Monday, June 30, 2008

I'm Sorry, But Stupid Is Stupid

Just because one is of the left, do you need to be incurably stupid...or does it just help? I only ask because the more I read things like this, the more dip shit ignorant I believe the left has become.

In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels,

That is all I need to read to know the author of this piece, George Packer, is an ignorant fool. And if I know that, why should I bother to read the rest of his piece?

How do I know he is a fool?

Well, in February 2007, we had lost around 3300 troops in four years of combat operations, for an average of 69 per month. You can call that a lot of things, but calling it "apocalyptic" is, from an historical perspective, so wrongheaded its practically retarded.

I have noted before this utter lack of historical knowledge back in January 2007:

I also have a problem with it because it minimizes the enormity of the WWII sacrifice. Even what were considered minor combat operations at the time produced what would be considered today massive casualties. For example, seven days worth of fighting in the Kasserine Pass produced over 6000 casualties. In Italy in 1945 (Jan 6th to May 2nd,) hardly a focal point of the war, the 10th Mountain Division alone had nearly 5000 casualties. Indeed most individual divisions to see combat in WWII suffered more than the entire US Army has in this war.

Notice, we are 17 further months along, and we still have not had as many casualties in Iraq (now at 4113) as we did for the WWII forces I talked about. At current rates it would still take three more years until we equaled the casualty list from those seven days in North Africa in 1942.

Every soldier lost is a source of sadness, but to call it the moral equivalent of the Apocalypse is simply stupid.

More UnAmerican Obamists

What does an Obamist do when they find a blogger who dares reject "the chosen one"? Why, attempt to shut them down, of course.

From Uppity Woman:

I have just been informed that three anti-obama blogs have been locked up by Blogger.

I myself have had posting locked up since June 3. I am lucky though, I can post but I have to use word verification until blogger "reviews" my blog. It seems that blogger has to check to see if I am not a spam blog or "bot".

I suspect that the vicious Barack Obama campaign is behind all of this. They want to turn America into a Marxist state. These people are nothing short of evil bastards. It is my guess they have reported our blogs en masse as "bots" or "spam blogs". My God, may this evil bastard and his vicious campaign sycophants never ever be in charge of this country!

The three blogs who were locked up today didn't fare so well. Blogger has locked them out from posting at all until they are "reviewed". I would like to think that someone working for blogger is not involved here, but I can attest that their "reviews" aren't happening. Hopefully they are just bogged down. I would like to think that way.


I don't feel safe with these crazy people running roughshod on my country. I am sure if they ever found out who I am they would come for me. Thank God I have a gun and a dog in my home is all I can say.

What has America come to that we could even have a person like this running for President and dispatching his people to threaten lives, seek to out people and harrass and threaten them, and thwart democracy?

This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident.

It is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish an Obama supporter from a jack booted thug.

Is this the "new politics" we were promised?


Friday, June 27, 2008

House Democrats Hopes Al Qaeda Targets Bush Admin Officials?


Last night in "The farce continues" John Hinderaker wrote about the interrogation of Cheney chief of staff David Addington by Rep. William Delahunt (D, Mass.). In the course of the hearing at which Addington appeared, Rep. Delahunt said to Addington that, with C-SPAN's broadcast of the hearing: "I'm sure they [al Qaeda] are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive."

Following the hearing, Delahunt denied the natural import of his words. Delahunt claimed that "under no circumstances" was he implying during the hearing that Al Qaeda may target Addington.

Here is the game. Go follow the links and you tell me, what else could his words have possibly meant? See how many words you would have to change to make Delahunt's words come to mean "I'm glad to talk to you." Delahunt says he meant to say "I" not "they." Let's see if that works:

I'm sure [I] are watching...

Hmmm...not so good.

The Eucharist For Dummies

It amazes me the degree to which people we are supposed to take as "public intellectuals" are in reality dumb as a box of rocks. Case in point; the Washington Post's non-Catholic "religion journalist" thought she would like to take Communion at the Catholic funeral mass for Tim Russert. She then wrote about the experience in the Post.

Now, she has been criticized for her distasteful mockery of the meaning of the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist, and she cannot understand why.

I was really close to him, and I was grieving. And I thought me taking the Eucharist would be a thing that he would really enjoy. And all these things are what religion should be about. ... There's no sign out there that says you're not allowed to take Communion. [The Catholic Church is] like, "Everyone is welcome. This is God's house." God doesn't turn people away, supposedly.

I'm not sure which is scarier, the shocking ignorance of Catholic belief in a journalist specializing in religion, or the hubris of someone who believes the beliefs of a two thousand year old faith should be trumped by one person's whimsy.

First Things has a good take on this:

“I’m very pluralistic about religion, and I feel that everyone should respect everyone else’s.”

For Sally Quinn, respecting all religions apparently means all religions must respect all of Sally Quinn’s religious choices. She needn’t respect a religious community’s desire that only those in communion with Christ and His Church receive the sacrament of communion.

Evidently, respect is a one-way street.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

"Do Not Jostle The Chosen One!"

I couldn't make this kinda crap up, although it was easy enough to predict. The HuffPo goes apoplectic that The Daily Show would go after Obama.

That's the new liberalism. If you do not parrot the "party line" you are "part of the problem."

It is instructive that the author of the HuffPo piece is Joseph Palermo, who I have taken apart before, and who is in every way imaginable the prototypical Obama supporter. As Joe Klein noticed so well, such "progressives" are prone to...

...a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

Hey, witless bullying is now a mode of presidential campaigning. Aren't we lucky?

Monday, June 23, 2008

On Why Calling Obamism Un-American Is Fair Game

You run a risk attempting to label a person or a movement as being Un-American. That risk is conjuring the specter of McCarthyism in all of its witch hunting vileness.

Sometimes, however, that is a risk worth running. There are indeed political movements that run counter to democratic/republican principles. For example, the German American Bund movement was rightfully criticized as being outside the boundaries of the American political experience. The refusal of many southern Democrats to recognize the legitimacy of the 1860 Presidential election simply because they lost it was also a deeply un-American moment in our history. The campaigns of anarchic terror of the late 19th century would be another example. The hysteria that led to the excesses of the Alien & Sedition Acts would represent yet another moment.

It should be clear from the above that such un-American moments can be represented by fringe elements in our society (e.g., Anarchists or the German American Bund) or by those actually in the mainstream (e.g.,Federalists in 1798, Democrats in 1860.) The key concept is not how integrated any given group is within the society, or how prevalent its views are, but how the positions of the groups involved deviate from long standing principles such as Free Speech, respect for democratic elections, etc. Of paramount importance in this regard is the inviolability of the principle of adversarial politics, the belief that no political party can claim absolute moral authority to run without legitimate opposition. It is this last principle that is being challenged by the rise of what I call Obamism.

It should be stated up front that I do not know if Barack Obama is himself an Obamist, as I am defining the term, but undoubtedly many of his supporters, including influential ones in the press and in other cultural institutions, seem to be operating under the notion that opposition to the candidacy of Barack Obama is inherently morally suspect. It is such a belief that motivates such despicable action as the publishing of editorial cartoons so vile the only historical analogy I can think of would be the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930's Germany.

This "approach" to politics walks hand-in-hand with the attempts by the left in America's colleges and universities to silence right of center speech, either through the use of "speech codes," which largely seek to protect left of center policies from criticism of any kind, or through the use of what is euphemistically called the "heckler's veto" which in effect uses the threat of violence to silence any and all opposition. In each case the justification is the same. The speech that is infringed is "morally suspect" (they will call anything they do not like "hate speech") and therefore of no great loss when it is silenced.

I remember when I was in grad school at the University of Illinois a professor, with the help of one of my fellow grad students, presented a experimental survey they claimed would uncover "hidden racists." Basically, the survey asked people's opinions on a variety of public policy programs/ideas. By and large any response that mirrored the Republican party platform was considered "racist." For example, if you supported lower taxes you were deemed more racist than someone who supported higher taxes. The motivation behind such an idiotic and intellectually bankrupt exercise was clear; Only left of center policies could be considered morally acceptable.

So what I am calling Obamism isn't merely the tactics of this particular presidential campaign; it is the culmination of a long standing process, albeit in a more refined and complete package. This can be seen in the "global warming" debates where any deviance from the left wing orthodoxy is met with shrieks of "denier," a term designed to impugn the character and moral worth of the person it is applied to and nothing more. It can also be seen in the way cultural institutions are being captured by the a "new Left" that believes one of its duties is to banish right of center voices from the conversation.

The result is a political left that is singularly unable to confront contrary opinions, ideas or facts without resort to violence or intimidation of one form or another.



Don't expect much from me the next few days. I'm gonna take the week off to re-charge the old batteries. Plus, I'm starting a new regime in an attempt to take off some weight. (I'm too damn fat right now.) So, I'll be crankier than usual until I adjust to the lower calorie limits. Patience is always the first thing that gets the axe in these moments. (Of course with famous folks dropping like flies with heart disease, its a reminder that I shouldn't be so caviler with my own health.)

If you find yourself missing my ill considered rants, you could do me a favor and try out my online radio station The Pure Pop Pub.

In the meantime, I do have something I've been writing for a little while. It's not done, but I'll post it as a Part I, and hope to finish it off sometime when my energy levels recover.

(I hardly ever write things like this, mostly because I believe my readers are perfectly able to carry on without knowing what is happening to me at any given moment.)

See ya 'round.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Moron Leftist Law Prof. Gets It Wrong

Say it aint so!

All the lies George Soros' money can buy.

Obama: "Only A Racist Would Run Against Me"

Would that I was making that up.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

I've said it once, I'll say it again: Obama is the new George Wallace.

"A Flip-Flop Of Epic Proportions"

From Right Wing Tool (TM) Mark Shields:

Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test.

I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money -- the Republicans don't have so much more money. He's raised three times as much as John McCain has.

He has every possible committee, except Republican National Committee, Democrats at the Senate level, congressional level have this lopsided edge over Republicans. They spent three times as much, did Democratic leaning 527s, in the last election as did Republicans.

Substitute the word "lie" for the word "flip-flop" and this is entirely correct.

Friday, June 20, 2008

This Nails It

I've been saying this for awhile (see here and here), but Michael Gerson has also noticed the fraud that is the notion that Barack Obama is some sort of moderate. Obama: A False Moderate?

It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue where Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform -- leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

I have not heard of a single Democrat who has a similar beef with Obama. Maybe this is because Obama has so often only managed to muster up the courage to vote "Present" on anything even vaguely controversial, but it certainly isn't because he's so damn moderate.

Yet Another Example Of My Penchant For "Western Imperialism"

I have this nasty non-post-modern habit of being for Human Rights to such an extreme that I actually believe those rights should be extended to women everywhere. (I know, I'm practically a monster.) So, anyone with tender post-modern sensibilities may want to look away now. 'Harassed' Iran student arrested

A female student in the Iranian city of Zanjan who alleged she was sexually harassed by a senior male lecturer - triggering a massive demonstration by her fellow students - has herself been arrested.

The nature of the charge against the woman - who said she was molested by the vice-chancellor of the university - is unclear, but the local prosecutor is reported to have said that publicising certain crimes is worse than the crimes themselves.

That's right. Maybe she should have leaned back and enjoyed it?

Being "post-modern" means defending the right of Iranians to hold such a position because they have different "values."

That is why I will stick to the belief that being "post-modern" is an act of immorality.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Profiling: The Obama Way

Woman says head scarf cost her seat near Obama

A young Muslim woman said she and another woman were refused seats directly behind Barack Obama -- and in front of TV cameras -- at a Detroit rally because they wear head scarves.

Hebba Aref said Wednesday that she and Shimaa Abdelfadeel were among 20,000 supporters who gathered to see Obama on Monday at the Joe Louis Arena when the groups they were with were separately invited by Obama campaign volunteers to sit behind the podium.

But Aref said the volunteers told members of both parties in separate discussions that women wearing hijabs, the traditional Muslim head scarves, weren't included in the invitation and couldn't sit behind the podium.

Obama reiterated today that people are supposed to pay attention to what he says, and ignore what he actually does.

After all, it's for their own good.

Obama: Its McCain's Fault I'm A Liar

The funny thing about Obama is that, for a politician, he's not a very good liar. You pretty much know what is BS the moment it issues from his mouth. Granted, the MSM does its best and tries to pretend they are credulous, but no one on earth seriously believed Obama was interested in sticking to his pledge to accept public financing for his campaign.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.

Obama, who set records raising money in the primary election, will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him in the general election. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election.

Obama officials said they decided to take that route because McCain is already spending privately raised funds toward the general election campaign. Obama has vastly outraised McCain, however, and would likely retain that advantage if McCain accepts the public money.

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Obama's spin is so weak its laughable. It's the sort of bumbling play you expect from someone running for mayor of a small town, not for the Presidency. (Not that his disciples will care. They think his incompetence is adorable.)

Let's us see how the Republicans are "gaming" the system:

Obama has shattered president campaign fundraising records, raking in more than $265 million as of the end of April. Of that, nearly $10 million was for the general election. McCain, on the other hand had raised nearly $115 million by the end of May.

$150 million dollar advantage for the Democrats. Yeah, the Dems are really behind the eight ball here.

Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm not saying that the MSM isn't above adopting the Obama spin for its stories. They haven't jumped off the Obama bandwagon yet.

But Obama's clear financial advantage over McCain is offset in part by the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money in the bank than the Democratic National Committee. Both national parties can spend money on behalf of the presidential candidates.

As to what those numbers actually are the press will leave you blissfully ignorant. Hmmm...I wonder why?

The party ended April with only $4.4 million in the bank, which amounted to only a tenth of the $40.6 million the Republican National Committee has raised. The RNC and presumed GOP nominee John McCain of Arizona have been raising money together since April through their own joint committee, the McCain Victory 2008 fund.

So, the Republicans have a $36.2 million advantage over the DNC, largely because the Republican nomination process ended early enough to concentrate their fundraising efforts (as Obama and Co. are now doing as well.) Yeah, way to "game" the system.

Besides even if you add the RNC money in, Team Obama still has a $114 million dollar advantage. Yeah, that's really "offset" there.

So who exactly is doing the "gaming" here?

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Obama On Judges

Obama thinks Federal judges should be picked upon their "empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges."

If you don't recognize how idiotic this is, I fear for you.

Scratch that. Actually, I'm afraid of you.

Why Is Juan Cole Always Wrong?

Or is it just when I'm looking?

This spring we were all treated to Cole cheer leading for the Mahdi army in its battle against the Iraqi military.

Let's do a little time line:

March 26:

The truce between the Mahdi Army and the US military has broken down, putting a question mark over the future of the 'surge'.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.


Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies.

March 28th:

Mahdi Army Stands Firm in its Basra Neighborhoods

People are asking me the significance of the fighting going on in Basra and elsewhere. My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote.

April 1st:

Why did Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attack the Mahdi army in Basra last week?

Despite the cease-fire called Sunday by Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the millions-strong Sadr Movement, last week's battles between the Mahdi army and the Iraqi army revealed the continued weakness and instability of al-Maliki's government. Al-Maliki went to Basra on Monday, March 24, to oversee the attack on city neighborhoods loyal to al-Sadr. By Friday, the Iraqi minister of defense, Abdul Qadir Jasim, had to admit in a news conference in Basra that the Mahdi army had caught Iraqi security forces off guard. Most Sadrist neighborhoods fought off the government troops with rocket-propelled grenades and mortar fire. At the same time, the Mahdi army asserted itself in several important cities in the Shiite south, as well as in parts of Baghdad, raising questions of how much of the country the government really controls. Only on Sunday, after the U.S. Air Force bombed some key Mahdi army positions, was the Iraqi army able to move into one of the Sadrist districts of Basra.

By the time the cease-fire was called, al-Maliki had been bloodied after days of ineffective fighting and welcomed a way back from the precipice. Both Iran, which brokered the agreement, and al-Sadr, whose forces acquitted themselves well against the government, were strengthened. As of press time Tuesday morning in Iraq, the truce was holding in Basra, and a curfew had been lifted in Baghdad, though sporadic fighting continued in the capital. Estimates of casualties for the week were 350.

The campaign was a predictable fiasco, another in a long line of strategic failures for the sickly and divided Iraqi government, which survives largely because it is propped up by the United States.

April 4th:

Clashes Continue in Basra

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that clashes continued to be fought in Basra on Thursday between Iraqi government troops and the Mahdi Army militia.

The LAT says Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is intent on pursuing his struggle with the Mahdi Army militia, not only in the southern port city of Basra but in other Shiite cities as well. Apparently he thinks big talk will substitute for successful military operations.


Jonathan Steele argues that al-Sadr came out of the episode much strengthened. He suggests that Cheney may have greenlighted the operation when he was there, in hopes that it would produce dramatic good news in time for the upcoming Petraeus / Crocker appearances before Congress. If so, it backfired big time.

April 13th:

Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran.


Iran admitted on Saturday that it had negotiated a ceasefire by the Mahdi Army when approached by Iraqi parliamentarians (who were from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da'wa Party, al-Maliki's backers). In other words, while Bushco blames Iran for Iraq's instability, in fact the Iranians have tried to and often succeeded in calming the situation down.

Ma`d Fayyad of al-Sharq Al-Awsat even says, writing in Arabic, that the Iranians were annoyed with Muqtada al-Sadr over his militia activities and have more or less expelled him from Iran (though Iranian authorities denied he was ever there).

[Just imagine the mental contortions one has to do to reconcile those last three paragraphs. On second thought, don't try it. Its a good way to sprain a lobe.]

See, the whole Basra episode was an unmitigated disaster for al-Maliki and the Bush administration, leaving Iran and the Mahdi army stronger than before. So says Juan Cole.

Here is how the AP sees it today:

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.


Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

But those Sunni groups — loosely organized and still armed — could resume the fight if the Shiite-dominated national leadership fails to deliver on promises of economic help and a share of power. Critics believe U.S. support for such groups, known collectively as "awakening councils," could set the stage for future conflict.

In the meantime, Sunnis who once shunned politics are gearing up to contest provincial elections this fall.

Shiite militiamen are reeling after military setbacks in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City districts this spring. But it's unclear whether militia chief Muqtada al-Sadr has given up violence entirely as his Shiite rivals seek to undermine his support among the majority Shiite community.


In recent weeks, however, the factious, Shiite-led Iraqi government has won a measure of public support by standing up to Shiite and Sunni gunmen — even if a list of other goals such as constitutional amendments and a new oil law remain unfulfilled.

A new sense of confidence has emerged after recent Iraqi-run military operations against Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida, in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militiamen in Basra and Baghdad.

At first, the Basra operation stumbled badly, with al-Sadr's militiamen fighting government troops to a standstill as their Shiite allies in Baghdad launched attacks against the U.S.-protected Green Zone. American and Iraqi troops rushed to Basra from as far as western Iraq after local army and police units failed to perform.

But a combination of military force and political pressure on al-Sadr produced a cease-fire, enabling Iraqi security forces to expand control of part of Baghdad and Basra that had been under militia domination for years.

Brimming with confidence, Iraqi forces are turning their attention to southern Maysan province, long believed a hub of a smuggling network bringing weapons from Iran to Shiite extremists in Iraq.

And thus Cole is completely and utterly repudiated.

Cole is that worst of scholars who sees events completely through his political ideology. Things have to go badly in Iraq because Bush is the president. Therefore, it doesn't matter what actually happens in Iraq. Ideology always trumps facts.

The Cole's of the world are really complete narcissists who say "If my ideas are wrong, I don't want to be right."

Logic: Pick Up On It

Oh God, I don't have the time to do an out and out fisking on it, but here is a piece that drives my inner logician mad: My Own Reverend Wright

During the uproar in March over the incendiary remarks of Barack Obama's longtime preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama supporters implored people to be empathetic, saying "Don't we all have someone like that in our lives?" But no one gave a concrete example.

Goodie, a concrete example...because everyone has a mentor who is a hate monger/anti-Semite, right? O.K. who ya got?

I've got one. A good friend of mine is now publicly representing the faction of "Clintonites" that are threatening to not vote in November or to vote for John McCain rather than fall in line behind Barack Obama.

Yeah, because having a friend who supports John McCain is the equivalent of having one who supports Louis Farrakhan.

What else ya got?

Yeesh. As I assume Obama did vis-à-vis Wright, for the last week I have been crossing my fingers that no one connects the dots between me and my friend, out of fear of "guilt by association." I never gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on the guilt-by-association thing, but now that it's happening to me, I do.

Alright, "guilt by association" is bad...remember that for later.

Seeing my friend, who I know to be liberal-to-moderate, on a FOX News Channel segment called "Dems Divided" talking about the splinter group he founded, which is named after a predatory feline creature, made me recoil the way I imagine Obama did when he first saw the tape. It was my own "God damn America!" mortification moment. (Although my friend does look very good on TV. It was a little like watching a Leni Riefenstahl film. Looks good aesthetically, but think about what she's doing!)

Yeah, if you don't support Obama you are indistinguishable from a Nazi propagandist. (Thank goodness, the guy was a "friend." I'd hate to think of what he would have called someone he didn't like very much.)

Is it SANE for a Democrat to back McCain after the Republican-induced nightmare of the last eight years?

Yes, because we all know McCain has been calling the shots for the last eight years. What? He hasn't? Oh, that's ok, because we can say he's guilty by association. You see, "guilt by association" is only bad when done by non-Obama supporters. If you support the "chosen one" it's totally cool.

I went to my first Obama event last night. I'm sick of being in a chronically aggrieved position, as Hillary supporters have been for months. I want and need to be positive and excited again. I want to be available to the appealing Hopey McChange, not the twisted, angry Oldy McSame.

Yep, that's the typical Obama supporter in a nutshell. It's all about how these wannabe New Agers feel. "Come join us! Thinking isn't necessary. In fact, doing so in any organized fashion is frowned upon. Just grab the kool-aid and drink deeply. OH! The Lightworker cometh!"

Monday, June 16, 2008

McCain Is A Racist

What else could one draw from the following printed in major newspapers across the country?

Yes, even attempting to run for the Presidency as the candidate for a rival party is unacceptable in today's Amerika.

(H/T To Winds Of Change, who call Danzinger an "asshole")

What Is Europe Anyhow?

Its "Oldie But A Goodie" time here at the IMW. I wrote the following after the French rejection of the proposed EU Constitution back in May 2005, and I thought it was worth dusting it off after the Irish rejection this last week.

It is the indisputable power of propaganda of every type that all one has to do to have a great falsehood accepted as a simple fact is to keep repeating that falsehood over and over again at a loud volume. Through sheer repetition almost any bankrupt idea can win the day. However, something of the same process can also happen without prior planning or dastardly intentions. A classic example can be seen in yesterday's referendum on the EU Constitution in France. As the vote loomed and its passage seemed more doubtful by the day, the newspapers were filled with commentary about exactly what was going on in France. What is interesting about this commentary is that nearly all of it was obviously absurd. What was at play here was not an attempt to mislead anyone about what is going on in France and in other places in Europe. No, what it is indicative of is the incoherent nature of the constitutional discussion going on right now. Because all anyone is hearing are these incoherent ramblings they have been accepted as reality. If some knowledgable journalist of European affairs were to wake up today after a ten-year long coma and be told by a colleague of the "prevailing opinion" being bandied about by politicians and the press this morning, I believe that journalist would regard his colleague as a lunatic.

For example, the most vocal opponents of the Constitution in France made the repeated complaint that the document was "too liberal." In fact it was claimed that the Constitution was some sort of Reagan/Thatcher plot to enslave the French people to the evil master Globalization, which would doom the French working class to permanent underemployment as Poles, Czechs, and (someday soon) Turks took their jobs by accepting the demeaning French minimum wage....or something like that. I found it a little hard to follow as I was laughing so hard. (Why do I picture a "Night of The Living Dead" zombie Ronald Reagan terrorizing poor French villagers who unwittingly flee straight into the arms of the "Global Economy"?)

It is difficult to see how exactly this Constitution, which enshrines the present European system of protectionism and subsidies, can be viewed as a capitulation to free and open markets, but it is. It is also difficult to see how this 450 page document micro-managing nearly every aspect of political and economic life could possibly be viewed as "too liberal," but it is. It is further difficult to see how anyone who notices the above two points, as many commentators have, could still insist on acting as if French public opinion makes sense, but they do.

It sometimes happens that that which lacks common sense or logical consistency on its surface sometimes hides a deeper inchoate meaning beneath. I would argue that is exactly what is going on in Europe today. The laughable rationales put forward by those voting "non" are not an attempt to mislead (as some who are calling these voters racists would have you think,) but are a failed attempt to express a reality only dimly perceived.

In an essay entitled "Unity and Diversity of Europe" the great Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset saw something of this European reality about 70 years ago. Writing in the 1930's Ortega had a prediction:

I therefore suggest that the reader spare the malice of a smile when I predict - somewhat boldly, in view of present appearances - a possible, a probable unification of the states of Europe. I do not deny that the United States of Europe is one of the poorest fantasies that has ever existed and I take no responsibility for what others have handed out under these verbal signs. But I do maintain that it is highly improbable that a society, a collectivity as ripe as that now formed by the peoples of Europe, should not move towards the creation of a state apparatus for the exercise of the European public power which already exists. It is not, then, a weakness for fantasy nor a leaning towards "idealism" which I despise and have fought all my life, that has brought me to this conclusion. It is historic realism that has made it clear to me that the unity of Europe as society is not an "ideal" but a very ancient daily fact, and having seen this fact one cannot but confront the probability of a general European state. [From History As A System, Norton, 1941, pp.52-3.]

For Ortega the truth of the "society of Europe" underlies all other political and social developments. Europe has a society because Europeans are forced to co-exist with one another. Custom and law come naturally from this condition, and are not brought about by human actions. "A society is not brought about by a willed agreement. Inversely, any such agreement presupposes the existence of a society, of people living together under certain customs, and the agreement can only determine one form or another of this coexistence, of this pre-existing society." [p. 50] The outline of this "pre-existing society" is exactly what constitutes the "unity" of Europe.

However, Ortega does not view this "unity" in a static manner. Indeed, for Ortega, European unity most clearly expresses itself through the dynamic qualities and plurality of European peoples. We can recognize at the same time both what differentiates Spaniards from Germans AND how they spring from a common societal heart. Europe would cease to be a European society without both aspects. "If the plurality is lost, the dynamic unity fades away." [p. 55] So while Ortega sees a formal governmental body for Europe as inevitable it will of necessity be limited, unless we wish to go down the path of creating what Ortega views as the homogenizating nightmare of the "mass man."

I think it is in light of these views that the French vote can be made sense of. While the specific character of the complaints about the EU Constitution are absurd, they all have something in common which might not be absurd. They all make a version of the claim that this Constitution would force them to be not like themselves but like someone else, such as the English or the Americans. I think it is obvious that this document will not make an American out of a Frenchman or an Englander out of a Dutch woman, but that doesn't mean that it isn't asking the French person to be less French or the Dutch person to be less Dutch. In this sense the French people have been unable to put their concerns into intelligible language, but they have been able to put it into intelligible action at the ballot box. As a deal making exercise this Constitution was probably the best deal the French people could have gotten, but I think by now it is clear that wasn't the point, at least not for them.

Ortega y Gasset claimed that you cannot have Europeans without also having French, Germans, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, English, et al...It might just be the French are saying exactly the same thing.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Voice Of Liberalism: Dumber Than Pigshit

There are no words for how stupid crap like this is:

If you were watching MSNBC's coverage of Tim Russert's untimely passing last night, you may just have witnessed John McCain's naked attempt to make the death of this institution all about himself.

Apparently, McCain thought the time was right to make self-aggrandizing jokes about Russert's technique:

When asked yesterday by reporters what it was like to be interviewed by Russert, McCain said with a smile, ``I once told him I haven't had so much fun since my last interrogation at prison camp.''

Good God.

Is the Daily Kos really influential? Do people actually read this moronic and vicious drivel and think "Right on"??

Democratic office holders should be ashamed to be associated with these dillweeds.

All I Can Say Is "Why Not?"

Princess 'caught frolicking naked'

Britain's Princess Eugenie has been reprimanded by her school after being caught frolicking naked on college grounds, it was reported Saturday.

The 18-year-old daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah Ferguson, was apprehended for her involvement in end of term "high jinks" at the exclusive Marlborough College, west of London, the UK Press Associated said.

A royal source told the Press Association: "It was nothing more than high jinks at the end of term in May. A group of them were reprimanded and that's the end of the matter."

Good for her. She's got her whole life to be British and staid.

And, I say this in full knowledge that in no time in my life would my public nude frolicking have resulted in only a reprimand.

Friday, June 13, 2008

So, What's The Story Line?

More follies from the DK: McCain Can't Balance His Own Budget

Newly released financial documents show that multi-millionaire John McCain can't even balance his family budget.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his wife reported more than $100,000 of credit card liabilities, according to financial disclosure documents released Friday.

The presidential candidate and his wife Cindy reported piling up debt on a charge card between $10,000 and $15,000. His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express.

Another charge card with American Express, this one for a "dependent child," is carrying debt in the range of $15,000 and $50,000.

Reckless indebtedness during a year in which Cindy McCain sold one of their 10 or so residences for a profit of more than a million dollars. That is a pretty sure sign of financial irresponsibility. By contrast, documents for the far less wealthy Obama family show that they have no credit card debt. Quite the opposite, the Obamas have set aside funds for their daughters' college education.

Ewwwww...the horror.

Of course one could read the same story and pull out this:

Obama reported $4.1 million in book royalties, while McCain reported $176,508, which the Republican said was donated to charity.

In 2005, Obama received an advance of $1.9 million from Random House Inc. for his book The Audacity of Hope. Obama said $200,000 of that advance went to charity.

So, McCain gave 100% of this income to charity, while Obama gave 4.8%.

I also saw this which made me a little sick:

McCain received an annual pension from the U.S. Navy that is worth more than $58,000.


Obama reported between $50,001 and $100,000 in pensions from his work as an Illinois state legislator

Serve your country in the military, get captured and tortured by the enemy, and if you survive you can look forward to 58K for as long as your broken body still functions.

Serve eight years as an Illinois legislator and sit back on up to 100K for life.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Are You An FDR?

That is a Formerly Democratic Republican: From Powerline:

The organization will be called Formerly Democratic Republicans. FDR for short. Right now I'm feeling stupid and foolish and angry. Angered that the better part of my intellectual lifetime has slipped by, malnourished by the social/moral/political pablum force-fed by brain laundries like Harvard and mainstream media. Foolish and stupid because I really didn't have to be force-fed -- I lapped it up eagerly and found it tasty and self-satisfying.

Anxious to make up for the lost time that can never be regained, I'm skipping directly to Steps 8 and 9 [in AA's 12 steps].

Step 8: While I don't think I've harmed you, I've got to confess that until now I've always been chagrined that the wittiest, most intelligent and empathetic friend of my youth apparently had gone bonkers after college and "become one of them." That was wrong of me.

Step 9: I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I so care-less-ly let our friendship slip away. I'm sorry that I so readily dismissed your mind.


Moron Alert

Like a good liberal, there is no human misery the DK won't try to make political hay out of:

Flooding in the Midwest has forced thousands to flee from their homes and one state's governor predicts damage could be in the billions of dollars. Several cities in Iowa have been particularly hard hit


Several readers have asked if this flooding is due in part to climate change. Short answer, yes, it could be a factor. A good analogy is that climate change and storm intensity are like loaded dice and rolling snake-eyes. You can't say that a specific storm, or roll, would not have occured [sic] had it not been for climate change, or loaded dice. Only that the frequency of intense storms, or snake eyes, is greater.

Scum bags one and all.

Don't believe me? Here is the rainfall patterns from 1979 to 2005 courtesy of those Right Wing villains at NASA:

The yellow and red areas are those of increasing rainfall during the period, blue and green decreasing.

Can you find North America on the map? Good. Now is it covered in red or blue? Blue you say! Well, then according to climatological research North America has been getting a little less precipitation not more during the period of "climate change".

But, of course the DK believes that everything, and I mean absolutely every freaking thing, is proof of "climate change" and science be damned.

In fact, they are now claiming, in effect, that anecdotal evidence should be given more sway than decades worth of climatological research. Remember, these are supposed to be the "reality" based people. Heh.


This Obama (and Che) supporter is a judge of some sort.

Tim Russert Dead At 58

This is shocking:

Tim Russert, who pointedly but politely questioned hundreds of the powerful and influential as moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," died Friday of an apparent heart attack. The network's Washington bureau chief was 58.

In addition to his weekly program, Russert made periodic appearances on the network's other news shows, was moderator for numerous political debates and wrote two best-selling books.

NBC interrupted its regular programming to announce Russert's death, and in the ensuing moments, familiar faces such as Tom Brokaw, Andrea Mitchell and Brian Williams took turns mourning his loss.

Williams called him "aggressively unfancy."

Russert, of Buffalo, N.Y., took the helm of the Sunday news show in December 1991 and turned it into the nation's most widely watched program of its type. His signature trait there was an unrelenting style of questioning that made some politicians reluctant to appear, yet confident that they could claim extra credibility if they survived his grilling intact.

He was also a senior vice president at NBC, and this year, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Tim Russert was very, very good at what he did for a living, and in an age when many of us view television journalism with much skepticism he was a bit of a throwback to an older generation. He always seemed more blue collar than Ivy League; more kid from Buffalo than Washington insider. I always thought it was fitting that he was written into the storyline for the show Homicide, which was more "dirt under your fingernails" than flashy nonsense.

Mr. Russert used to come into my bookshop in Washington, where we would act out a little ritual. He would ask for a book which we always carried. I would check the computer only to discover that we had sold our last copy the previous day, and we wouldn't get a replacement copy for two more days. Russert would sadly shake his head and continue to browse. One time he did ask, "How do you never have what I'm looking for?" I'll admit it was uncanny.

The thing is, despite our many failings he always came back when he was in the neighborhood. He was simply a nice guy.



"Hey, That's My Handiwork!"

I've never come across my influence in a published work...until this very morning. I'm reading a biography of singer songwriter Al Stewart by Neville Judd. I'm sitting on my couch drinking my morning tea and reading away when I get to page 213 and I come across a lengthy quote from Al talking about an earlier lyric to his hit song "Year Of The Cat."

As I read it I started to think, "Hmmm...this sounds familiar." And, then it dawned on me. I heard Al makes these comments before. I don't mean I've heard Al tell the story of song before, I mean I heard this particular telling of the story.

Alright, so what is my contribution here? Well, back in 1988 I taped an interview with Al off of a local radio station in St. Louis (WMRY), where this quote originated. Several years later I made a transcript of that interview and posted it on the Al Stewart Mailing List (an email list for all of us geeky Al Stewart fans.) Obviously, Neville Judd must have come across my posting and filed it away amongst his other research material. I cannot think of another explanation of how such an obscure interview for a long defunct radio station could have made it into this book. It had to be my transcript.

It makes me wonder if, when I read further, I will see Al's musings from that day about french onion soup.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Obama: Taking The "Democratic" Out Of The "Democratic Party"

Of course, what you need most of all if you are called the Democratic Party is a centralized bureaucracy.

After all, it worked so well in the German Democratic Republic.

The Democrats are quickly becoming the party of Barack Obama, and not a party of the American people.

Monday, June 09, 2008

BS Argument Of The Day

From the normally reliable Winds Of Change:

I need to weigh in on the Obama/anti-Semetic web page brouhaha. The critics need to chill before they badly embarrass themselves on this one.

While there are legitimate grounds to poke Obama on his issues wrt Israel and Jews (and in response to being poked, he's made pretty much all the right noises - enough that it's not a Top Ten issue for me), this is absolutely, unqualifiedly not one of them.

Here's why. Any registered user of can post a blog - which this was. There's no advance moderation, because - I imagine - they can't afford it, and they want to keep the site 'spontaneous'.

Yeah, right. The wealthiest campaign in recorded history can't afford to do quality control on its official campaign website.

I'm sorry, but who is embarrassing themselves here?

"Hello Old Friend. What A Strange Coincidence To Find You."

If you miss John Kerry's I was for it before I was against it, well, you are in luck! Meet Barack Obama's I was against it before I was for it.

Recall that in his speech at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington on Wednesday, Obama called for "boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." Before the speech, Obama had not so far as I am aware advertised this position in any speech or debate. The timing of the AIPAC speech was of course notable. Obama had clinched the Democratic presidential nomination on the evening before and was now moving into the general election.

Whether or not the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist entity had first surfaced as an issue in the run-up to the primaries in the Kyl-Lileberman amendment. Senator Obama did not appear in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment when it came before the Senate on September 26. The amendment had only one substantive component. In a non-binding resolution, the heart of the amendment called on the government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist entity. Designation of a group as a terrorist entity entails specified consequences including financial and economic sanctions enforced by the United States Treasury.


Barack Obama expressed no position on the amendment prior to the September 26 vote on it. (Only Obama and John McCain missed the vote, though McCain was a co-sponsor of the amendment and his position on it was well known.) At the time of the vote, Hillary Clinton still fancied herself the Democratic frontrunner positioning herself for the general election. She voted in favor of the amendment, together with prominent Democratic colleagues including Reid and Durbin. The amendment passed in the Senate 76-22.

Only after Clinton had voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment had passed did Obama announce his opposition to it. On the day of the vote on the amendment, Obama issued a statement announcing that he would have voted against it. The Politico's Ben Smith commented: "He does have a position!"

Obama subsequently advanced three explanations for his opposition to the amendment. The McCain campaign has usefully compiled them
here. These explanations are difficult to reconcile with the text or purport of the amendment.

Gee, Obama seems to be able to be for and against everything at the same time. I guess that's the sort of thing you can do when you are a Lightworker.

I'm sure the media will tell us that any resemblance to out-and-out hypocrisy on Obama's part is purely coincidental and should be discounted.

Your Moronic Non-Starter Argument Of The Day

Today it is from the increasingly dimwitted Ruben Navarrette:

For the last six months, one of the media's most convenient -- and offensive -- narratives has been that Latinos wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because they refused to support an African-American for president.

Yeah, that's fabulous, except no one has said anything of the kind.

Plenty of folks said Obama was having trouble appealing to Latinos compared to Clinton, but if you don't understand the difference, well, then no one can help you.


Sunday, June 08, 2008

Throwing You A Bone

Miss the more temperate me? Sorry, but I'm in high dudgeon for the duration.

Still, you can see my old civility from time to time.

Rassmussen: Americans Believe Media Coverage Biased In Obama's Favor

This, of course, should surprise no one: Voters Give Media Failing Grades in Objectivity for Election 2008

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.


Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting
[sic] from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain.

When confronted with these findings, reporters everywhere exclaimed they were, "shocked...simply shocked that the American people noticed. They are usually such imbeciles."

This Is Barack Obama

Any questions?

If you don't have any, what the hell is wrong with you?

Then again maybe you are just part of Obama's official (as in on his freakin' campaign website) "Communists for Obama" group.

Sidebar: How many tens of millions of people does your stupid ideology have to kill before you give the damn thing up?

Commuting Commotion

I don't do too much of this, but Dave Schuler has a nice little post about the costs of commuting for the well heeled.

I don't have anything to add. Just wanted to say, "Well blogged!"

"Progressives" Are Un-American

There I said it:

Well, there may be some other kind of remedy. There may be some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you’re forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.

Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grievously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.

Think of this as a "Political Ideology Test." If you don't understand what is wrong with the above statements you are a fascist. If you do understand what is wrong with the above statements you are not a fascist.

Now you know.

Gleaned from Winds of Change.

I Still Want To Know What "Flavor" The Kool Aid Is

Sadly we live in an age where the following can be written by a columnist for a major metropolitan daily:

Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity….

Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet

Well, that just buried the needle on the ol' Creep-O-Meter.

Can we skip the whole running for President thing and just make Obama mayor of Sedona instead?

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Tidal Change?

Conservatives in the UK have got to be feeling pretty good about not being Labour: New poll shows Labour just above LibDems

The Labour Party lags 16 points behind the Conservatives and only just ahead of the country's third party, according to an opinion poll in the Sunday Telegraph.

The ICM poll gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown's party 26 percent, well behind the Conservatives' 42 percent but ahead of the Liberal Democrats' 21 percent.

It said it was the lowest rating recorded for Labour in any ICM poll and it comes just ahead of a security vote on Wednesday in parliament that Brown is in serious danger of losing.

The paper noted that when Brown took over from Tony Blair last June, Labour had a poll rating of 40 percent.

It remains to be seen if the Tories can be seen in a positive light themselves, but, as of today, they have to like there chances going forward.

If This Is The Best The Left Can Do They Are Truly Screwed

I thought it was the Republicans that were supposed to be bereft of ideas? Well, now the left in this country is trying to sell us on the idea that we are not allowed to categorize Barack Obama in any fashion that the candidate himself would not approve of. To do anything other is inherently racist. Really. There is no other interpretation possible to this impossibly stupid piece from Huff Po:

It's only been three days since Sen. Barack Obama historically won the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. But the Republican venom against the candidate and his wife Michelle is starting to spew. The viciousness is enough to make you sick,

And what is exactly making this guy so sick? Why, Republicans have the audacity to use the words "Obama" and "radical" in the same sentence:

The Republicans are great at framing issues and labelling candidates. And the new buzzword for Obama is radical. Right-wing radio host Sean Hannity has even re-named his show the "Stop Radical Obama express." On his program Thursday he literally said "radical" about every fourth word. Radical, radical, radical. Get ready, Democrats. We're gonna hear that word more in the next five months than we've heard in a lifetime.

Shocking. There is an attempt to paint a candidate in a political race as being outside the mainstream.

Who is retarded enough to think this is anything new? No one. So why is the Huff Po publishing something so obviously naive? Well, the real intent is to define all Republicans as racists merely for thinking about opposing Obama:

Make no mistake: the constant regurgitation of the word "radical" is meant to conjure up all sorts of fear, anger and racial prejudice. Think "radical Muslim." Think "angry black man." Think Willie Horton. This sort of pandering to the racist dumbasses of America is beyond despicable, but it's what the GOP does best. It's pure propaganda. And like all good propaganda, if you say it enough it sticks.

See, it doesn't matter what positions Obama actually holds, and this drivel makes no attempt to prove the criticisms of Obama are in fact wrong. Truth is, they don't attempt to refute them because they are irrefutable. Trinity Church is a radical black liberation Church which taught that God's only purpose was to "redeem" blacks and damn whites. That simply is what the place taught. How are you gonna spin that to most Americans? You can't spin it so you obfuscate. You cannot win on the facts of the matter so you denigrate those who dare raise the objection in the first place.

The attacks are not just limited to candidate Obama. Just like the vitriol spewed towards Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004, Michelle Obama is now reaping the wrath of these vicious thugs. The new rumor circulating is that a videotape exists of Michelle and the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan in which she allegedly says "Fuck Whitey" at one point. This despicable rumor was spread all day and night Thursday by the right-wing talking heads. "If this is true, he's done" they all giddily gushed over and over and over again. It's absolutely disgusting, and worse, it's all too familiar. Welcome to the Republican coffee table, where the Rovian playbook is proudly on display.

Only problem with this little fantasy is that the rumor seems to have originated on a Democratic blog. (Maybe Karl Rove also practices mind control as well.) The fact is both the conservative National Review and the libertarian Reason Magazine have been leading the way in discrediting the rumors. All of which underscores that this particular vileness originated from the Left not the Right. Even a marginally informed author would have known this already, so I have to assume the author of the Huff Po piece is a liar or an idiot.

And yes, plenty of Right wing blogs discussed the rumors, but so did plenty of Left wing blogs. So this is nothing more than an attempt to assert "We (the forces of goodness and light) are allowed to talk about Topic A, YOU (vile hate filled patrons of darkness) are not." Then they have the chutzpah to claim that it is they who are being denigrated! This guy calls anyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama "racist dumbasses" and he is complaining that it is unfair and racist to call Obama "radical."

I think it is a radical departure, in a supposedly democratic society, to claim there is only one moral responsible option in an election; that if you do not support a particular candidate for any reason whatever you are a bad person. That is the hallmark of every one party state, be it of the fascist or communist variety.

A little while I ago I wrote:

And that will be the rub of an Obama presidency, as sensitivity police of various stripes scour the social and political landscape looking for "inappropriate" speech to demonize and intimidate, as if Obama himself were some sort of child being picked upon by "bullies" such as these South Dakota State students. (Do Ivy League degrees really leave one in such an intellectually fragile state of mind? If so the elite of this country might be better served heading for the Great Plains for their higher education.)

As obnoxious and socially poisonous as such tactics are for the bulk of the country's citizens, the real danger occurs when such intimidation is used to quell genuine political opposition. Given the glib manner the Obama campaign has charged their fellow Democrats with the crime of racism, I do not think any such fear can be discounted out of hand. If the conduct of the Obama campaign is indicative of the way they would rule we can look forward not to a President who will infrequently use the "race card", but a fully fledged race President.

It turns out I was underselling the point. The turn the Obama supporters have taken has gone far beyond implied threats and implied intimidation, it has reached the point where any opposition is deemed unacceptable. So the stage is set for the demonization of everyone who disagrees with their "moral" position.

And, remember, there is nothing radical about it.


More on the same theme from Protein Wisdom:

Ostroy argues that Hannity hammered on Obama’s “radical associations” is “meant to conjure up all sorts of fear, anger and racial prejudice.” Yet of the associations Ostroy mentions — unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger — three are not black. Wright certainly is, but at this point, few would argue that Wright is anything but an angry black man who trafficks in race-baiting and conspiracy mongering. Obama wrote in his first book that Wright decribed Trinity to him as a radical church, so referring to Obama’s decades of worship there a radical association seems fair, even by Obama’s own account. And Ostroy in fact provides no argument that the associations Hannity described are not radical.

Ostroy then turns to Mark Levin’s radio program Thursday, in which Obama was allegedly “accused of just about everything short of eating babies.” Yet the only specific given by Ostroy is an accusation that Obama has a long history of being hostile to the state of Israel, even as Ostroy claims Levin had no facts to back up the charge.

As to the only specific claim Ostroy raises, it is pretty easy to point toward Obama’s longtime personal and fundraising relationship with former PLO flack Rashid Khalidi, including the thousands Obama (and Ayers) helped funnel to the Arab American Action Network, run by Khalidi’s wife, which calls Israel’s founding a “catastrophe.” Indeed the evil Hannity covered this on television recently. Or one could point to to the high-level staffers who are Nation of Islam members, or to his past relationship with Palestinian activist and Islamist Ali Abunimah. Or to the longtime spiritual adviser who declared Israel a “dirty word,” gave Louis Farrakhan a Lifetime Achievement award, and reprinted a Hamas manifesto. Or to Obama’s coterie of advisers urging a more “even-handed” approach to the Israeli conflict, and his previously stated desire to unconditionally meet with with Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad – who is known for denying the Holocaust and wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Indeed, Obama cannot help but echo Arab-Palestinian positions, even in trying to make himself appear pro-Israel.

I forget....why exactly should Obama be considered above criticism?

Oh yeah..he's the messiah. Sorry, my bad.

Friday, June 06, 2008

This Is Monstrous

Turns out Barack Obama is an advocate for infanticide:

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Whatever this S.O.B. is, he is no moderate.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Crazy Talk

The Washington Post has looked at Iraq recently:

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Obama has not shown himself to be able to adjust from his knee-jerk ideologically motivated positions to this point, so I see no reason why that should change now. A large part of his "coalition" was made up by folks who hated Clinton's earlier pragmatic look at the use of force in Iraq. (Not to say it might not have been a deeply cynical look as well.) They are not interested in pragmatic calculations about what course we should chart in Iraq. There is only one "morally acceptable" position to hold for these zealots and there is every reason to believe Obama is simply one of them to his very core. (Not that he hasn't also shown he is willing to throw anyone, including his relatives, under the bus if it suits his purposes.)

If this campaign has shown anything it has shown the inability of the Obama campaign to accept when they are dead wrong, and, make no mistake, Obama was dead wrong about the surge. It plan for anything other than defeat in Iraq has been a non-starter from day one for Obama. There is no way he can embrace it now without looking foolish and weak.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

In other words, as things are progressing continuing the Bush policies could be the best thing for the nation. Anyone think Obama is man enough to embrace that?

(Gleaned from QandO)

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Democratic English

Just in case you need help with translation:

Demanding the end of a Senatorial career for the crime of saying nice things about Strom Thurmond at his birthday party = A telling, trenchant, and above board political criticism.

Criticizing someone for screaming about the evils of "whitey" from a Church pulpit = hit job.

Because, lets face it, haven't we all screamed bout whitey at some point?


The story so far...

First, the New York Times led with a rumor laden article about a supposed McCain affair. That went lead balloonish pretty quickly, damaging what little reputation the Times had as a non-partisan news gathering organization in the process.

Second, we've got Vanity Fair, which nobody has ever confused with a first class new gathering organization, pulling out the rumor mill to attack Bill Clinton on the eve of Hillary's last election hurrah. (Bill Clinton womanizing? Shocked, I am. Simply shocked!)

Third, we will have the long rumored video of Michelle Obama screaming about "whitey" on the dais of Trinity "Church" released at 9:00 in the morning tomorrow. Or so they say. (Does this mean Barry will have to distance himself from Michelle and then, when that doesn't work, sue for divorce?)

You gotta admit...this presidential season has not been boring.