“Time may be running out for the Democrats to let the American people know where they stand on our nation’s most important issues.”-U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell

Posted by Dodo David at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrats Suppressing the Vote

Judge understands the importance of elections and throws the bumbs in jail:

A judge today ignored a plea deal calling for probation and sentenced four Democratic campaign workers to jail terms for their roles in the infamous Election Day 2004 tire slashing caper.

A fifth Kerry-Edwards staffer accused of crippling Republican vans, Justin Howell, turned down the last-minute deal and was acquitted by the jury.

Now suppose some white Republicans slashed the tires of some GOVT vans that were intended to transport blacks to vote in the South. OH MY! I just became tense thinking about the 18 months of hysteria the media would drum up. There would be news bureaus set up outside the courthouse like a Michael Jackson trial. They'd probably even interrupt soaps to air the trial on the network news. It would be called the "Worst Election Fraud in History" and there would be marches in Selma and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have relevance again.

Posted by Aaron at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Ahab and the White Whale

That's the way I feel about Glenn Greenwald and his obsession with Russ Feingold's Censure Resolution. Today, using his new perch in the HuffPo, Greenwald repeats the usual memes:

1. The President broke the law and there's no need for an investigation.

Under FISA, it is a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without the oversight and approval of the FISA court. Section 1809 of FISA expressly provides that "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." Thus, a person has broken the law if -- as the President admits he did -- he orders eavesdropping on Americans without complying with the warrant requirements of the statute. Period.

Of course, Greenwald completely ignores the argument that the law was not broken, or the argument that Congress cannot limit the powers of the presidency by statute. We all understand that the Congress can pass laws which apply to the president; how many realize that Congress cannot pass laws which apply to the presidency? For example, Congress could not pass a law requiring the President to submit any presidential pardons to them for review, because the powers that the President has in that regard are derived from the Constitution.

2. The censure resolution is popular with the American people. Greenwald claims:

As I have noted many times, public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that pluralities of the public believe that the President broke the law and majorities oppose eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants.

Ah, but the devil is in the details of those public opinion polls. Rasmussen polling reported a few days ago:

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the NSA wiretapping program. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Senator Russell Feingold.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.

Now, maybe Greenwald doesn't believe the polling. But the fact remains that Democrats have treated Feingold's censure resolution the way most people treat somebody who passes gas in an elevator; by getting as far from him as is possible. Greenwald recognizes this, but rails that it's completely irrational:

It is critical that Democrats recognize that we are not in 2003 anymore. George Bush is a wildly unpopular President whom the public neither likes nor trusts. The public overwhelmingly believes that the President deliberately made false statements to induce the nation into war and that he cannot be trusted.

Does he really believe that Democrats have somehow missed the dip in Bush's poll numbers?

In an oddball aside, he criticizes Instapundit for recognizing that the antiwar movement has fizzled:

Polls show that the vast majority of the country oppose the war in Iraq and believe it was a mistake. The percentage of Americans who are anti-war has steadily and rapidly increased and continues to rise. But in the starkly delusional and propagandizing mind of the Bush follower, President Bush's war policies enjoy the support of an overwhelming proportion of Americans and only a few enclaves of crazed, marginalized radicals opposes him.

Support for the war has indeed slipped; that this has not translated into support for the antiwar kooks is ignored by Greenwald.

In short, Greenwald, and the other netroots buffoons who are pushing for censure apparently believe that the Democrats are going against their own interests. I'm not always impressed with the professionals in that party, but they're not a bunch of Ahabs, determined to get Moby Dick even if it destroys them in the end.

Posted by pat at 03:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Liberals Never Fail to Amuse

Jack Klugman pops up in the Huffington Post to plug his new movie, but he also talks a little bit about politics, announcing that he's a lifelong Democrat and wouldn't vote for a Republican. So why does he get a full helping of criticism from the loopy commenters? It's this passage:

We live in a religious country. Get over it. And not only that, but religion is not a superstitious bromide for the ignorant. There is tremendous wisdom, accumulated over centuries of deep thought, in all the major traditions, and all those folks who invest their time and energy in faith are NOT idiots. Why is this a political thought? Because our party has set itself up as the party that's against God, and as long as it does that, we will keep losing power. If we were to do all the same things we're doing now, however, and somehow extend an olive branch to the faithful, we could swing the Washington pendulum hard and fast to our side. Think about it. There are plenty of religious people who respect women's rights and believe in evolution - that's not the point. The point is, as Abraham Lincoln said, "Both sides pray to the same God." God is not a Republican, and it's about time we gave Him equal opportunity on our platform.

Well, you can imagine how that went over with the "reality-based community. They went after Klugman with both barrels:

THE LADY (jack, a transvestite?) doth protest too much", eh?

OF COURSE your religious dogma, just like all others, is EXACTLY superstition, as there is not one shread of evidence to support it: zippo.

FYI, to all the fundies and failed-fundies god does not exist.

By: recoveringcatholic on March 16, 2006 at 09:21pm

I feel that religion is soaked in the blood of millions, though. Every bit of wisdom gained has cost a pound of flesh at least. I think that humans can be self-regulating by applying principles of common good and the golden rule.

By: Ariadne on March 16, 2006 at 09:24pm

Posted by pat at 03:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Feeling Depressed? Check out the Liberals!

This has not been a great period to be a conservative. The newspapers are filled with dire reports on the president's poll numbers; the Dubai Ports deal, like the Harriet Miers debacle, started in-fighting among the members of the right. And we've even begun to see some conservative pundits beginning to back away from the Iraq War (most notably, William F. Buckley).

But as always, all it takes is a look over at the liberal side to cheer me up. For example, check out the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the HuffPo over the reluctance of Democrats to sign onto Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Here's Ellis Weiner (he's never heard of you, either):

What does this mean to you, the Democrats edging toward the door in flight from Feingold's motion? It means this:

1. Good plays by the rules, within a narrow compass. Evil will do whatever the hell it can think of (and thinks it can get away with) to achieve its ends. In the opera buffa/nightmare that Karl Rove and his goose-stepping Rockettes have made of our politics, you are the Good. Alas. The Republicans are Evil. They have no interest, desire, or (by now) ability to play by the rules. They have been lying, suppressing, intimidating, smearing, and misrepresenting everything in sight since five jokers on the Formerly Supreme Court gave Junior the presidency in what was just the first parade float in an unending cavalcade of hypocrisy that persists to this very day. Therefore, you cannot expect them to 'fess up, be good sports, accept the fact that the ball is going to fall through the hoop, and call Bush to account--in, say, a Judiciary Committee hearing. Why? Because they've been corrupted: by money, by power, by piety, by greed, by self-righteousness, and by ideology, as well as by money and power and money.

David Sirota's so depressed he's reduced to shilling for third parties.

Jane Hamsher (like a lot of liberal bloggers) seems to only get really venomous when talking about Joe Lieberman.

What the hell it is going to take to get them to call Lieberman out for being the coathanger-wielding creep he really is?

(Because Lieberman didn't support forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services for rape victims.)

Marty Kaplan:

But as for the Democrats, it's hard to imagine a gap more yawning than the one between the leadership and the citizens.

If you set aside a handful of national figures like Feingold, Murtha, and Gore 2.0, what you hear is timid, fence-straddling, cliche-ridden, condescending rhetoric, focus-grouped to within an inch of its life, and above all designed to appeal mainly to the remaining nine or fourteen or whatever-it-is percent of the country that doesn't care enough about issues to be partisan about them -- partisan in the best sense, meaning take a stand, feel a stake, give a damn. Republican leaders, whatever you might think about them, at least stoke up their base. Democrats treat us like morons, or with egg-coddling caution, as though we'd break under the pressure of straight talk.

So chin up, and put a smile on your face! Remember, we are fortunate indeed in our enemies.

Posted by pat at 03:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Barone on the Democrats' Chances to Take Back the House

Michael Barone looks at the history:

In this cycle, many reporters have been contemplating the possibility that Democrats will take the House back this November. That's partly because most reporters are Democrats and find that result congenial. More importantly, Democrats can take control with a net gain of only 15 seats this year, while Republicans needed 40 in 1994 (and got 52). It's always easier to see how a party can gain 15 seats than 40 -- although 1994 was the only time in the past 20 years that any party gained more than 10.

Democrats' chances of taking those 15 seats are not very good -- if the voting patterns and political contours that have held steady since the 1995-96 budget showdown continue to prevail. Ordinarily in a decade we see a shift in these patterns. Some geographic regions or demographic groups move to one party or the other, or the whole electorate does.

A lot of Democrats are just assuming that because Bush is unpopular right now, that will give them the boost they need to win. But that ignores that most congressional elections are not won or lost on the basis of national trends, but on the basis of local issues.

Posted by pat at 02:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dems Lose Again in Israel

Llama bests Donkey in Israel

Military sources said the Israel Army plans to use llamas for reconnaissance and combat missions in enemy territory, Middle East Newsline reported. They described the llama as ideal for special operations missions in Lebanon against the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah.

The sources said donkeys also participated in the Golan Heights exercise. They said the donkeys did not perform as well and required much more food than llamas. The llamas could be fed once every other day.

Posted by Aaron at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

If I Wanted to Be A Popular Blogger With the Left

It's a pretty simple formula, really.

1. Turn conventional wisdom on its head. It's obvious to one and all that the Democrats don't have anything they stand for, other than opposing Bush. So when faced with this, claim that Republicans are the ones who have no principle other than supporting Bush:

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

2. Project the failings of the left on the right:

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush.

3. Mention the unspeakable evil of the famous bloggers/columnists on the right:

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

4. Vaguely indicate some personal conservative or non-liberal viewpoints without actually espousing them (Note: only effective when attacking other conservative viewpoints):

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc.

5. Make the Republicans sound like Nazis:

A movement which has as its shining lights a woman who advocates the death of her political opponents, another woman who is a proponent of concentration camps, a magazine which advocates the imprisonment of journalists who expose government actions of dubious legality, all topped off by a President who believes he has the power to secretly engage in activities which the American people, through their Congress, have made it a crime to engage in, is a movement motivated by lots of different things. Political ideology isn't one of them.

Posted by pat at 11:14 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

I'm Going to HillaryLand

Check out this article about Hillary's close-knit circle of advisors and friends (free registration required).

In contrast, Hillary's team likes bright lines, and one way they maintain them is by firmly establishing an in-crowd. Joe Lockhart, the White House press secretary and face of the Clinton administration for two and a half years? Out. (They suspect he's a John Edwards man, though an Edwards aide says he isn't.) James Carville? In. (He's personally close to Hillary and speaks to her regularly.) Doug Sosnik, one of Bill Clinton's senior strategists in the late '90s? Out. (He's advising former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.) John Podesta, Clinton's last chief of staff and now the president of the Center for American Progress? Way in. (He has important links to labor and environmental groups and serves as a policy conduit to Hillary.) Leon Panetta, Clinton's second chief of staff? Far out. (He clashed with Hillary and tried to keep Hillaryland at arm's length from the West Wing.) But trying to determine who's in and out is nothing compared with figuring out who's influential and who's not. That search takes you deep into Hillaryland.

There are very few Democrats whose central message is about interest rates, crime, productivity, and investor confidence. And the ones who exist have been hounded into silence in recent years by the Internet left. Hang out in Hillaryland long enough and you realize it has embraced almost none of the hyperpartisan culture of the so-called netroots that many Democrats are chasing. And the makeup of Hillary's core political consulting team suggests that's not going to change.

Terrific article, one that should make it clear that Hillary's not only running in 2008, but that she's probably got the Democratic nomination in the bag.

Posted by pat at 04:39 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Maybe They Can Get Jerry Seinfeld as Their Spokesman?

Nancy Pelosi reveals the Democrats plan for 2006:

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum

Posted by pat at 10:54 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Say it! C-c-c-c-c-ulture of C-c-c-c-c-orruption!

I am going to have to start a category called COC for all these crooked Democrats. But remember what the libs say, this is a Republican problem!

Based on our reporting, the public record is now clear. The supposedly independent HVG, which was established by Agran’s best friend and top strategist, shared Agran’s campaign themes, contributors, staff, research, lawyers, printers, consultants and office space; raised nearly $1 million to pay for illegal mailers against Agran’s opponents; circumvented campaign-disclosure rules; lured a fake Republican into the 2004 race to steal votes from the legitimate GOP candidate; and threatened investigative reporters with legal action on Agran’s behalf. We have the councilman, unaware of Petracca’s looming revelation, saying—no, underscoring—that it would be illegal for any candidate to operate a slate mailer like HVG. We have Petracca acknowledging that Agran was secretive about his operation of HVG. And now we have the final piece of the crime: Agran’s own handwriting on HVG hit pieces.

Democrats are as pure as the driven snow!

Posted by Aaron at 01:29 PM |