"You're likable enough, Hillary."

Dr Krauthammer is Bringing Obama Back to Earth

It's not just that NBC admitted that "it's hard to stay objective covering this guy." Or that Newsweek had a cover article so adoring that one wonders what is left for coverage of the Second Coming. Or that Obama's media acolytes wax poetic that his soaring rhetoric and personal biography will abolish the ideological divide of the 1960s -- as if the division between left and right, between free markets and the welfare state, between unilateralism and internationalism, between social libertarianism and moral traditionalism are residues of Sergeant Pepper and the March on Washington. The baby boomers in their endless solipsism now think they invented left and right -- the post-Enlightenment contest of ideologies that dates back to the seating arrangements of the Estates-General in 1789.

The freest of all passes to Obama is the general neglect of the obvious central contradiction of his candidacy -- the bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn on every policy an unwavering, down-the-line, unreconstructed, uninteresting, liberal Democrat.

He doesn't even offer a modest deviation from orthodoxy. When the Gang of 14, seven Republican and seven Democratic senators, agreed to restore order and a modicum of bipartisanship to the judicial selection process, Obama refused to join lest he anger the liberal base.

Special interests? Obama is a champion of the Davis-Bacon Act, an egregious gift to Big Labor that makes every federal public-works project more costly. He not only vows to defend it, but proposes extending it to artificially raise wages for any guest worker program.

On Iraq, of course he denigrates the surge. That's required of Democratic candidates. But he further claims that the Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda and joined us -- get this -- because of the Democratic victory in the 2006 midterm elections.

Obama has yet to have it pointed out to him by a mainstream interviewer that the Anbar Salvation Council was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha two months earlier. Obama has yet to be asked why any Sunni would choose to join up with the American invaders at precisely the time when Democrats would have them leaving -- and be left like the pro-American Vietnamese or the pro-French Algerians to be hunted and killed when their patrons were gone. That's suicide.

Even if you believe that a Clinton restoration would be a disaster, you should still be grateful for New Hampshire. National swoons, like national hysterias, obliterate thought. The New Hampshire surprise has at least temporarily broken the spell. Maybe now someone will lift the curtain and subject our newest man from hope to the scrutiny that every candidate deserves.

Years ago Hillary said, "You don't have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line." Unfortunately for her the media's fallen in love... with Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------
Last night I liveblogged with the Heading Right gang, and we thought that either Fred won, or that it was a McCain/Fred tie.

Here's Fred mopping the floor with Huck:


Today JASmius of Hard Starboard posted A Mute Commentary pointing to Giuliani,

Nice to see that Fred did well. One could make the case that Fred has topped every debate he’s been in. Regrettably, debates do not win elections, and they're not getting FDT out of single digits. How much less so this cycle, when substance looks more and more like it’s being abandoned in favor of emotion and symbolism (Huckles, Obama, and Hillary's crocodile tears) and sheer mass amnesia (McCain).

I'm a little surprised that Romney is melting under the pressure. But he should be scared, his modest, early delegate lead not withstanding. There's no way he's going to "second place" himself to the nomination, no matter how wishfully the Romneylans think. His entire strategy was predicated on winning Iowa and New Hampshire. Now he has to win Michigan, or it'll be perceived as strike three for his campaign. And the latest polling composite there has McCain pulling slightly ahead.

I agree with Patrick Basham (or, since I posted the idea before he did, it may be more accruate to say that he agrees with me) that the ultimate beneficiary of Huck's and McCain's double-team on Romney will be Giuliani, who is poised to swoop in, take Florida and clean up on February 5th. Not only is he better equipped organizationally, financially, and notoriatily to wage a national campaign than "Sailor" or the Rev'rund, but after the "near-death experience" through which conservatives are currently suffering at the spectre of the two least trustworthy, left-most Republicans in the field winning the first two "bellweather" nominating contests, even Rudy's social liberalism will gain a whole new palatability if he can enable the GOP to avert both the complete evisceration of the Reagan coalition and total disaster in November. Giuliani-Thompson, anyone?

Yeah, I’m the guy who spent the past year saying that "America's Mayor" was unnominatable. But I could never have imagined that the twenty-first century Elmer Gantry and Darth Queeg would emerge as frontrunners, either. We do live in "interesting" times. And that isn’t a good thing.

What is interesting in both articles is that the top spots are in contention. A year ago things were looking like the annointed would take it all.

Now, who knows.

Betsy also notices that "Republicans must be in the position of not only considering which candidate they like the most, but also vote defensively for the one best able to win the general election."



Share on Facebook

Hillary, the media and today's roster

Betsy's asking, Has the victim card been played out?
It'll never be played out. There's too much riding on the victimology industry.

It takes a village to tip a single mom
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jihad on panties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siggy writes about Media Dances And Other Forms Of Distraction and this week's Useful Media Idiot of the Week
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Kerik has been indicted. I agree with Macsmind that "But this is good news in a way for Guilliani the story will be three days old by Monday."

Jammie Wearing Fool has the whole roster of Hillary cronies.

Green Mountain Politics has a good Giuliani impersonation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Via Larwyn, Roy Spencer on Global Warming
---------------------------------------------------------------
As N.Y. Economy Sours, Aliens Plan To Leave for Home, or at least for Newark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Van Gogh didn't sell
---------------------------------------------------------------
Via Sex and the South,

Last night's debate, and Fred en espanol

For the first time, the candidates actually got to debate each others' points. The WaPo says, Attacks Sharpen Among Party's Principal Rivals. Fred Thompson's running as a conservative, and he's not keeping quiet about it:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney were quickly put on the defensive, fending off criticism leveled by former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.), who questioned their conservative credentials.

While the debate played on TV I was keeping an eye on Carlos Curbelo's liveblogging in Spanish at the Fred Thompson site.

As I mentioned last night, I was skeptical over the bilingual experiment. The Democrat instant-translation effort at Univision was ghastly not only because of the pandering but also because the translation was awful. Carlos did an excellent job translating but also bringing out Fred's points at the same time as the other candidates.

While the average Spanish-speaking voter probably won't need the liveblogging because they already know English, the liveblogging in Spanish apprears to be a useful tool to inform newly arrived residents to the US on the campaign's positions. Currently, as Florida residents are well aware, there's a significant influx of new (legal) residents coming in from Venezuela and other South American countries. The Thompson campaign has an innovative approach, and it's starting to show.

John McCain got a Standing O:


Fox News did a woefully inadecuate job of allotting time to the candidates. Ed Morrissey noticed, too. I wish the media would pay more attention to Duncan Hunter, who is well informed on national security, immigration and the role of government.

But at least we finally got a debate.

Meanwhile, while the debate was on, our boys (and girls) in Iraq were busy smashing a big Iranian backed militia base in Sadr City

Memeorandum, however, only sees the debate through the Hillary prism.
Theo Spark has this:



Share on Facebook

Cheating husbands and all that

Language alert:
While I consistently strive to maintain a certain leve of discourse in this blog, the quotes in this post are unedited for cursing and coarse language
Rep. Charles Rangel Apparently Refers to Giuliani as a 'Cheating Goddamn Husband'

Apparently? Did he, or didn't he say it?

Well, let's take a look: Rudy's Doin[' It!
Battle Stations! Shocked Cacophony Among New York Democrats That Rudy They Know May Actually Become Republican Candidate; 'Romney Is Entitled to Three Wives,' Says Charlie Rangel

Referring to Andrew Giuliani's reportedly distant relationship with his father since the ugly bust-up of Mr. Giuliani's marriage with Donna Hanover, Mr. Rangel said it was because "sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands."

And touching on another of Mr. Giuliani's public difficulties - Mr. Giuliani's close association with Bernard Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner - Mr. Rangel said he regretted that all the personal problems surfaced so soon in the electoral process. "I'm sorry this damned thing turned out so early because, really, just like Kerik, it would have bombed his ass out," said Mr. Rangel.

But Mr. Rangel said he still looked forward to Mr. Giuliani's Republican opponents making an issue of his infidelity - "Romney could say, 'I'm entitled to three wives,'" Mr. Rangel said - and said that when it came to abortion, "The church will take care of his ass all alone."

Such is Charlie Rangel's concern for the public morals and the high level of political discourse that he can not restrain his opprobrium.

Thanks, Charlie; where were you in '98?

Pejman's asking a similar question.


Share on Facebook

Fred announces on Leno

Fred Thompson Makes A Late-Night Late Entry

And he brought up the WOT while at it.

I was live-blogging (after a delayed start due to internet connection issues!) the Republican debate last night with the guys at Heading Right (Captain Ed has a wrap-up here), and felt that Fred was right to have not taken part in the debate - which by the way, was the first real debate from either party. To begin with, while Fox and the moderators did an excellent job, it was the first night of school in most of the country; not a good night. The first primary is still months away, and the election is over a year away, so only us bloggers and die-hard political news junkies were watching, and even then, those of us who weren't at the local schools for orientation.

And then, Fred got a lot of mileage from the debate itself,

Thompson's Republican rivals appeared unbowed by his entry and used their forum to take potshots at him for skipping the debate. "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) quipped. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani joked: "I think Fred is a really, really good man. I think he's done a pretty good job of playing my part on 'Law & Order.' "

Fred then topped off the evening by announcing on Leno, overshadowing the debate itself. As Ed points out, by announcing there,

The format allowed Thompson to give a substantive and detailed answer that the debate simply wouldn't allow.

Once a few more candidates on the Republican side drop off, things will start to get interesting.

PS, The NYT has the Transcript of the Fox News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate.



Share on Facebook

Puerto Rico and Hugo's subs, in today's round-up

No, not these subs; the Russian subs: Mora writes,

Chavez is heading to Russia in the next few days, to discuss the purchase of five kilo-class submarines, and possibly four more advanced amur-class subs. There are questions as to how he would be able to finance them as well as how obtain the advanced training to bring them online, but there is no question from his statments that he wants them.

The financing might involve not only oil, but also drugs. As I have pointed out, Hugo needs money for financing his "Bolivarian Revolution", i.e., his desire to control all of Latin America's politics. For that he needs money. A huge amount of money. The drug trade is one source.

As for the advanced training, I'm sure Putin will provide the personnel as part of the deal. Don't believe for a moment that Vlad's going to hand Hugo valuable war weapons without keeping a firm hand in the works.

Mora also points out,

Although there are many islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf Of Mexico, and many colonial powers, it's significant that Chavez alluded to the U.S.'s and France's prime presences there. In the past he's threatened Netherlands and its overseas territories, and he's always hated Britain, but now he seems to have singled out France. While Chavez's antipathy to the U.S. is well-known, what's less well-known is that France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has an interest in the region and a clear understanding about Chavez. He's stepped up his ties to Venezuela's battered neighbor, Colombia, and probably will become more active in the region as Chavez's aggression steps up. Chavez knows this, and wants to throw out a few threat to France and the U.S. now.

This segues well with my theory on the drug trade: France has repeatedly caught tons of cocaine proceeding from Caracas in the past (including the seizing of a vessel carrying 18 tons of cocaine on March last year. I explored this connection between Chavez and the drug trade on my post of April 13, 2006 (scroll down).

Hugo may be fooling some, but he's certainly not fooling Lech Waleska: Via Gateway Pundit

"I believe Chávez is a huge demagogue and populist who says one thing and does a quite different thing. He likes giving away what does not belong to him and tries to take advantage of people's dissatisfaction," he added.

One thing for sure, Hugo's not fooling Newton---------------------------------------------------------
Immigration and Terrorists in the US: Connect the Dots

In a nutshell - terrorists flew under the radar in 1986, over-stayed visas, and rode the curtails of illegal Mexicans who had crossed the border all the way to citizenship. Do we want to do that again? Can we afford it?

---------------------------------------------------------
In other, totally unrelated news, Hitchens asks, Let's stop channelling angry Muslims

Look Forward to Anger
It's impossible to satisfy "Rage Boy" and his ilk. It's stupid to try.
...
The lives of Shiite Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians—to say nothing of atheists or secularists—are considered by Sunni militants to be of little or no account. And yet they accuse those who criticize them of bigotry! And many people are so anxious to pre-empt this accusation that they ventriloquize the reactions of Sunni mobs as if they were the vox populi, all the while muttering that we must take care not to offend such supersensitive people.

This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.

Interesting to see that The Economist is referring to the Prophet Mohammed; I've been subscribing to The Economist for decades now and never once have I seen them refer to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fred Thompson has more to say about Rushdie.
---------------------------------------------------------
GreenMountain politics posts on Giuliani.

Go, Pundit, Go has a video on the Dems and the unions

---------------------------------------------------------
Side note:
We've been on the road, and I'm happy to recommend the Subway franchise for a fast lunch. You can get a freshly-made salad with as many or as few toppings as you like, without having to put up with greasy burgers or overfried, overseasoned chicken.


Share on Facebook

Indoctrinate U, and today's items

Indoctrinate U"
I wasn't able to attend the screening, but Mitchell Langbert did: A Classic in the Making

On April 23 and 24 the Tribeca film festival in lower Manhattan, which is continuing through May 6, screened Indoctrinate U, Evan Maloney's documentary about political correctness in American universities. The film depicts universities run amuck. Fascistic, intolerant leftists attack Asian Republicans, white males, libertarian females, conservative white females, conservative Sikh males (not to mention libertarian black writers and Asian libertarian conservative males). The film is funny, lively and ultimately frightening. Maloney's delivery is witty and sharp. The film is well-edited. One is riveted to the screen. The interviewees, who include my colleagueKC Johnson and FIRE's Glen Lukianoff, are articulate and brilliant. The film will not surprise the few conservatives in academe who work among the politically correct majority. Nor will it surprise conservative students who have been subjected to the harassment the film depicts and seen their careers ruined by liberal witchhunters, speech code advocates and a wide range of left-wing jackboots. But the public at large, the broader community, those who believe that students go to Yale, Bucknell, Cal Poly Tech, and their equivalents to be educated will be stunned.

Speaking of academia, Cinnamon posts on Brown University Workshop Speaks to Fear and Loathing in Middle East Studies After 9-11

The only problem is workshop participants are almost uniformly composed of academics who are hostile to the U.S.-led war on terrorism, its ally, Israel, and any efforts via higher education to combat radical Islam on college campuses.

---------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Larwyn for today's links
---------------------------------------------------
Time for Dictators But No Time for American Generals
---------------------------------------------------
Gaius fisks Naomi
---------------------------------------------------
Patrick sent a nice YouTube of Giuliani in New Hampshire this week,

Patrick also sent McCain surges among New Hampshire conservatives
---------------------------------------------------
Jeremayakovka sends this article, 'Making War to Keep Peace' is a fine tribute to Jeane Kirkpatrick

---------------------------------------------------
Update: Don't miss Cassandra's NYTimesWatch: The Lynching Of Paul Wolfowitz

Giuliani, Gagarin, and today's items

Giuliani writes about My four pillars of American prosperity

1. Reduced spending growth.
2. Lower Tax Rates.
3. Regulatory Reform.
4. Sound monetary policy.

Read it all.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Kremlin has vetoed a move to launch a fresh investigation into the death of Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin, the first man in space, died in 1968, and the Kremlin's still covering up.

I must remember to ask Maria if there's a word in Russian for "transparency".
----------------------------------------------------------
Following Second bloggers' conference call with Sen. John McCain, I found this article at Opinion Journal, McCain's Finest Hour
Leadership sometimes means bucking public opinion

The difference is not merely of consistency but of conviction. Mr. McCain is making clear he understands that leadership is often by nature unpopular. He has been equally clear about the consequences of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq--"chaos" and "genocide" were among the scenarios he painted for Mr. Pelley.

He has also shown that he understands the moral obligation his vote authorizing the war entailed, which was to see it through to victory, or at least until the conclusion becomes inescapable that victory is impossible. With General David Petraeus only recently installed in Baghdad and his surge strategy not yet fully under way, Mr. McCain realizes that we are nowhere near being able to draw that conclusion.

Betsy comments,

What struck me is how the media coverage is so set on framing McCain's speech as a political move. The first paragraph of the Washington Post article frames McCain's speech as an attempt to save his faltering campaign

The WaPo is wrong, and McCain is acting out of conviction.
----------------------------------------------------------
In a lighter mode,
You might be able to legally download Beatles songs; here's why.

And don't miss the WaPo's Peeps contest: "No more wire hangers!!" (#15)

Debate, or invective?

The big news around the blogs (and I include Drudge) is Ann Coulter.

I've never liked Ann Coulter because for as long as I've been aware of her existence she's been one of the people lowering the bar of political discourse. She's a very intelligent woman, and, while some think she's crazy, I believe that not only she's not crazy and she knows exactly what she's doing, she's cashing in on it. The picture I took of the people standing in line for an autographed copy of her book at CPAC doesn't start to show how many were in line to buy her book:

To give you an idea, the exhibit room had been converted from the indoor parking area and was approx. 100' x 200'. The line at the point where I took the picture had started 300' away, and extended another 100' behind the last person on the left in the picture. Now, I know for a fact because the line formed right in front from where I was sitting that the people in line got in line BEFORE Coulter even started her speech on Friday. But this is not the first time Coulter's done her schitck at a CPAC.

I am sure Edwards's campaign people are getting donations because of Coulter's "careless" remark.

The way I see it, you either do invective and vituperation, or you don't.

As Mama said, while talking about other matters,

weak thinking is contagious

and name calling and invective are symptoms of weak thinking.

Now, Coulter was not debating anyone. She was just giving a speech to a very friendly audience. It wasn't as if she got carried away in the heat of a debate. This was not the first time she's addressed a large audience, so it's not as if her nerves got the best of her. As I said, she knew what she was doing - weak thinking can be very profitable when the royalty checks arrive, too.

Weak thinking is contagious because it's easy. It's a heck of a lot easier than looking at the world and trying to find out what is going on, and what the issues are.

The day before I attended a real debate: Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Spencer debated "Terrorism: Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the Problem?"

You can listen to the debate at the CSPAN website (click on Conservative Political Action Conference). The debate was brief but substantive and lively.

Even in the circus atmosphere of CPAC, there was real debate. There was an exchange of ideas. And lo and behold, no one insulted anyone. The audience was much smaller than for Coulter, and the lines for Dinesh's or Dr Spencer's books were much shorter. Lively as the debate was, both men remained civilized to each other. After the debate I had an opportunity and complimented each of them on their debate.

A few hours before Coulter spoke I attended Giuliani's speech. This main theme was that America is a country of ideas. The ideas that Giuliani espouses are personal responsibility, strength as a nation, and America's role in the world. Giuliani, who took on the Mafia and prosecuted terrorists before he was mayor of New York City, is a man of clear, strong thinking.

And he was sensational.

He didn't have a single solitary volunteer handing out Rudy posters, stickers, or buttons, but the ballroom was packed to the rafters and the people who coudln't get in would have filled another ballroom that size. He didn't schmooze with the bloggers, even when I wish he had. He didn't give a stump speech like the other candidates, he came to explain what he's about.

He came, gave his speech, and left.

But by clearly explaining his ideas, he gave people something to take home and think about. One of the things people like me will think about is that Giuliani's message will appeal to a large number of Americans, consevatives or not conservatives.

So here's the situation:
- The conservatives can continue having Coulter as a CPAC guest and have a jolly good time as they amuse themselves with her insults and attacks. By doing so, as Steve put it,

This woman is doing things for the Democrats they could never begin to do for themselves.

If they choose that option, they lose all right to complain when Dean, Hillary, et al, sling the basests insults at them. All the while, they'll drive the Republican party to sure extinction. Look at McCain: he stayed away, and rumor has it that he might do a third-party run. That will be disastrous. The Elephant will become as extinct as its genetic relative, the mamooth.

- Or the conservatives can bring more clear thinkers who can raise the level of the political discourse, and actually win elections.

It's up to them.

Update: The American Mind

One aspect of CPAC is all the college kids running around. Many idolize Coulter. Her lack of intellectual substance sets a poor example for those people to take back to their schools.

Giuliani was sensational

I pushed my way into managed to get in the Paladian ballroom just in time to listen to Giuliani. This is when my double media/attendee credentials paid off.

The crowd waiting outside was at least as large as the crowd inside. Everybody wanted to listen to him live. Unlike Romney and Brownback, Giuliani doesn't have a gauntlet of volunteers handling out stickers and posters. Actually, aside from the speech I haven't seen anyone handing out RG stuff and I've been here two days.

George Will introduced Giuliani, and the crowd entusiastically rose to their feet in applause


Giuliani speaks in a very matter-of-fact conversational tone which I greatly welcome after hearing a lot of haranguing. His record as mayor of NYC, his message that America is a country of ideas, and his vision for a strong America went over very very well with the crowd.

He was sensational.

Will the social conservatives go with Romney? Probably. The question is, can he win a national election?

Update, Saturday March 3: The NYT is lying, Ace.
I've never seen anything like it, even last year