10.28.07

Netroot–And Other Root–Love

Posted in Economic at 9:15 pm by

Nancy Pelosi hears it from the galleys:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.

But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic “base” over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

“Look,” she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. “I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things — Buddhas? I don’t know what they were — couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.”

Unsmilingly, she continued: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment.”

She should have expressed empathy for all of the people who were protesting her actions–if only to disarm them. Instead, Pelosi’s outburst will only serve to invite further demonstrations outside her home and office.

And the netroots. Don’t even get me started on the netroots. They will see that she is susceptible to and painfully aware of the pressure and ratchet things up. I would understand if the Speaker switched parties if only to get the netroots off her back.

Originaly from Source

What To Do About Russia

Posted in Economic at 8:25 pm by

The Economist has some apt reminders for those who would dismiss democratization in Russia on the theory that the Russian people need a strongman, aren’t interested in democracy, yearn to be ruled with an iron hand . . . and so on and so forth:

Many Russians also point gleefully to the chaotic politics of Ukraine as just what they want to avoid. In fact Ukraine offers them a proud example. It is true that the country’s politics has been messy since the “orange revolution” of late 2004 propelled Viktor Yushchenko into the presidency, ahead of Russia’s preferred candidate, Viktor Yanukovich; that Ukraine’s wealthy business clans have too much political influence; and that corruption is entrenched (as it is in Russia).

Yet the election on September 30th was still a thoroughly democratic and unpredictable affair, more honestly conducted than any before it. After some hard bargaining, it seems likely to produce a new orange coalition government (see article). There is no longer serious talk of the country breaking apart: all political parties want to move closer to Europe. Unlike Russia, Ukraine now has independent media, a real opposition and the prospect of a genuine presidential contest in 2009. It also has a fast-growing economy that is likely to get into the World Trade Organisation before Russia does.

What can the West do to promote the democratic cause in the post-Soviet space? The answer in Russia is: not much. Mr Putin is sensitive to outside criticism, but not enough to make him more democratic. Western economic leverage over Russia is limited. Indeed, the bigger risk is that the Russians’ stranglehold on gas supplies to Europe is putting more leverage into their hands. Tellingly, the Russian energy giant, Gazprom, this week again threatened to cut supplies to Ukraine.

But the West could do more to foster and encourage fledgling democracies in places such as Ukraine and Georgia, through better trade access, more favourable visa arrangements and stronger support in the face of Russian bullying. The European Union would also do these countries a huge favour if it were willing to hold out the prospect, however distant, of their becoming members. This has worked wonders in central and eastern Europe, and in the Baltics–there is no reason why it should not do so in other bits of the former Soviet Union. Above all, the successful establishment of working democracy in countries like Ukraine offers the best hope of one day luring Russia down the same road.

It is high time for a comprehensive review and overhaul of America’s policy concerning Russia. In fact, it is long past high time for such an overhaul. How much more do things in Russia need to deteriorate before a better and more successful policy is implemented?

Originaly from Source

10.27.07

Keep it Together, Part 3

Posted in Economic at 9:56 pm by

Keep it Together

Keep it in the huddle, boys and girls.

You’re starting to listen, feels like. That’s a good thing. One or two more things to say.

We’ve got to remember what this is all about.

We’re all frustrated and angry. But don’t give into the temptation to play angry, to play frustrated. We can’t make it about hating those other guys and their horrible teams. We can’t let them make this out to be about anger, about fear.

We’ve got to remember what this is REALLY about.

They want to keep on pretending that the cheap ideas they’ve been selling for decades actually work. They want to keep on pretending that Cuba has better medicine than we do. They want to keep on using the tax code to divide us and penalize success. They want to make arguments about education and jobs about the old divisions of class and race. They want to pretend that the definition of family can be anything they say it is, without any consequences. They want to pretend that if our soldiers just stop killing terrorists, al Qaeda will go away. And they keep insisting that government knows best - that if we just give it more money and more power, eventually, they’ll get it right.

We know these are lies. We know their solutions don’t work. And most Americans know that, too. We just have to show them the truth.

You know what this is all about? Just look at two people, and you’ll see what this is all about.

You remember this guy? Almost forgot about him, did ya? Well, he doesn’t forget.

He’s a big damn hero. He went through hell to get to where he is. And then, when the opportunity came to give him some help, we got lucky - we got two great guys in there. You can only win lucky for so long. We can’t count on that again. And we want our heroes leading the charge, not just being brilliant and principled in the minority.

This other guy, you don’t know who he is. But he’s one of my heroes.

He’s going to need some help when he’s over there. He’s going to need our help, because lord knows the tater tots on Capitol Hill who want to play funding games with the men and women overseas aren’t going to give him any help. The nutroots won’t let ‘em.

Let’s be clear about this: If we go off by ourselves, and play against them AND against each other, it won’t MATTER who’s got the headset. It won’t MATTER we get to call the plays. And that big damn hero, and my brother - they won’t get any more help than what they have to beg for from Harry frickin Reid. For god knows how long.

Don’t play angry. Don’t be like they were when they were in our situation. Play like a team, because that’s playing smart. That’s playing to win.

Read the rest of this entry »

MA-05: Come to New England See Foliage Help Ogonowski

Posted in Economic at 9:06 pm by

The 96 hours starting Friday night October 12 are the beginning of the Ogonowski GOTV effort. The campaign needs all the help it can get in those final 96 hours. The Democrats are bringing people in from all around the nation because they know this race is close. Team Ogonowski needs your support.

If you live anywhere on the map to the left you are within an easy drive of the 5th Congressional District of Massachusetts. Take a nice weekend in Massachusetts see the leaves and help with canvassing and phone banking. Your help is needed and will be appreciated.

Please contact the campaign to help out. Visit the 72 hour sign up page on Jim Ogonowski’s website to sign up to help. I’ll see you on the trail.

Oh and if you can give some cash to offset the 527 money coming in on the other side, it would be great. www.rightroots.com/ogonowski

Originaly from Source

The Young America Foundation has a question for George Washington University.

Posted in Economic at 8:15 pm by

YAF has written an open letter to GWU President Steven Knapp. Background here, by the way.

An open letter to Steven Knapp, president of The George Washington University

October 10, 2007

President Steven Knapp
The George Washington University
2121 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20052

Dear President Knapp,

Seven students at your institution falsely attributed the “Hate Muslims? So Do We!!” fliers to The George Washington University chapter of Young Americas Foundation. When the fliers initially surfaced you said, “There is no place for expressions of hatred on our campus. We do not condone, and we will not tolerate the dissemination of fliers or other documents that vilify any religious, ethnic or racial group.”

We agree. Vicious personal attacks levied on students are intolerable, and should not go unpunished. The question remains: what will you do about such blatant character assassination now that the truth is out? How will you demonstrate that you dont “condone” or “tolerate” the dissemination of hate?

It would be spiffy if this problem was addressed, but don’t hold your breath. GWU’s uncritical willingness to jump all over the YAF because of the clumsiest of forgeries doesn’t exactly speak well for the school administration’s collective reasoning ability, and it’s unlikely that they’ll be any better at learning from mistakes.

Read on.

Open letter or no, I probably shouldn’t publish the whole thing, but I’d like to highlight the following:

There is, of course, a clear difference between ordinary Muslims who positively contribute to society and radical Jihadists who boast about murdering people indiscriminately. Its a typical left-wing tactic, however, to just call names, such as “racist,” rather than engage in a serious debate, in this case, over radical Islam. Only the intellectually deficient revert to such slanderous attacks.

The seven who put up the phony fliers are frauds.

You should issue an apology to the conservatives unfairly targeted. It was obvious that the fliers were spreading lies, but your administration, led by Bridgette Behlingthe assistant director of the Student Activities Centersent emails to the young conservatives pressuring them to sign statements disavowing any hate speech that may originate at any future Young Americas Foundation event.

[Bolding mine]

…and that last bit is why all of this is a problem worthy of the front page, and why I personally expect that GWU will stonewall this issue for as long as it personally can. Let me be blunt. There are two possible ways that someone could look at this flier and believe that it originated from a conservative group. One, you could be abjectly stupid. Two, you could be so wrapped up in your particular worldview that anything that validated it would be accepted without critical analysis - which is sort of the same thing as One, only with bigger words. Either way, falling for this is precisely the sort of thing that should make you reconsider your assumptions about your opponents. Should, but probably won’t.

You’ll notice that I’m not really targeting the students who did this, per se. They’re antiwar activists. Their leader is Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War (the group that tried to push the Jesse MacBeth nonsense). Lying about their opponents is what they do, particularly if it can somehow involve infantilizing the people they pretend to be defending. But college administrations are supposedly made up of people who are able to put their underwear on inside their pants, remember which car is theirs nine times out of ten, and order off of the adult menu.

Should we be revising that supposition?

Originaly from Source

10.26.07

The Al Qaeda Bill of Rights

Posted in Economic at 9:45 pm by

At a time when Democrats are thwarting reauthorization of FISA, considering habeas corpus rights for Islamic terrorists, and hoping to close the Guantanamo prison, this clever creation mocks how liberals in Congress want to undermine the U.S. intelligence community. I don’t know who wrote it, but it deserves widespread circulation.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of foreign terrorists to communicate with each other outside the United States.

Amendment II

The right of foreign terrorists to freely plan and coordinate attacks on the United States shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No intelligence officer shall, in time of peace, monitor terrorist communication, without the consent of a court, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by MoveOn.org.

Amendment IV

The right of the terrorists to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against reasonable surveillance to protect American lives, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No foreign terrorist unlawfully waging war against the United States on foreign soil shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Continued on the jump …

Amendment VI

In all prosecutions of foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits against foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted on foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the terrorists.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the terrorists by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to MoveOn.org respectively, or to the New York Times editorial board.

Originaly from Source

Let’s Compare and Contrast

Posted in Economic at 8:56 pm by

This really explains a lot. Please compare this

“You know [Cheney’s] been a disaster for our country,” Carter said. “I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed.”

With this

“I’m filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush,” Carter said, referring to Rice’s former role as White House national security adviser.

Considering how many of our foreign policy disasters have been State Department induced, I would be surprised except for the fact that this is Jimmy Carter we’re talking about — a man who who has chronically seen evil in angels and good in devils for more than three decades.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bring It.

Posted in Economic at 8:05 pm by

If I may be excused for bringing up Jeff Emanuel’s most painful memory, I shall draw a baseball analogy that involves Hillary Clinton. Imagine, if you will, that the scene is the 1991 World Series, Game 6. The Braves had the Twins against the ropes, up 3-2 in the series. The teams played 10 thrilling innings, and the game went into the bottom of the 11th tied at 3. Kirby Puckett, one of the Twins’ most dangerous hitters, was up. Tim McCarver, in a rare moment of relevant and correct commentary, observed, “Kirby Puckett’s a great offspeed hitter. You have got to bring in someone with a good fastball to get him out if you’re Bobby Cox.” Unfortunately for the Braves, despite having the flamethrowing Alejandro Pena available on the bench, Cox instead went with changeup specialist Charlie Liebrandt. The result was predictable: Puckett parked the fourth pitch from Liebrandt into the left-field seats, winning the game for the Twins, who would win the series in Game 7 behind the strength of Jack Morris’s amazing 10 inning performance.

So, apart from the fact that the Braves annoy me, why am I bringing this up?

More below the fold…

People have a lot of questionable theories about what wins Presidential general elections. I, however, have a foolproof and 100% accurate theory for what wins general elections: I call it the BBQ factor. Every Presidential election since Carter/Ford, the candidate who has won the general election is the one average people would rather have over for a Saturday afternoon BBQ. Examine every race for yourself and see if it’s not absolutely true. Here’s the way I look at it; Bob Dole and Walter Mondale both got around 40% of the vote, so there’s basically 80% of the country that’s spoken for one way or another. The remaining 20% pays very marginal attention to the candidates, the issues they stand for, or their campaign promises. Basically, they know that they’ll have to see this person on TV for the next four years, so they evaluate things based on who they’d rather have into their home, via the TV screen. That’s not how it would work in an ideal world, but I submit that it’s how it works in the real world.

Now, here’s the good news for us: Hillary Clinton has one of the lowest BBQ factors of any presumptive nominee since Richard Nixon. I think it’s entirely possible for someone with a BBQ factor that low to win their party’s nomination very handily (see Dole, Robert, and Mondale, Walter), and even to do well in early head-to-head polling, but then get ultimately crushed in the general when the bright lights of television truly fall on them. And I think that’s what’ll happen with Hillary Clinton.

You know who scares me? Barack Obama scares me. Barack Obama’s like that guy at your work who’s a flaming liberal, but manages not to be an annoying twit about it. In fact, he’s one of the more personable guys that you know, and although when he holds forth on politics, you think his opinions are crazy, you still enjoy being around him generally. He’s like the Alejandro Pena out there: I think he gets our hitters out pretty easily, even if he does maybe have some wildness problems and nobody’s really sure how he’ll perform under intense pressure. He’s beatable, but scary. Fortunately for us, the other side has got old Charlie Liebrandt out there. And they’re maybe thinking, a la Bobby Cox, that what they need is someone more reliable, someone with a little more staying power for the long haul. And I think they’re gonna send their Charlie Liebrandt out there instead, and she is ripe for the picking - anyone who starts a campaign with 44% unfavorables among the general population shouldn’t scare anybody.

Now, here’s the catch: Hillary Clinton is a woman. And I frankly don’t know how this affects the BBQ factor. I think maybe the public might think it’s “cool” to look at a female President for the next four years. Shake things up a bit, you know. And Hillary Clinton has about a bazillion dollars to spend on consultants to help her avoid the shrewish, sometimes screeching behavior that makes her unlikeable to people. So while she’s eminently beatable, we need to make sure to send the right person up to bat. Someone who can get under her skin, and bring out the Hillary we all know and dislike. Someone capable of needling her without making people feel sorry for her.

I watched all of that debate the other day, and I feel great about either Fred or Rudy’s ability to beat Hillary Clinton for that reason. I loathe saying this, because it will inevitably lead to dozens of angry comments from Mittsters, but I don’t think that Mitt has what it takes. Mitt went on the attack twice - once against Rudy and once against Fred. His “joke” about Fred got smashed back in his face, and he looked awkward and out of his depth arguing about the unconstitutional line-item veto with Rudy. Even Dean Barnett, a committed Romney partisan, was forced to concede that Romney looks a lot better “holding forth” on issues than he does going after his opponents. By contrast, I don’t think anyone questions Rudy’s skills as a brawler, and Fred’s “Christopher” moment showed that he has the ability to do exactly the sort of thing necessary to make the real Hillary come out. I can easily see a moment in a Hillary/Fred debate in which Hillary totally loses her cool with him. And one of those moments is all it takes.

The point, though, is that Hillary Clinton is not inevitable. Hillary Clinton is one of the more beatable Presidential candidates the Democrats have fielded in the last two generations. All we need in order to beat her is our Kirby Puckett - a candidate who can exploit her weakness - her own abrasive personality - with the right degree of skill. And we have more than one such candidate.

Originaly from Source

10.25.07

Who Is Trashing John Edwards?

Posted in Economic at 10:25 pm by

Let’s review a few basic facts here, folks.

1. John Edwards has no realistic prospect of winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton has 20+ point leads in numerous polls, and if by some chance she should stumble irreparably, Barack Obama would take her place.

2. Edwards is also unlikely to run again for public office. In other words, other than the sheer joy of taking down the smug poseur, Republicans have basically no motive to expend energy digging up dirt for a hit job on Edwards, much less one that could blow up in their faces.

3. The GOP presidential campaigns do have their hands full right now with each other, as both Fred and Rudy have serious chances to win the nomination, Romney has an outside shot, and the other campaigns are battling to stay relevant. If a Republican did have personal dirt on Edwards, now would not be a useful time to unload it.

4. Edwards is, however, importantly positioned in one respect: in Iowa, the first Democratic primary/caucus and the only one where Hillary lacks a large lead, he has around 20-25% of the vote, nearly even with Hillary and Obama, as a result of having campaigned there pretty much continuously for five years. Obama’s wife has conceded that if Hillary wins Iowa, the race is effectively over; if Obama wins, that could force Hillary into a much tougher primary campaign and potentially drain her war chest and alienate key constituencies. Thus, both candidates have a motive to want Edwards out of the way so they can go after the voters who have been long committed to Edwards.

Why do I bring all this up? Because there is a particularly nasty piece of work being floated around about Edwards - and there is every reason to believe that it is being driven by the Clinton or Obama camps. And given that this bears all the hallmarks of Clinton politics (recall that a similar hit job was perpetrated by Clinton ally Wes Clark during the 2004 primaries), my money would be on the Hillary folks. The media should be sure to press both campaigns to go on the record as to their involvement.

Read On…

Here’s the deal: the National Enquirer is retailing a story of Edwards supposedly cheating on his cancer-stricken wife with a filmmaker who was paid a lot of money by the Edwards campaign for work that never saw the light of day. The Huffington Post is likewise pushing the filmmaker angle as a “questions are being raised” story without explicitly mentioning the alleged affair. As with the Kerry story in 2004, the tale is plausible enough that it is of course possible that it is true, but the nature of the disclosures so far - and their sourcing - are more suggestive of a political hit piece that can’t be verified but also can’t be denied by Edwards without giving the whole ball of mud some credence.

So if it’s a politically motivated hit job, and the people who logically stand to benefit are Hillary and Obama, that’s where the media should be looking for the cuprits (Mickey Kaus seems to agree). In fact, a story of marital infidelity would play to Hillary’s strong suit, the wave of sympathy for her as the wronged woman that was crucial to her initial election to the Senate in 2000. A look at the people holding the knife may be in order - Kaus has been arguing for months that the Enquirer may be motivated to make nice with Clinton ally Ron Burkle, still mentioned as recently as July as a potential purchaser of the tabloid. And the HuffPo, being the HuffPo, presumably isn’t getting its information from right-wingers. At a guess, other than the absence of a Josh Marshall post, this has all the hallmarks of a Sid Blumenthal operation.

The Clinton camp being as skilled as it is at this type of politics, we will probably never get to the bottom of who is behind this story. But it would be nice if the media actually tried to find out.

Originaly from Source

NASCAR fans are diseased mongrels. At least the Democrats think so.

Posted in Economic at 9:35 pm by

House Democrats apparently believe NASCAR fans are diseased.

That is the inescapable conclusion from this article.

Getting a hepatitis shot is standard procedure for travelers to parts of Africa and Asia, but some congressional aides were instructed to get immunized before going to Lowe’s Motor Speedway in Concord and the racetrack in Talladega, Ala.

The House Homeland Security Committee planned a fact-finding trip about public health preparedness at mass gatherings and decided to conduct the research at two of the nation’s most heavily attended sporting events, NASCAR’s Bank of America 500 event this weekend and the UAW-Ford 500 last weekend.

Staff who organized the trips advised the NASCAR-bound aides to get a range of vaccines before attending — hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria and influenza.

McClathy News Service, helping us engage in game of “Name That Party” does not tell us, but the “Staff who organized the trips” were Democratic staffers.

I really have nothing further to add to this. I would just hope NASCAR fans remember what Democrats think of them — diseased mongrels.

By the way, thank God for Robin Hayes:

“I have never heard of immunizations for domestic travel, and as the representative for Concord, N.C., I feel compelled to ask why the heck the committee feels that immunizations are needed to travel to my hometown,” Hayes said in an Oct. 5 letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the Homeland Security panel.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Previous entries · Next entries »