I told you a while back about what was happening to Dennis Lennox up at Central Michigan University. You can read that post here. You’ll recall that faculty were discussing him on their listserve because he had, in their words, “noxious political and social beliefs” and, obviously, mental health issues (don’t all conservatives?!).

From my post:

A few weeks ago, Dennis filed an FOIA request for the professor’s emails. Not only did the Dean of Humanities, Pamela Gates, refuse to acknowledge the FOIA request (a legal violation), but she tried to knock Dennis’s video camera out of his hands when he confronted her.

The university has also ordered Dennis to stop filming professor Gary Peters, who is running for Congress. The CMU ban on videotaping professors at public universities in public settings was not imposed until Dennis took action.

Right Michigan reports that the ACLU has gotten involved on Dennis’s behalf.

CMU’s targetted ban (it didn’t exist before Gary Peters and Dennis Lennox) is a direct attempt to scuttle his First Amendment rights and, in fact, the rights of every Michigan taxpayer. Props to the ACLU for getting this one right.

This is a major win for Lennox who’s been the target of some pretty despicable personal attacks both on and off campus because of his politics. But it’s a bigger win for the Constitution.

Go Dennis Go!

Here is the ACLU release.

In the slow pace of the Senate, the wheels are already moving to replace Trent Lott and we could see a win for conservatives.

As it appears right now, John Kyl will become the Minority Whip.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson will kill off challenges by both Messrs. Burr and Alexander to be Conference Chairman if she decides to run. She’s still making calls and weighing options.

If KBH does run, then John Cornyn will ascend to the Policy Committee.

I expect Jeff Sessions to run and get elected as Vice Chairman of the Policy Committee.

Cornyn will be a much better Policy Chair than KBH, who has excluded staffers from meetings who she deemed were too far to the right from her. She won’t be Conference Chairman for long, since she’s going to run for Governor in 2010.

The irony in all of this is that the fate of conservatives in the Senate rests with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. We actually should support her.

While incremental, let’s toy with this playing out:

After 2008, McConnell either wins or loses. If he loses, John Kyl will probably become Minority Leader, moving up from Whip. If McConnell wins, he might still face a coup if the GOP Senate conference feels the need to go in a new, more conservative direction after a disastrous 2008 election cycle. If the GOP does get slaughtered at the polls, it will likely be moderate Senators bearing the brunt of the voters anger, making the remaining GOP caucus more conservative and more willing to vote their own into leadership. So, Kyl might take the reins then too.

With Kyl as leader, Cornyn will run for Whip, with a reduced number of Republican Senators, but a more conservative group. Sessions will get to Policy, which is what he wants, and that leaves DeMint available to be the Party’s message guy in Conference Chair. That’ll leave open a slot as VP for Conference, which a good conservative could fill.

Imagine, post 2008, having the top Senate Republicans be, in order: Kyl, Cornyn, DeMint, Sessions, and an as yet to be determined conservative.

One note, just so I don’t get accused of anything I don’t mean — I’m not hoping that the GOP gets wiped out in 2008. I hope, in fact, that it doesn’t. But I can see the writing on the wall. And sometimes, it takes hitting rock bottom for addicts to want recovery — especially when they’re addicted to earmarks. Let’s just pray to God that if we do get slaughtered that we don’t fall under 41.

Lott’s leadership race looks like it will happen December 6th.

Bill Clinton made a political blunder of monumental proportions when he claimed that he “opposed the war in Iraq ‘from the beginning,’” A statement even the New York Times found “is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.”

Is More Absolute?

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” - President Clinton

At Time, Mark Halperin reminds us that Mr. Clinton said he supported the War in 2003. On April 14, 2003, Clinton praised President Bush:

In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bushs handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bushs domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that countrys missile and nuclear weapons programs.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]

On May 19, 2003, the Associated Press reported Clinton said he supported President Bush:

“Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. ‘I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we cant be forever strong abroad if we dont keep getting better at home,’ Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. [] The Bush administration, Clinton said, ‘is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and thats good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.’”

Clinton may have questioned the timing of the invasion, but Clinton didn’t oppose it “from the beginning.”

On June 23, 2004, CNN reported Clinton revealed that he continues to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq:

[There’s more, including a video.]

How do we know that things have gotten significantly better in Iraq?

Perhaps because of stories like this one:

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the general election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

The usual caveats apply, of course: The situation in Iraq remains fluid and victory is not yet won. There will continue to be a need for American troops in the country and the reconstruction effort will be ongoing by the time the election rolls around.

But at the same time, it is important to note that there has been a significant and fundamental change in the narrative concerning Iraq. What was once seen as unwinnable is now palpably within reach in terms of reconstituting the country and helping to turn it into a Middle East success story. And the political dynamics here at home reflect this new reality. If things continue to go down the current positive path, it will seriously upset the conventional wisdom that has the Democrats winning the White House in 2008 thanks to public dissatisfaction with Iraq. And while Democratic candidates may strive to distance themselves from their previously resolute antiwar positions, we have the Internet to remind us of what they said, and how often they called the surge “a failure” and denigrated any and all improvements in Iraq as being ephemeral. By their judgments and predictions on this issue, we shall know them.

Venezuelan dictator President, Hugo Chavez, has decided to call out his opponents in the final stretch run before a national referendum:

President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a “traitor,” rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela’s charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious “yes” vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

“He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor,” the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. “He’s against me, against the revolution and against the people.”

His speech followed the recent high-profile defection of his former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel, a longtime ally who called the president’s proposed reforms a “coup.” Others have also broken with the Chavista movement in recent months, including politicians of the small left-leaning party Podemos.

Well, either there are a lot of traitors about or the people of Venezuela have just decided to tune Chavez out:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has lost his lead eight days before a referendum on ending his term limit, an independent pollster said on Saturday, in a swing in voter sentiment against the Cuba ally.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters oppose Chavez’s proposed raft of constitutional changes to expand his powers, compared with 39 percent in favor, a survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed.

Just weeks ago, Chavez had a 10-point lead for his proposed changes in the OPEC nation that must be approved in a referendum, the polling company said.

Despite the swing, company head Luis Vicente Leon said he did not rule out a comeback by the popular president.

Chavez has trounced the opposition at the polls on average once a year and can deploy a huge state-backed machinery to get out the vote, Leon said.

Still, the survey was the latest blow to Chavez. He has suffered a series of defections over his plan, including an ex-defense minister who had restored him to power after a brief 2002 putsch but who called Chavez’s reforms a new “coup.”

“The debate over voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ has burst into the very heart of Chavez’s support base,” Leon said in an interview. “We can see moderate Chavez backers ready to vote ‘no’ even though they like him.”

Hope springs eternal and here’s hoping that the people of Venezuela reject this latest authoritarian effort at a power grab. Few things would be nicer than seeing Chavez taken down a peg or two. In the meantime, it would be quite prudent to closely examine the nature of the balloting in Venezuela and ensure that the Chavez political intimidation machine does not try to pull any funny business in the run-up to the vote. It’s not as if Chavez and his supporters are above that sort of thing, after all.

But of course, that won’t happen so long as Putin has the power to do things like this:

The Russian authorities have charged opposition leader and former chess champion Garry Kasparov following clashes with police in Moscow.

He and other opposition figures were detained during a rally organised by Mr Kasparov’s Other Russia coalition.

Mr Kasparov was charged with resisting arrest and organising an unauthorised protest.

The incident came a week before polls which supporters of President Vladimir Putin are widely expected to win.

Other Russia brings together a broad coalition of mainstream politicians, leftists and nationalists, all of whom are opposed to the Kremlin.

(Via Slashdot.) I’ve said it before and will emphasize it again: It really is time for us to fundamentally rethink our policy towards Russia and to revive much of the negotiating strategy–inspired by the formulation and adoption of the Helsinki Accords of 1976–that helped the West not only negotiate favorable agreements vis