hastert's Illinois congressional seat.

The big news today is about a man from Illinois. No not THAT man, although he won the Wyoming caucuses easily. Bill Foster (D), a nuclear particle physicist who had never run for public office before defeated Jim Oberweis (R) for the seat of retiring congressman and former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert in IL-14, which has a PVI of R+5 and has sent a Republican to Congress for 11 straight terms. Hastert got 60% of the vote in this suburban Chicago district in 2006 and Bush got 55% in 2004. Foster got 53% of the vote yesterday to Oberweis' 47%. Foster will take office Monday but the two will face off in the general election in November. If Obama is on the national ticket, Oberweis will have virtually no chance. As a sitting congressman, Foster becomes a superdelegate and gets to vote at the DNC. He hasn't announced his choice yet, but the smart money is betting he will support Obama. Even a 1-day politician understands that when a guy helps you get elected, you owe him one.

This is a huge defeat for the GOP in a very high profile race that both parties poured over 1 million dollars into and is a very bad omen for the Republicans in the Fall. If they can't even hold a seat they have held for 20+ years in a strongly Republican district against a newbie who knows nothing about politics, what's going to happen in swing districts with stronger candidates? How are they going to beat the large class of Democratic freshmen under these conditions? To make it worse, many people will see this as a proxy for an Obama-McCain race as the Illinois senator made a TV ad for Foster and Sen. McCain campaigned for Oberweis. At www.intrade.com the bettors think there is only an 8% chance the Republicans will take back the House.

Monster Mash

NYC LIB weighs in with this You Tube video on the Hillary "monster" kerfuffle.

More Grins, and some Giggles

SurveyUSA performed an interesting poll. Using robopollers, they called 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states to see how both Clinton and Obama would fare head to head with McCain in a battle for Electoral College votes, which, as we know from the 2000 election, really determines who will be president.

Both Dems beat McCain!

Here Clinton beats McCain in a fairly close race, 276 versus 262.

The result of an Obama-McCain match-up is really surprising, with Obama cleaning McCain's clock with pretty much a landslide victory, 280-258. Check out the result here.(I urge you to read the caveats and methods section on the SurveyUSA site to understand that this is merely a fun excercise.) Obama's theoretical victory is more wide-ranging geographically than Hillary's, with Obama capturing previous Republican strongholds. Take a look at the excellent Votemaster web site for more discussion.

Just for Grins

A SurveyUSA poll takes on the idea raised by Hillary that she might have Barack as her running mate. The poll looked at both possibilities: Hillary as the presidential candidate with Barack as VP, and then with Barack as pres. with Hillary as VP. The poll here, shows that the voters preferred Hillary in the top slot 48% to 36%. I wonder if this means the voters are coming to prefer Hillary and that Barack's run is over?

If Hillary's win in Ohio can be taken as an augury of the upcoming Pennsylvania shin-dig, then neither candidate will have enough delegates to score a clean win early and before the convention.This is bad news for the Democrats, as it forces their candidates to raise and spend inordinate amounts of cash to battle each other, provide grist for the Republicans as the Democrats are forced to sharpen their attacks against each other, and it presents the public with an image of the Democrats in disarray (so what else is new?). In the meantime, the 71 year old John McCain has the opportunity to stay off the campaign trail and rest, with his heaviest burden being to lift the telephone and ask (beg?)for money.

All in all, the Democrats have a great opportunity to blow this election.

Anonymous Writes....

More "forking" it over to the Republicans by Hillary Rodham Clinton (from Chicago Tribune) ;

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
(now the kicker......)
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

March 6, 2008 9:11 PM

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

Dear Anon,

I think there are two major issues that will decide this election: national security, which is the Republican way of saying "war" without saying "Iraq": and the economy.

The bottom line will be simple. If the Democrats can hammer on the economy, and if the economy is in the tank, the the Dems win. If something happens to bring national security to the fore, then the Republicans win. Easch party owns their respective issue.

As we get closer to the November election watch how these two issues mutate and take on various forms, but make no mistake, war and the economy will decide this election.

Best,
TRM

Hillary to Dems- Fork You!

Hillary has played her ultimate card against Obama: national security and her claim of greater experience in that area. If she were playing chess, Hillary has just been "forked", that is, she has positioned herself and her opponent, Barack Obama, in a no-win position versus John McCain. Why? Hillary has just made national security the pre-eminent issue in her battle against Obama, claiming he is not competent to protect the nation's children when that red phone rings at 3 am.

Here is what Hillary has done. If Obama wins the nomination, all the Republicans have to do is roll out Hillary's attack against Obama. If Hillary becomes the nominee, she still finds herself in an environment where she has made national security the major issue and she has to defend herself against Mr. National Security himself, John McCain. In both situations, the Democratic nominee is at a distinct disadvantage.

Hillary has forked the Democratic party. Hillary has forked herself

Truth or Dare- A Debate Post Mortem

The Annenburg Institute always provides some hard edged analysis of the political scene. Here is what they have to say about last night's debate:



Cleveland Clinkers
February 27, 2008
Clinton and Obama hit sour notes in the Cleveland debate.
Summary
The Clinton-Obama showdown debate in Cleveland produced several false, twisted or dubious claims, most of which we’ve heard and debunked before.

* Both Obama and Clinton claimed their health care plans would cut costs more than the other’s, and that experts back them up on that. But experts we talked to said the plans are too similar to predict which would save more, and two experts said neither plan can save nearly as much as the candidates claim.

* Both Obama and Clinton twisted the other’s words about support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, again. In fact, the candidates have practically identical positions. They both said during the debate that they would threaten to withdraw from NAFTA unless Mexico and Canada agree to new and tougher terms.

* Clinton said Obama once "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan," a distortion of his statement that he'd unilaterally "take out" al Qaeda leadership there if Pakistan wouldn't act. And that's just what the U.S. did earlier this month, according to news reports quoting official sources.

* Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon."

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

Desktop users

Mobile users



This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Forward to a Friend

Cook's Tour

Charlie Cook also takes a look ahead to November. He is always an interesting read. Try it out here.

Tactical Practical

Ron Brownstein does some numbers crunching and comes to this conclusion regarding Hillary: instead of a new house, it looks like curtains. His look ahead at an Obama- McCain fight provides some interesting contrasts between the candidates.Read it here.

Debating Debates

I’ll leave it to the paid pundits to determine who won last night's debate between Hillary and Barack. This morning I ask myself this question: what constitutes ”winning”?

Are the candidates trying to hit each other over the head with facts so that some independent judge can render a final score, just like in high school?

Are the candidates simply trying to project an image of being “presidential”, of being calm, controlled, in command and unflustered in the face of an opponent’s attack?

Are the candidates trying to reach voters to sway them to come over to their side? If they are, how many people are watching? Why are they watching? Are they watching a debate to see if one candidate commits a fatal gaffe, like Gerald Ford claiming Poland was not behind the Iron Curtain? Is it a political version of NASCAR, just waiting for the inevitable blood?

Any thoughts?

Hillary's Hissy-Fit

Watching the debate. Hillary just went off on Brian Williams for seeming to always getting the first question. She sounded positively paranoid and fearful. She referenced last week's Saturday Night Live skit that had the media as positively ga-ga over Obama. I've got to admit that she sounds like chalk on a blackboard while Obama sounds so smooth. Reminds me of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, where people who listened to the debate over the radio thought Nixon had won , while television viewers said Kennedy won. In truth, television, as a medium of political communication, won that debate and forever changed American politics.

Michael Writes....

I am glad you have found your voice again. I have missed your
bloggings.

While I honestly believe McCain is the best candidate (given the
current choices), I do not believe a Republican can get elected.
While I believe, there is a large contingent in this country that are
not willing to vote for a black man or a woman of any hue, I do not
believe it is a large enough block of voters to overcome the backlash
that has built up over the last eight years. I think Nader's roll as
spoiler is overrated. He is even less of a political force (and a
bigger farce) than he was the last time. Any impact Ralph has will
be lost in the noise.

I almost believe it doesn't matter who the candidates are. I believe
the American people will vote against the party that currently holds
the Presidency. It will be for the following three reasons:

1) The ineffective management of the victory in Iraq (unable to
deliver on our promise of building a free and democratic country in
the middle east)
2) The current downturn in the economy and the debacle of sub-prime
mortgages
3) The Dems was robbed the last two times (I do not personally
subscribe to this last reason, but that is the great popular feeling
especially among blacks and latinos

Again, I am glad you are back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael,

Thanks for your most kind comments.

Unlike some other bloggers who are compelled to add something to their sites each time they sneeze, I don't want to write unless I have something to say. The political noise was overwhelming for a while and I just wanted to back off and sort things out. The lack of pressure is one of the great advantages of writing my own blog. I remember those days from many years ago when I had a deadline every half hour and take my word for it, this is a lot better; the pay may be lousy but I like management.

On politics, please note that I have very few problems with Sen. McCain. I think he has the potential to be what I call an "Eisenhower Republican", an old fashioned, pragmatic conservative who is not controlled by the right wing nuts of the Republican party. McCain has made some major blunders, such as being part of the Keating Five. For a guy who likes to proclaim his high ethical standards, this is fodder for the opposition.

His self-touted credentials as a political maverick don't really hold up. Let's look at one egregious example. In the North Carolina primary in 2004, McCain was subjected to one of the worst political smears which was conducted by the Bush men, a claim that McCain had fathered a black child when the fact was he adopted a sicklyBangladeshi orphan. Subsequently, after McCain dropped out of the race, he hugged Bush during a campaign appearance. Well,it was a lot more than a hug. It sort of reminded me of Sammy Davis Jr.'s Steppin Fetchit portrayal during his visit to Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.

If you consider my basic premise that most voters are more concerned about which candidate gives them the "warm fuzzies" versus an analysis of a candidates positions, then McCain is in trouble in a match-up with Obama. McCain is a crusty old coot and he will not look good or sound good on a stage next to Obama.

But a week is an eternity in politics and so much can happen. Will the war in Iraq blow up again? Will the Fed continue to prop up the economy to give a Republican candidate a fighting chance? Will any more photos surface of Barack Obama looking silly in native dress? (He reminded me of Michael Dukakis riding that tank.) Politicians can withstand almost any assault, but they can not afford to be laughed at.


Thanks again for your kind comments.

TRM

Leftist Paranoia

A friend told me today not to discount the theory that GE, through its subsidiary NBC, booked Ralph Nader on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday for nefarious reason. He claimed GE wanted to give Nader more publicity so that he could get publicity for his campaign, thereby eroding support for either Democratic candidate, thus ensuring a Republican victory in November.

Uhhh, interesting.

With Friends Like These....

Louis Farrakhan says Barack Obama is the next great black hope. I'm sure the Obama people will go to court to obtain an order of protection to make sure that Farrakhan comes no closer to Barack than a global hemisphere.

Then this story made me ill.Really just churned my stomach.

On the other hand, a NYTIMES/CBS poll shows Obama as most likely the candidate with the better chance to beat McCain. Men strongly back Obama. Women had been supporting Hillary, but that support seems to be eroding.

As I previously noted, I believe that a significant number of people polled might say that they could, or would, vote for either Obama or Hillary in a general election; I have to polling proof to support my gut feeling , but I do believe that many people, despite what they tell pollsters at this point, will not vote for either a black man or a white woman.So at this moment, I say that, barring anything unusual happening from now until the election, Obama doesn't have as much support as he might think.

Bang! Zoom! To the Moon, Alice! Not Now, Ralph!

Well, well, well. MSNBC reports Ralph Nader is going to announce another run for the presidency.I make this out to be very, very, very, bad news for the Democrats.

Prior to today's announcement, I saw a very close race between John McCain and either Democrat, Hillary or Barack, with McCain barely beating Hillary and a coin-flip against Barack. With Ralph in the race, he surely will take back his whack-pack of voters who would otherwise vote for the Democrat candidate. In a close race, the Democrat has fewer votes, and a greater chance of losing. This is what happened in 2000, when many people still blame Nader for siphoning off enough potential Gore voters to tilt the balance in favor of Bush. it might happen again. John McClain , your prayers have been answered!

I suggest that all dictionaries publish a photo of Nader right next to their definition of "megalomaniac".

Election Choices?

Let me get this straight. Our election choices will boil down to either:

a. one of the most polarizing and cynical political figures;

b. an empty suit who makes great speeches but who has a questionable political history;

c. a "maverick" who has been involved in political scandal.

And my friends thought I was crazy for voting for John Edwards even though he had dropped out of the race!

Sheesh!

FROM NYC LIB

Do you really think the Repubs hold onto all the states Bush won in 2004? Only Ohio needs to flip; let alone that FL, NM, CO, IA and MO are all in play. And, which state do you project falls from 2004 blue to red in 2008?

February 3, 2008 5:44 PM

TARGET: OBAMA

Nice that Barack Obama gets a free pass from all the media on the substantive elements of his proposals. The only one I've seen to call him out on his health care idea is Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.

Today's Times has a little exploration on a legislative item for which Barack takes some major league credit. It turns out that the self-congratulations are unearned.

Too bad Edwards pulled the plug on his campaign before getting a chance on super duper whoop de doo Tuesday. I suspect that his campaign coffers were drained to the point where he would have been unable to mount any significant advertising effort.

The poor liberals are confused. My friend, NY LIB, doesn't know whom to vote for (just for the record, he voted for Nader in '00, because he claimed Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", both were big time pols in the pockets of big business. With his vote, and others who thought like him, he ensured the election of "Tweedledumbest"!). So NY LIB believes Obama lies too much and isn't progressive enough, and Hillary is "Republican Lite" (Hey, the left really loves that term. If you are not in total agreement with their "progressive" agenda- another term I absolutely loathe- or if you are capable of compromising, then you are "Republican Lite". don't deal with the issue, just denounce those who disagree as being in the enemy camp. Great Stalinist tactic!


What's a liberal to do? (Uh oh! Ralph is considering running again! HELP!)

LOOKING FORWARD

The Democratic Party is about to take an historic step by nominating either a woman or a black man as it presidential candidate. The times they are a'changin'.. but watch out, cause they may not be a'changin' that much.

I have a very liberal friend who believes that this election will be a slam-dunk for the Democrats and, like most extremists of either party, he refuses to listen to any counter-argument.

I've taken a look at the possibilities and the strongest candidate the Republicans have is John McCain. Let's examine why.

The president is chosen by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. That being said, the Democratic candidate has to win significantly more votes in delegate rich states that went for George Bush in 2004, and Florida and Ohio are the prime targets. The Democratic candidate will have to pull at least all the votes that John Kerry did, and since I don't believe the Messiah has yet come, a certain number of those voters will not vote for either a woman or a black man, despite what they might tell pollsters. So I see a certain slippage there. Further, I don't believe that anyone stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004 will suddenly become enlightened enough to vote for either Obama or Hillary.

Hillary is a polarizing figure. She will not show a net gain in the women's vote (if such a thing exists) because while some love her, an equal number despise her. Other people do not want to see a reprise of the emotional melodrama that was the first Clinton administration.

Obama will gain many voters for his historic position, but likewise he will lose some Kerry votes simply because he is black. And don't think the Republicans will let the electorate forget that his middle name is Hussein, thereby stirring up anti-Muslim fears.

On the other hand, if McCain becomes the Republican candidate, many possibilities open for him. It really is mind-boggling. The right hates McCain. The left hates McCain. That means that a lot of people who really matter in a general election, the centrists of both parties, have someone to vote for. Did you see where Ann Coulter says she will vote for HIllary rather than McCain because Hilllary is more conservative than McCain is? How about the article in yesterday's New York Times that indicated many right wingers were forcing themselves to re-examine their opposition to McCain because he will be the only one they might be able to vote for.

McCain will be a formidable candidate. He has many characteristics that appeal to a lot of voters: naval aviator, war hero, two term congressman, three term senator. He has credentials as an old line Republican but he also has a history of pragmatism. He worked with liberal Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He wanted a more liberal immigration policy. He believes that global warming must be combated. He is against torture of prisoners suspected of terrorism while he believes the war must be prosecuted fully. He is an old fashioned tax cutter.

Against this the Democrats will have a one-term senator whose main claim to fame is his race and his opposition to the Iraq war and the Hillary show.

Dems, you will have a battle on your hands.

TAKING STOCK

It's been a while since my last post, so let's take a look back and see how well I did as a prognosticator.

I predicted Al Gore would not run for election, despite so many Democrats proclaiming him the savior of the party. He didn't. Chalk one up for me.

I predicted that John McCain's candidacy was dead in the water. My bad!

I predicted that the voters would reject Rudy Giuliani once they got to know him. That's another one for me.

So I figure I'm batting .666. Thats a Hall of Fame batting average if ever there was one.

POLITICAL FUN

Channel 5 Fox News in New York has posted the political equivalent of Match.com here

This 20 question survey leads you through a few hot button issues and purports to pick out the presidential candidate who most closely matches your views.

All I'll say is that it matched my views most closely with with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, followed by Hillary and John Edwards.

Have Fun!

By The Way....

One of the great things about being a blogger is that I can write whenever I want, and whatever I want. I have no bosses. I have no advertiser that I need to placate. Best of all, I have no deadlines! Once upon a time, I had a deadline every half hour. Not fun.

I haven't written for a while because... I had nothing new I wanted to say and my old posts still held up.

But time marches and the interminable political season meander on, and we find the candidates playing their version of "Gotcha", a game more appropriate to a junior high school class election. On the other hand, who is really listening to what they have to say? The election really is a case of impressions.

So let's go to the polls!

Hillary is in the process of manufacturing square bricks. The impression she wanted the primary electorate to have, that her campaign is a fore-ordained reality, an unstoppable juggernaut, "La Machine", has dissolved as Obama and Edwards are all in a statistical tie in Iowa. In light of the polls results, Hillary has "elevated them guns a little lower" and declared that she doesn't expect a blow out in order to make the best of the fact that she is not going to blast the opposition. It's called making lemonade from lemons. But no politician wants to be in a real race and you had better believe that her campaign cultivated the juggernaut image in order to drive out opposition and thereby preserve resources for a general election. However, reality has caught up with her carefully crafted image and people realize that she is as real as a three dollar bill.

My friend, the Votemaster lines up almost all the latest polls and together with this site we can see the trends. Whether you look at the last three polls, or whether you follow one pollster over time, Hillary is in a statistical dead heat, with roughly 25% of those polled in her corner. Obama and Edwards are drawing the same approximate level of support. On the other hand, I propose that you look at the poll results this way: Only 25% of those polled like Hillary, and 75% of those surveyed prefer someone else!

Next up in the primary schedule is New Hampshire, where some polls are showing Obama with as much as 31% of the primary vote. On the other hand, some polls show Hillary with the same level of support. Regardless, what once was a solid base for Hillary in New Hampshire has now turned very soft indeed. Edwards trails badly there.

In South Carolina, Hillary and Obama are neck-and-neck at around 40% according to one poll. Then again, another recent poll by CNN has Hillary ahead 42% to 34% over Obama.

It is clear that Hillary is vulnerable in Iowa, and the winner there will have tremendous momentum, especially in the form of media coverage, going into the New Hampshire primary. After all, everyone wants to back a winner and jump onto a bandwagon.

The big question is John Edwards. Edwards has spent years in Iowa building up an organization and making local contacts. If he fails to win there his candidacy is dead. If he manages a win, can he he seen as he person who can unite that 75% of the party who do not want Hillary? Well, the Obama candidacy is so unusual,and, yes, race matters, that the Illinois senator's supporters may very well be locked in. But there may be around 15%-20% of primary voters who will give up their backing of second tier candidates such as Richardson, Biden and Dodd (Kucinich voters are so left wing that they wont budge), and find in Edwards the person to eventually defeat both Hillary and Obama, and then go on to win a general election. I'm guessing that that is the hope of the Edwards campaign.

The Republicans pose an entirely different set of problems and more about them later. But before everyone gets too excited about Huckabee, let me leave you with this theological question: Are we about to see the Resurrection of John McCain?

Horserace Update

Here is the latest and greatest from the CBS News/NYTIMES POLL. seems things might not be so smooth in Iowa for Hillary. Check the link from this site.which lead you here.

Bottom line: This poll indicates that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are in a statistical dead heat in Iowa.

Remember , national polls mean nothing at this point.

FEARLESS PREDICTION

The next President of the United States will be...........a man.

I'm not saying who it will be, and I'm not even saying whether it will be a Democrat or a Republican. What I am saying is that there is still a chance that Hillary will NOT be the Democratic Party nominee. Her howling about "the boys piling on" during the last debate shows that she is not capable of dealing with situations where she is not totally in control and in favorable conditions. I'd love to hear her complain about the Russians or Chinese "piling on" if she were President. Maybe she would get all weepy over Osama bin Ladin "piling on". Add her current performance, her lack of vision and ideas, and her projection of total phoniness to the strong negative reactions that she has always engendered across this country and you get the basis for my prediction. If she is the Democratic nominee, the Republican candidate will win.

Hillary is a loser.

Gore.. What is it Good For?

Well, Al Gore is waiting to a. get his Nobel Peace Prize and then, b. become the anointed saviour of the Democratic Party. If you saw the NYTIMES today you read about the growing movement to draft Gore to be the Dems' candidate. People really fear a Hillary candidacy. Her polling negatives are so high and people just don't like her. They prefer not to hold their noses when they vote in the primaries.

Hey, let's play a game... can you define your favorite candidates positions on three key issues? Try education, free trade, and health care. Bet you can't. While you scramble to their web sites to find out, chew on these recent poll numbers from Iowa:

Democratic Polls

Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted by Selzer & Company
10/2/2007
N=399
Hillary Clinton 29%
John Edwards 23%
Barack Obama 22%
Bill Richardson 8%
Joe Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 11%

Hillary has a 6 point lead over Obama. With a sample size of 399, the margin of error is about 5%.. see

Survey
Sample Margin
Size of Error

2,000 2

1,500 3

1,000 3

900 3

800 3

700 4

600 4

500 4

400 5

300 6

200 7

100 10

50 14

*Assumes
a 95% level
of confidence

Basically , there is a statistical dead heat between Hillary , Edwards and Obama in this poll of October 2, which was conducted by the Des Moines Register. This is not something Hillary's people want you to know. They prefer you to think her candidacy is an unstoppable juggernaut. It isn't. At this point a "surprise" is possible, but it won't be a surprise to the readers of this space.

VEEP?

I was discussing possible vice presidential candidates with a colleague. He thought Ricahrdson would be a good vie presidential candidate. Great balance for Hillary- male, Hispanic, Southwestern, governor,experienced. I said that Richardson will not take the number 2 position on a Hillary-headed ticket. I further predicted that neither Obama nor Edwards would accept the number 2 slot under Hillary. He thought I was nuts. We shall see, but you read it here first.

And now, a brief message from our sponsors.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

I haven't posted to this blog for a while. Why? because nothing interesting has been happening, but let's take a brief overview of the cabbages among us and see if pigs fly.

In government, the Bush administration continues its Bataan Death March towards its ultimate end. So sad to see the village idiot vetoing the S-CHIP legislation by saying it will give this country socialized medicine, while just a few years ago idiot crowed about his prescription drug plan. No action by the Democrats about Dweeb of the week Alberto Gonzales. No action about the war. No action on anything. All they do is try to score political points off each other like candidates for a junior high school class presidency (maybe the sophomore class).

In politics, both parties exude unlimited boredom. The pundits have already anointed Queen Hillary. They may be in for a shock. The punditocracy is looking at two elements, the results of national polls and amount of money collected by the candidates. By these measures, Hillary is doing superbly as she garners impressive poll numbers and an even more impressive amount of benjamins. However, the nominating process is not a one-day national event. Instead, it consists of a series of hurdles that the candidates must conquer, with the Iowa caucuses being the first, followed by the New Hampshire primary.

As for Iowa, it looks as though the pundits may be calling the race a bit too early as David Yepsen of the DesMoines Register reports that Barack Obama still has a lot of pull as he plays his "Kennedy Kard".

:: Tue 10.2.2007 6:11 PM

Barack Obama cloaked himself in John Kennedy’s legacy Tuesday as he sought to retake the initiative in the Democratic presidential campaign.

Invoking Kennedy imagery is a delicate thing for any politician to do but Obama succeeded in pulling it off.

The Illinois senator used the fifth anniversary of an anti-war speech he gave in Chicago to draw contrasts with his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton. He brought former Kennedy speech writer and aide Ted Sorensen to Iowa to introduce him for the speech in Des Moines and again in Coralville.

Sorensen invoked parallels with the Cuban missile crisis decisions made by the young President Kennedy.

Obama is playing the Kennedy card because national polls show him trailing Clinton in the national contest. National observers are saying Obama’s not gaining traction and that Clinton is starting to lock up the nomination.

That’s not the shape of the race in Iowa, where polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards locked in a statistical tie for first place among likely Democratic caucus-goers. Obama’s spent more time than Clinton in the lead-off state, has plenty of money to deploy here and has built a formidable organization to go up against his two rivals.

Two hurdles confront Obama in Iowa. The first is the criticism he isn’t strong enough in his opposition to the war. The second is that he’s inexperienced. He used Tuesday’s speech to counter both and tweak Clinton and Edwards.

“The war in Iraq should never have been fought,” he said adding the American people were failed by a Congress “that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let’s be clear: Without that vote, there would be no war.”

Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama said “and now we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and not expect him to cash it?”

In other digs at the two, Obama said:

*Americans “should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?”

*Also, “the American people get to decide: are we going to turn back the clock, or turn the page.”

*And “the first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning.”

*Also, “we’ll reject torture, without exception or equivocation.”

*And “I wouldn’t be here, if time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation.”

That “torch” phrase was made famous by Kennedy. Sorensen, who wrote many of the late president’s speeches, told the Des Moines audience Kennedy was also criticized for lacking experience when he ran in 1960.

“What the country wants in a president is judgment,” Sorensen said.

He called Obama “the only serious candidate for the Democratic nomination” who opposed the war from the start. Like Kennedy, Obama has spent years of his life living abroad and so understands the importance of world opinion to U.S. policy objectives.

But not all of Obama’s speech was aimed at Clinton and Edwards. Bill Richardson is crowding him by appealing to anti-war activists with a promise to get all the troops out of Iraq.

Obama said clearly Tuesday he would “get all our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months” of taking office. The only ones left will be those guarding diplomats or “carrying out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda.”

That may not appease the most rabid anti-war activists who like Richardson for his get-everybody-out stance, but at least it clears up an questions the left may have about what Obama intends to do with the combat forces.

For those who might have missed something very important, let me put it into large type for you:

Iowa, where polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards locked in a statistical tie for first place among likely Democratic caucus-goers.

here are some recent poll results:

American Research Group
9/28/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 30%
Barack Obama 24%
John Edwards 19%
Bill Richardson 10%
Joe Biden 3%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 13%
Source


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
9/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Barack Obama 28%
Hillary Clinton 24%
John Edwards 22%
Bill Richardson 10%
Joe Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 9%
Source


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
9/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 21%
Bill Richardson 6%
Joe Biden 3%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 12%
Source


Strategic Vision
9/22/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 24%
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 21%
Bill Richardson 13%
Joe Biden 4%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 14%
Source


Lets, see, Obama leads in one polls, ties in another and trails in a third. Yup, mighty conclusive evidence for a Hillary run-away.

Hillary seems to have a big lead in New Hampshire, but how firm will those numbers prove to be if Obama has a significant performance in Iowa? So many people dislike Hillary that her support will dry up like a creek in an Oklahoma summer if voters perceive another candidate can win the nomination and then the general election. Just look back a few years and study the candidacy of Howard Dean. He was going to blow everyone else away, until he himself blew up in Iowa.

Hmm, what else? Oh, yeah, there is a war going on in Iraq. Iraq, a country in name only. Nice to see that the legislature is back in session. Seems to be about as effective as that legislature in Washington. Does anyone believe ANY story that comes out of Iraq? Will American soldiers continue to die for the crime of launching an unnecessary war which was committed by the bush administration? Is that our national penance?

By the way, Move.On really screwed the pooch with their "General Betray Us" advertisement in the New York Times. They managed to deftly switch the issue from one of resolving this nasty mess, to one where they defamed General Petreaus. Nice going Eli Pariser!

Oh, yeah, one more thing: the press is in a tizzy because Barack Obama isn't wearing an American flag lapel pin. Sheesh! Maybe someone should point out that the lapel flag thing was started by none other than Richard Nixon, in his not-too-subtle appeal to law 'n' order.


Ennui marches on!

Larry Craig.. Your Stall is Ready

"Bad" behavior has never been a stranger to either side of the political aisle, but nothing compares to the sheer deliciousness of right wingers caught, literally, with their pants down.

Whether it's a right wing politician or preacher, the delight of the exposure of their personal peccadilloes truly is beyond compare.

Never trust these guys (or girls). The reasons they are against so many things (usually involving sex) is because they either fear "it", want "it", or already engage in "it"!

My sympathies, though, to the Senator's family if they were caught unaware.