Time for a Sister Souljah Moment

With Iowa and New Hampshire only weeks away, it’s time for the Democrats to do something compelling and newsworthy – anything – to stop the Dean juggernaut. In short, one of the not-Deans needs a Sister Souljah moment:

A Sister Souljah moment is a political tactic wherein a politician will appeal to a large centrist voting base by repudiating an allegedly extremist person, statement, or position that nominally has some affiliation with the politician.

But what can the candidates do to repeat this Clintonian tactic to grab attention and swing toward the middle? I’m going to tell you, so listen up Dems - the answer will be on stage with you Sunday night: Al Sharpton.

As those of us who remember Al Sharpton from his Tawana Brawley days, the “Reverend” is a shameless race-baiter who perpetuated a hoax to gain personal exposure, disregarding the damage to race relations in the process. Sharpton also led riots against so-called “white interlopers” that resulted in a fire and eight deaths in Harlem. During the Crown Heights riots, he stirred up anti-Semitic hatred which led to the death of an Orthodox student.

Up until now, the other Democratic candidates have not confronted Sharpton because they want to avoid alienating the African-American vote. But Sharpton is the worst kind of racial opportunist and he has happily played on that fear to fend off attacks on his past. Now is the time for one of the candidates to state what is blindingly obvious: Sharpton has no place in the race for the Presidency of the United States and he makes a mockery of the Democrats’ call for racial harmony.

Will any of the Democratic candidates take my advice? It’s not likely, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Plus, if you’re going to lose the nomination anyway (all you Senators), why not try the gambit? If it pays off by appealing to moderate Democrats, you win. If you don’t get the nomination, at least you stood on the right side of the issue and condemned Sharpton as the race-baiter and charlatan he truly is. The Sunday debate approaches; Iowa is close behind. Souljah on!

Steven Taylor has a new Toast-O-Meter up. Mmmm….toasty.

Congratulations! Jay Solo and the Accidental Jedi are getting married in Vegas.

Their new blog will be called “Double J and the Accidental Newlywed”

Wish ‘em luck!

Is Clark the “Stop Dean” candidate?

Here’s a list of the first word in each paragraph of this WashPost article “Rivals Hone their Stop-Dean Strategies”:

With The Seventeen Clark Clark Clark Clark If Clark Unlike Lieberman Dean Like Gephardt

I sense a trend. The Polipundit has been a harsh critic of Wesley Clark but I really don’t see his candidacy going anywhere. He’s been a “Democrat” for about six months and his only attraction appears to be that he was a general…who was relieved of command.

The Economist on Election 2004

The British magazine looks forward to November in this article titled: “America’s Angry Election.” Here’s the concluding paragraph:

Mr Bush will come under fierce questioning about those missing weapons of mass destruction and the failure to plan Iraq's reconstruction. Any Democrat, but particularly Mr Dean, will have to explain what he would do differently. The campaign may well be nasty, brutal and long. But it will also drive to the heart of issues that matter for the whole world.

“Fierce questioning?” Doubtful. Most Americans will look beyond the WMD issue to the mass graves and view the liberation of Iraq (and the capture of Hussein) as a critical step against state-sponsored terrorism if only for the message sent to countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Outside of the news, I watch very little television. Of course, there’s “The Simpsons” and “Arrested Development” is great. I also love “American Chopper” on the Discovery Channel. Last night, they had their “Viewer Choice” episodes and the most voted episode was a recent one where they built the “Santa Sleigh” chopper.

Eh. That’s a good one, but my favorite is the one where Paul Sr. builds an “Old School” bike with Cody, then gives it to him as a present. That kid was so happy.

Unintentional irony alert: Here’s a line from Krugman’s article today: “Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle…”

True….true.

The sins of the father: The United Nations is an increasingly irrelevant paper-shuffling bureaucracy that passes resolutions it refuses to enforce. Whose fault is this? According to a NY Times editorial: the United States. Natch.

Extra: Erick (with a K) the Political Junkie comments on the same editorial.

Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying himself

This is me, earlier in December:

If I may add: this was a system designed by DNC chair Terry McAuliffe to front load the primaries and pick a candidate quickly so Democrats could "rally round" before the general election. Instead, the Dems are going to blind-grab a candidate without much debate; the whole process is breeding resentment and fracturing the party. So I'll say it once again: thank heaven for Terry McAuliffe.

And here’s the NY Times today in an article titled: “Democrats’ plan for early nominee may be costly”

In a classic case of unintended consequences, a process intended to produce unity, a strong candidate, and a compelling platform to take against President Bush has so far produced a campaign that many Democrats describe as strikingly harsh and marked more by daily bickering than sweeping themes or compelling new ideas on where to take the country.

While it is hardly unusual for political contests to get rough, it rarely happens this early. And it almost never happens in the Iowa caucuses, a state where Democrats say, or at least used to say, that voters punish candidates who engage in negative campaigning.

Advantage: Viking Pundit!

Happy New Year!

The Sydney Harbor Bridge is a blaze with fireworks as the clock ticks over to a new year during celebrations on Thursday , Jan. 1, 2004. Thousands of locals flocked to the harbor to watch the annual fireworks display.

I hope everyone has a great (and safe) 2004. -E

Wednesdays are for W

Today's the day that some fellow bloggers and I remind readers the important stakes of the 2004 Presidential race. As I've noted before, I want Americans to support President Bush not as the "lesser of two evils" but as a true leader during trying times.

During his tenure, the Bush Administration has eradicated one of the most brutal regimes in the world in Afghanistan, uprooted the worst tyrant of modern times in Iraq, reformed Medicare, and guided the U.S. out of recession and into a recovery on par with the days of Reagan.

With a record like that, why bother to bash Howard Dean? Bush's record stands for itself. You can stand with the President by donating or volunteering to help in his re-election. Much thanks.

Jobs are coming back, Krugman should consider another line of work

One of my long-standing criticisms of Paul Krugman is that, as an economist, his columns are curiously bereft of actual numbers and statistics (as compared to, say, Robert Samuelson of the WashPost). So in late October, I made a point of noting this benchmark established by Krugman: “And unless we start to see serious job growth — by which I mean increases in payroll employment of more than 200,000 a month — consumer spending will eventually slide, and bring growth down with it.”

Here’s a report from Bloomberg today: “US jobless claims fall to nearly 3-year low”

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The number of Americans filing first- time applications for state unemployment benefits fell to 339,000 last week, the lowest in almost three years, suggesting job prospects are improving.

The economy is projected to grow at a 4 percent annual pace this quarter following an 8.2 percent rate from July through September that was the strongest in almost 20 years, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed earlier this month by Bloomberg News. It's forecast to grow 4.4 percent in 2004, the most since it expanded 4.5 percent in 1999, according to the survey.

The expanding economy will probably add an average of 200,000 jobs a month in 2004, according to a forecast by UBS' O'Sullivan.

With the economy improving, soon Krugman will be reduced to complaining about the redesigned $20 bill.

Bonus: Tim Blair calls Krugman "terrifying."

Two sides of Bush hatred

Occasionally, the Washington Post will have “dueling editorials” where a common theme shares a joined title. Today it was Robert Samuelson vs. E.J. Dionne in (respectively): Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing… …or Rational Response.

Here’s Dionne’s reasoning for hating the President:

So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy.

It could not last, because Bush didn't want to be Dwight D. Eisenhower, a nonpartisan leader who unified the country without being much help to his party. Ticket splitting began in a big way during the 1950s when millions of Democrats went for Ike but stuck with their party on the rest of the ballot. Bush wanted to realign the country and create a Republican majority for bold conservative policies at home and abroad. [Emphasis added]

So the leader of the Republican party wanted to *gasp* forward conservative policies!?! And create a Republican majority? The fiend! I had no idea.

This is naiveté presented as outrage. The deeper truth is that Democrats believed that the close 2000 election gave Bush no mandate to lead and therefore he should do nothing. This is why Democrats believe they have the right to block judicial nominees on the flimsiest grounds. It explains the rise of Howard Dean who stokes the fires of Florida and solemnly vows to rescind all the Bush tax cuts in an orgy of realignment.

But, as Robert Samuelson notes, what really twists the balls of the Democrats and feeds the Bush hatred is that he’s persistently successful:

In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.

Ditto for Bush. If he succeeded less, he'd be hated less. His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority -- something that makes them feel better about themselves. Either way, it represents another dreary chapter in the continuing coarsening of public discourse. [Emph. added]

After Clinton was re-elected in 1996, I resigned myself to four more years of a Democrat in the White House. But at no point (honest) did I question the wisdom of the American people. After all, the economy was in good shape and there were no foreign endeavors threatening American shores. But nowadays whenever I read the left-leaning blogs or news sources, there’s this ossified belief that if America votes to re-elect President Bush it will be for a whole host of reasons – anything except that America actually agrees with the Bush Administration’s policies. There’s a liberal hauteur that farmers in Kansas or gun-owners in Alabama can’t possibly know what’s good for the country. They’re duped and brainwashed, fooled and suckered into voting Republican. And when voters from Oregon to Florida choose to re-elect Bush in 2004, the Barbra Streisands and Paul Krugmans will silently bow their heads and wonder why everyone in America is so stupid.

Extra: Polipundit declares Dionne's analysis (regarding 2004) the "dumbest prediction of the year."

Duck Season points the way to this LA Times article stating that a Rudy Giuliani/Hillary Clinton steel cage match is in the works for 2006. Obviously, Hillary without her Senate seat would make things more difficult for a 2008 Presidential run. Heh.

Personal interlude: Tonight I picked up “The Best of Jackson Browne” at Newbury Comics. Guess what: no “Lawyers in Love” or “Boulevard.” What a crock. I grabbed it because it was in the cheap used CD bin and it had “The Pretender.”

The Blame for Bam

I've been pretty worked up about the earthquake in Iran and the fact that over half of the people who once lived in Bam are now dead. It didn't have to happen. Today on the Corner, Clifford May summed up my feelings perfectly:

Yes, there’s been a terrible tragedy in Iran. But the politically incorrect truth is that this was not simply a “natural disaster” or an ‘act of God.” The earthquake that hit the eastern part of that country on the last weekend in 2003 need not have taken tens of thousands of lives. It was no secret that the region was prone to earthquakes. It is no secret that un-reinforced mud-brick buildings would, in case of a severe temblor, bury people alive. The leaders of a poor country could claim that they hadn’t the resources to do anything about that -- that they could not, for example, afford to reinforce existing structures or build new structures that could withstand temblors. But Iran is oil-rich and has had plenty of money to lavish on nuclear weapons programs and on such terrorist groups as Hezbollah. Were Iran a democracy, its mullahs would be held to account, at least at the ballot box.

I've heard it said that the United States cannot impose a democracy on Iraq. But today in Bam over 40,000 lie dead because there is no impetus for a better world in an Islamic theocracy. And, yes, I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.

Extra: Amir Taheri has more in the NY Post.

Time to play: "Guess the Issue"

President Bush has failed us again - again! - declares Presidential hopeless John Kerry: "When we hear statistics like these and when we know how to turn them around, it is flatly unacceptable and irresponsible for the president of the United States to simply look the other way."

Willful insensivity, cries Senator Icarus! But can you guess the issue?

A.) Raisin Bran puts in "two scoops" of raisins, but they're pretty small raisins.
B.) The Boston Red Sox haven't won a World Series in a long time - no fair!
C.) People are eating less ketchup
D.) Lots of Americans have asthma

Sure, it's not on the top of the list of voter issues, but Kerry needs to find a niche.

Everything I say is a lie: Matthew Hoy has an awful post on Paul Krugman's Alternate Universe where we all live in squalor and the unemployment rate is really 37% because we all stopped looking for work.

Back home - so much to catch up on

I'm trying, I'm trying. Let's start with this quote by Joe Lieberman from the Wash Post story: "Lieberman: Dean will 'melt' under GOP attacks"

"I've got some news for Howard Dean," Lieberman added. "The primary campaign is a warm-up compared to what George Bush and Karl Rove have waiting for him. . . . He's going to melt in a minute once the Republicans start going after him."

On this I agree with Joe and I think the prime forum for the Dean meltdown will be the debates. Bush will be standing there with his "aw, shucks" attitude, a healthy economy, and a safer country thanks to the overthrow of two brutal regimes. Dean will be flailing his arms, desperate to convince voters that Bush is the most 'reckless' President in history. It just won't work.

Thoughts on the ride back to W.Mass. from Pennsylvania

I passed one billboard that caught my eye: it read "How PA lawyers view medical patients" and featured a baby with the label "Potential lawsuit" stamped across its torso. On the bottom of the billboard was the slogan "Stop lawsuit abuse."

I immediately thought of DB from Medical Rants, who didn't disappoint with a post linked to: "AMA vows united voice in battle for tort reform."

A movie review shorter than the title

"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" was awesome. A classic story paired with modern F/X. Can't get enough? OK, nerds, point your browser here: Return of the King Geeky Observation List

Endless love

As I’ve said many times before, I love Terry McAuliffe. I don’t think there has been a better friend to the GOP than the unctuous Clinton acolyte. Democrats keep losing elections and he smiles on “Meet the Press” and says ludicrous things like “we gained seats in the New Jersey legislature.”

So why is Howard Dean picking a fight with the Democratic National Committee chair? Steven the Poliblogger says that Dean is being “whiny.” (Matt Stinson chimes in also). The obvious answer is that Dean is trying to “freeze the clock” and get Democrats to rally around him even before the first primary vote is cast. But I think there’s an ulterior motive in Howard’s demonizing of Terry McAuliffe. After taking on the Republicans, Dean wants to fight against the Democratic establishment also. It seems to me that Dean is trying to set himself up as the “forbidden love” of the Democratic Party. The rank and file cannot deny him because otherwise they’re just a tool of the “old” Democratic party. Essentially Dean is saying: “You squares can go with another DNC-approved candidate, or you can rock the casbah with me!”

Or how about this for a campaign slogan: “Howard Dean: Let’s lose with dignity!”

Howard Dean: Dream candidate

For the Republicans, that is. From Fox News:

Asked how he would persuade people who were not opposed to the war to vote for him instead of President Bush, Dean responded, "By going after him on terrorism, where he's really weak."

Please, Howard, make this election a referendum on national security and the war on terrorism. Throw Dubya into that briar patch.

Wagging tongues that should be silent: Andrew Sullivan has his Sontag, Von Hoffman, and Begala awards posted. Outrageous nonsense from the past year.

The function of government and earthquakes

A lesson lost on the theocracies of the Middle East is that government does not exist primarily to provide religious instruction or advance the Islamic cause. The function of government, at its most basic level, is to protect its citizens. It's why we put "life" first when we talk about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

And to all you Democratic Underground types who propose that America is the true axis of evil, I'll submit this comparison:

Earthquake in California measures 6.5 on the Richter scale: 2 dead
Earthquake in Iran measures 6.3 on the Richter scale: 20,000 dead (and counting)

Roger the Angry Cyclist is, well, angry. He has a much longer follow-up to my Derrick Jackson rant along with some other good stuff in a spurt of writing. Must have been the egg nog. Check out the "Tilting at Windmills" post on John Kerry's flip-flop-flub on wind power.

Steven the Poliblogger has the latest Toast-O-Meter up with lotsa links. Dean continues to lead for the chance to get trounced by Bush.

I triple dog dare you to have a wonderful holiday!

Merry Christmas everyone! We had a wonderful morning here with a shiny new bike and Cranium Cadoo. Santa must have classified the boys - inexplicably - as "nice."

Posting will be spotty to non-existent over the next week or so as we visit friends and relatives. Here's hoping that you all have a great holiday season. Don't get stuck in traffic!

Best,

Eric

Quotes of the Year via Tim Blair

An extremely comprehensive list of the past year's statements and mis-statements (mostly the latter by Australian leftists). I flipped to the December quotes (natch) and copied two of my favorites:

• "I'd better call my lawyer." -- George W. Bush, following suggestions that banning Germany, France, Russia and Canada from bidding for Iraqi contracts might violate international law

• "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." -- Col. Gaddafi, in phone call to Silvio Berlusconi

Excellent.

A tribute to U.S. troops

Here's the appropriate salute to American soldiers far from home this holiday season: "Pause to pray for Americans fighting terrorism" by Caspar W. Weinberger, Peter Schweizer and Wynton C. Hall in today's USA Today.

Many Americans will be forgoing holiday celebrations with their families this season to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We need to give them their due recognition for their efforts in the war on terror. As we gather with our families this holiday season, let us pray for those who cannot celebrate with theirs.

Right on.

Humor break: The least essential albums of 2003, according to the Onion.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt: Kerry mortgages his house and loans his own campaign $6.4 million

Derrick Jackson, unbelievable asshat

In an article titled “Against the war, for the soldiers” the Boston Globe columnist disguises East-coast condescension as faux concern, concluding with this unreal graf:

When you can, take a hard look at the Iraqi man, woman, or child your gun is pointed at. You are in Iraq under the orders of the commander in chief. I cannot do anything about that. What I can wish for is that even as many Christians prepare to sing "Peace on earth, goodwill to men," that you find a way, one soldier at a time, to bring it to Iraq. I pray that babies stop killing babies.

Jackson could have stopped and his column would have been merely execrable. That final sentence – I’d like to hear somebody argue otherwise – brands American soldiers as baby killers. Merry Christmas, dickwad.

Don’t Stop Dean

I agree! Here’s William Safire in the NY Times:

There are now three de facto political parties in the U.S. In order of present strength, these are:

(1) The Republican Party, in control of all three branches of government and most of the statehouses, fat and sassy because the economy is rising and the war is being won.

(2) The Dean-Internet Party, its Bush-despising base so energized as to be frenetic, its leader happy to be the apostle of anger, its bandwidth bandwagon gaining momentum with each pulse of its cursing cursor.

(3) The Old Democratic Party, its base off base, its leadership fractured, its third-way ideology — vainly espoused by the Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council — a lost cause without a rebel voice.

Safire fears that if Dean is not the Democrats' nominee, he’ll split off as a third-party spoiler (Nader was a piker!) and help the GOP to tighten its iron grip across America! Yes! [evil laughter]

Breaking News: Malvo gets life in prison. Here's the shocked reaction on Free Republic as the verdict was announced.

"People here are totally confused. They don’t understand how crime can keep rising in this Muslim society" - The side-comments (in yellow) are priceless in this Rantburg post: “Saudis confront soaring crime.” Nicely done.

Ben Domenech has an extensive list of 2003 Quotes of the Year.

Chris at Signifying Nothing has more on “Anger and the Democrats”

Angry Dean fills out his “Enemies” list

The papers and the Net are full of stories today about how Howard Dean has channeled anger into a potent political force. However, his scorched-earth campaign seems to be pulling in the disaffected Left while alienating moderate Democrats. His attacks on “Washington Democrats” and Bill Clinton are not endearing him to the rank-and-file. Here’s a brief roundup:

“The Great Surrender” by David Brooks – “But in the Democratic race, the Dean campaign has all the loathing and the passion.”
“Changing the Tone in Washington” by Brendan Miniter – “Mr. Dean offers anger, not mature solutions.”
“Jihoward: Howard Dean, Suicide Bomber” by William Saletan – “Dean’s jihad is even crazier than Gore’s. It’s almost completely undisciplined.”

And my favorite: “Dean’s campaign depends on enemies” by Thomas Oliphant – “What is so fascinating, however, is that this need for enemies – for a domestic equivalent of people playing footsy with Bush on Iraq – overrode mature judgment. Dean’s words make sense only as an attack.”

Dean’s enemy list grows longer by the day: first it was the Bush administration, followed by “Washington Democrats”, and now Bill Clinton. Why all the anger? My theory is that an emasculated Democratic Party is looking for a fighter, a white knight, a hero and Howard Dean fits the bill by appealing to the worst instincts in people: hate and fear. Eric Hoffer wrote about the unifying effect of hatred in his great manifesto “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”:

"Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents… Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without a belief in a devil."

A couple of readers have E-mailed to warn me to avoid overconfidence about Dubya’s re-election. My feeling is that (assuming Dean is the nominee) Dean’s podium-pounding will translate very poorly into the general election. As Saletan noted (link above) Al Gore’s divisive “People versus the Powerful” call for class warfare was a “demonstrable failure.” There’s no reason to believe that Dean’s negativism will help him beyond the primaries, especially in the face of an improving economy and foreign policy successes. If Howard Dean is the Democrats’ product, I doubt there will be many buyers in 2004.

Everybody loves Dubya

From tomorrow's WashPost: "Bush Gets Year-End Boost in Approval"

The poll also shows former Vermont governor Howard Dean surging ahead of his rivals in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, cementing his status as the party's front-runner a month before the first major contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire. But when matched against the president, Dean fares badly, both in a hypothetical trial heat and on who is trusted to handle both national security and domestic issues. Even many Democrats said they still know little about Dean or his views.

Red Rover, Red Rover, please send Dean over!

The poll findings show why many Democrats are nervous about Dean as a potential candidate against Bush. They also underscore the concern within the party that, because of the heavily front-loaded primary and caucus calendar, a Democratic nominee may effectively be picked before party activists outside a few early states have had a chance to evaluate the candidates and participate in the decision.

If I may add: this was a system designed by DNC chair Terry McAuliffe to front load the primaries and pick a candidate quickly so Democrats could "rally round" before the general election. Instead, the Dems are going to blind-grab a candidate without much debate; the whole process is breeding resentment and fracturing the party. So I'll say it once again: thank heaven for Terry McAuliffe.

As a candidate in the general election, Dean starts well behind Bush in the public's estimation. In an early test of strength, 55 percent of those surveyed said that if the election were held today, they would vote to reelect the president, and 37 percent said they would favor Dean. No other Democrat was tested against Bush in the Post-ABC poll.

"No other Democrat" was tested? OK!

Dean's Democratic rivals have warned that the former governor's lack of foreign policy experience would hurt him in a general election against Bush, and when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. Even on the kind of domestic issues that normally favor Democrats, such as Social Security, health care and education, Bush bests Dean by 50 percent to 39 percent.

So Bush leads on domestic policy, foreign policy, the economy, the war on terrorism, Social Security, education, and health care. However, Dean leads on anger, conspiracy theories, endorsements by former vice presidents, and the all-important United Nations vote. This is going to be a squeaker of 1984 proportions.

As Roy Orbison would croon: “It’s over, it’s over, it’s OOOO-VER!”

Back in the summer, things weren’t going so hot for John Kerry. He was heading nowhere in Iowa and falling further behind Dean in New Hampshire. So he hit upon the brilliant tactic of re-launching his campaign in South Carolina with the anticipation that this early primary state would be a “firewall” where he could claim victory and keep his campaign going. At the time, Tony Blankley didn’t think much of this idea:

South Carolina is not going to be John Kerry's firewall -- but a firestorm. A strategy for a New England liberal to lose in New Hampshire and win in South Carolina is not a strategy at all. It is a delusion. Politically speaking, Sen. Kerry is campaigning while dead.

Here are the latest S.C. numbers, via Hedgehog Report. Senator Splunge is ahead of…Kucinich. That’s it. Oof.

Man Arrested at Miami Airport With Razor Blade in Shoe

Bad Bad Leroy Brown is in custody.

(This concludes today's obscure cultural reference joke.)

Me neither: Robert Tagorda on Why John Kerry Will Never Get My Vote

Boo-freakin’-hoo: Just what is the purpose of this “news” story: “Democrats forced to work on margins”? The thesis seems to be that since Republicans control the White House and Congress, the influence of the Democrats on legislation has been marginalized. No kidding, WashPost. Not until the 17th paragraph do we see this equal time statement: “The out-of-power party normally plays a secondary role in such negotiations, and Democrats were not shy about exercising their majority-party powers to relegate Republicans to the sidelines when they were in control.” But now that the GOP holds the reins, it's "no fair!" Crybabys.

2 good 2 excerpt: Robert Novak on “The Democrats Dean Dilemma” and Noemie Emery on “The Gore Curse.”

Do you want Howard Dean in charge of national security? [shudder]

Here’s Kate O’Beirne on the Capital Gang this past weekend:

“And I submit he's [Howard Dean] worse than an anti-war candidate at the time of war, announcing this week that he might have gone to war with Iraq if the U.N. gave us permission, which is an incredible outrage. He's worse than an anti-war candidate. John Kerry's pointing out that he's not even a credible anti-war candidate because he's been all over the map! He was saying that -- well over a year ago that of course Saddam Hussein's a threat. Now he says we're no safer. He's making these sort of almost deranged comments on national security. Republicans are now saying to each other, Maybe we ought to lay off Howard Dean for fear the Democrats come to their senses before -- before it's too late. That's how, out there, they're increasingly seeing Howard Dean.”

Since the Democrats view everything the Bush administration does through a political prism, I’m waiting to see how they spin the Homeland Security shift to orange status. My guess is they’ll portray it as a ploy to re-focus attention on security matters where Republicans have more credibility (with good reason).

Time gets it right: The American Soldier is “Person of the Year”

They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They stand guard on streets pot-holed with skepticism and rancor. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy. The U.S. G.I. is TIME's Person of the Year.

Good call. God bless 'em.

I wonder if this is part of the "Transformation of the American Family"

Who knew that being "Joined at the Heart" required Doritos and Bob Marley CDs? Dude!

Plastic Turkeys - Tim Blair has a huge amount of great stuff up today, including the latest inductees to the G.O.B.B.L.E.s - that's right, go now.

The Toast-O-Meter gets a little more verbose every week. Steven the Poliblogger really links it up proper. Anyway, check out this week’s edition.

"We never - NEVER! - stop working for you!" - I got the wife a cell phone for Christmas to replace her ancient phone. I tried to cancel the account via the Verizon website but there is absolutely no information whatsoever on their web page. They will, however, help you find a million different ways to pay your bill (automatic transfer makes it easy!). So Verizon isn't lying when they say they'll never stop working for you. Just stay away from their "All you CAN eat" restaurant.

No free speech please, we’re Democrats

Via Instapundit comes this story of comment censorship on the Democratic National Committee’s web log (partial excerpt):

I posted a second response comment [on the DNC blog], very lucid, no ranting or profanity. Immediately following my second comment, a new poster who identified himself as a Democrat opined that if the Dems could merely offer up a candidate with a credible National Security agenda, he would happily vote for him/her. As of 8 o'clock this evening, both of my comments have been deleted from the blog and my login has been disabled. They even pulled the comment from the registered Democrat in search of a viable candidate. This is their idea of tolerance, inclusion, The Party of the People. They should be selling some nice brownshirts at the DNC online giftshop.

I knew this day would come. A couple of months ago, after the launch of the George W. Bush re-election website, the rabble at the DNC Blog complained bitterly about how the GWB Blog doesn’t allow for comments. Here’s the original post (I saved it just for this day) about the Bush Blog and at least one apropos statement:

Actually, what would be typical for that crowd is to allow comments until you say something off message, at whcich time they erase your posts and block your IP address. Now that would be a Republican blog.

Oh sweet irony! Actually, that's the perfect definition of the Democratic blog, Mike D. And before you bemoan the comment block on the GWB Blog, allow me to paraphrase a famous proverb: Better to block comments and be labeled a censor, than to delete comments and remove all doubt.

Miller is right: Dean is wrong. The Islamofascist autocrats are losing.

Viking Pundit gets results! Three days after this post, Daily Kos updates the Poll Watch. Lots of green arrows UP for President Bush’s approval.

He’s got the tragic touch

Via Business Week Online’s Washington Outlook:

The surprise Al Gore endorsement gave Howard Dean's campaign for President a push -- but was it in the right direction? A Dec. 11-14 Gallup Poll found that 9% of independents are more likely to vote for Dean now that he has Gore's blessing. But 24% said the ex-Veep's support made them less likely to choose Dean.

There’s also a longer story about the prospects for the Dems in the South. Or lack thereof.

Randall Parker at Parapundit does some top-notch digging and finds who sold arms to Iraq from 1973-2002. The Soviet Union (yes, the USSR) was #1 by far; guess what country was #2, mon amis. Oui!

Senator Splunge goes into hock – FauxPolitik comments: “John Kerry has missed, it seems, his last opportunity to withdraw from the Democratic nomination race with a scrap of dignity left.”

The Dean backlash begins

Even as Howard Dean climbed in the Dem polls, there were whispers about his temper and undisciplined remarks. But now the capture of Saddam Hussein and Dean’s defense of his foreign policy stance has ignited a low-simmer panic among the Democrats that intensifies when they view the Bush-Dean matchup numbers. So it’s not at all surprising to see this story in the NY Times: “Some Democrats uneasy about Dean as the nominee.”

Meanwhile, over the pond at the British magazine The Economist, they’re saying it might be time to go “Back to the Drawing Board”:

Perhaps Al Gore really is cursed. Last week this column argued that his endorsement made Howard Dean look unstoppable. Then a diabolus ex machina appeared to throw a weighty obstacle in the good doctor's path. The unearthing of Saddam Hussein has not only left Dr Dean looking visibly discombobulated; it has also relaunched the search for an alternative Democrat to take on George Bush. It may be hard to overhaul the former Vermont governor so late in the day, but that has not stopped the Anyone But Dean lot marching into action again.

It’ll sure be fun to watch.

The Patio Pundit doesn’t think much of John Kerry’s “plan” for Iraq. Meanwhile, the Boston Globe has a headline titled: “Kerry makes gains in new N.H. poll” which means to say that he now has a snowball’s chance in Tucson.

Outside the Beltway has an abridged Howard Fineman column of why Bush will win re-election.

Even better: via Moe Freedman - "Dems in US sad - Ha!" (Also suggested: "Media shuns - sad")

If I could figure out where to put the “H”, “Saddam Hussein” is an anagram of “Dems sad in USA”

Anyway, here’s Michael Kinsley with the Donks reaction:

The Democratic presidential candidates woke up Sunday morning to learn that U.S. forces had captured Saddam Hussein. O joy! O joy! O [expletive]!

Also in the WashPost, Charles Krauthammer celebrates the de-mythifiction of the great pan-Arab strongman:

And then they find him cowering in a hole, disheveled, disoriented and dishonored. After making those underground tapes exhorting others to give their blood for Iraq and for him, his instantaneous reaction to discovery was hands-up surrender.
End of the myth. It is not just that he did not resist the soldiers with the guns. He did not even resist the medic with the tongue depressor.

Austin Bay gives a historical perspective in “Cascading Effects of Saddam’s Capture” and details why bringing Hussein down has far-reaching positive influence. Here’s my favorite excerpt:

Every Middle Eastern autocrat saw the haggard Saddam pulled from the hole. The message: America means to see this war through. To avoid Saddam’s fate means political liberalization. The Iranian mullahs are on notice.

Of course, all of this is utterly wasted on Paul Krugman, the skunk at the garden party. Today he sounds just like a Deaniac on the Democratic Underground. All is lost and those of us who think differently are just “waving the flag” to cover up the “truth.” Yeah, whatever. If Iraq turned into a full-functioning democracy tomorrow, Krugman would be complaining about the gerrymandering process.

The Arab press explains why Saddam surrendered like a wimp

Al Bawaba: “Ousted Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was betrayed by a relative who served as his personal bodygyard and who led US troops to the former leader's secret hideout after drugging him, a Jordanian newspaper reported Thursday, quoting a source close to the US-led occupation in Iraq.”

Uh-huh.

Comrade Howard Dean’s college classes

From Washington Whispers, via Political Wire

“History of the Soviet Union”
“Marxist Existentialism”
“Soviet Foreign Policy”
“Reason and Revolution”
“International Communism”
“Marxist Theory”
and
“Chinese Politics”

That would certainly help to explain all of Dean’s references to “The Soviet Union” during his Hardball appearance.

Ouch

Here’s Rumsfeld echoing a Viking Pundit post - from NRO’s Impromptus:

Speaking of clear, angry, and just, did you catch Donald Rumsfeld on Saddam? He twitted him in the most humiliating fashion possible. Said Rummy, of our captive, "He had a pistol, but he's alive. That's got to tell you something about him. He's clearly not like the folks he gave $25,000 to, to go do suicide bombings and kill themselves and be done." Ouch, ouch: putting Saddam lower than those Palestinian girls (in many instances). Bravo, Rumsfeld.

From the home page of The Atlantic

They have this quote "For the Record":

"As Saddam Hussein retreats to his secret bed each night, he must know it will end badly for him. Any man who reads as much as he does, and who studies the dictators of modern history, knows that in the end they are all toppled and disdained." —Mark Bowden, in "Tales of the Tyrant," in the May 2002 Atlantic.

Indeed.

No search warrant? Put him back in the hole

Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order predicted somebody would bitch about getting Saddam Hussein without a search warrant – he was right. Here’s the Boston Globe’s answer to Krugman, Derrick Jackson, burnishing those liberal credentials. Both the Angry Cyclist (natch) and Little Green Footballs have additional commentary.

I’ve pretty much given up on Paul Krugman as an agitated dunce. Robert Musil, however, keeps on stickin’ it to the man – very nice fisking.

Working retail in December – a horror story from Michele at A Small Victory

Let Dean be Dean

The WashPost has a blistering editorial today on Howard Dean’s foreign policy which includes this retort: “The argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just unfounded but ludicrous.”

But then I went to the Hedgehog Report and saw that President Bush would beat Dean by over 20 points in the general election. In fact, Bush would beat Dean by a wider margin than any of the other major candidates. Suddenly, I felt defensive of the former governor. Let’s give him a chance to be the Democratic nominee.

Morning news roundup

Sometimes I peruse through the morning papers and there’s not much there. Today’s not one of those days. Lotsa lotsa good stuff:

Tom Friedman in “Moment of Truth” writes about the future of Iraq but takes the time to belittle the French: “History will also record that while the U.S. and Britain chose to be Saddam’s prosecutors, France chose to be his defense lawyer.”

The Boston Globe is reporting that John Kerry is now putting all his effort into Iowa and New Hampshire; he will visit no other primary states through January.

Jeff Jacoby writes on “Justice and Saddam Hussein” and opines that “there will be no justice for Iraq’s former ruler” because the extent of his crimes is so great there is no possible retribution. Warning: a graphic listing of those crimes is not for the faint of heart. However, Howard “I’m not sure if Iraq is better off” Dean should review.

“Saddam the Lion?” Ha-ha. In terms of demoralizing the Ba’athist old guard, the capture of a meek Saddam Hussein has done wonders. The WashPost reports the disbelief in “Iraqis Shocked, Shamed by Hussein’s Sullied Image.” Excerpt: “So when he learned that Hussein had emerged meekly from his burrow last weekend and surrendered to U.S. forces without firing a shot, Abu Yasser said he was aghast.” Good.

Also in the WashPost: “Dean’s Remarks Give Rivals Talking Points.” It would seem that Howard Dean…how to put this?...lies. A lot.

Robert Samuelson doesn’t think much of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance reform in “Muzzling Speech.”

And Fouad Ajami in Opinion Journal has a “Tigris Chronicle” on how the Arab world has grappled with Saddam’s capture.

MIT Hack

A replica of the Wright brothers' plane is seen Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003, atop the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Great Dome in Cambridge, Mass. Students at MIT paid tribute to the 100th anniversary of man's first powered flight Wednesday by perching the plane 150 feet high, atop the building. The rough replica, which appeared to be made of 2-by-4 wooden planks and some sort of plastic or cloth sheeting, was discovered by MIT police just after sunrise. Its wingspan was about 45 feet, said BobSales, a spokesman for MIT.

For more on the history of MIT “hacks” (pranks), go here.

Extra: Boston Globe story.

Weasel Clark and the angst of the Democrats

I try to avoid petty name-calling and childish banter on this page, but then I read something like this and I go ballistic:

"If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time," Clark said at a news conference in Concord, New Hampshire, where he was campaigning for votes in the nation's first primary, January 27.

Geez, what a dick. Clark makes it sound like Bush forgot to pick up the dry cleaning or clean the garage. Why it's so simple, and *I* would have done it by now. With Saddam behind bars and a recovering economy, this is what the Democratic party is reduced to: demanding the capture of somebody whom I'm convinced is a coagulated stain on a cave wall.

There goes another conspiracy theory: Eye on the Left finds that DNA tests can indeed be performed in as little as twelve hours. So much for the latest DU “Bush Lied” endeavor.

Dr. Weevil updated his Ba’ath Poker page. Obviously, the Ace of Spades has been added.

The righteous indignation of Howard Dean….about bike paths

But as Mark Steyn editorializes, on other issues he’s not so committed:

There was a revealing moment on MSNBC the other night. Chris Matthews asked Dr. Dean whether Osama bin Laden should be tried in an American court or at The Hague. "I don't think it makes a lot of difference," said the governor airily. Mr. Matthews pressed once more. "It doesn't make a lot of difference to me," he said again. Some of us think what's left of Osama is already hard enough to scrape off the cave floor and put in a matchbox, never mind fly to the Netherlands. But, just for the sake of argument, his bloodiest crime was committed on American soil; American courts, unlike the international ones, would have the option of the death penalty. But Gov. Dean couldn't have been less interested. So how about Saddam? The Hague "suits me fine," he said, the very model of ennui. Saddam? Osama? Whatever, dude.

“Are you gonna make it all 220?”
“Yeah…220, 221, whatever it takes”

Good one! I laughed out loud at David Wissing’s characterization of the Pennsylvania polls: “Against the leading Democrats and John Kerry, Bush leads all of them”

Poor Senator Splunge. The Pennsylvania poll is worth a look because that was a major state that Bush didn’t carry in 2000; he now leads every Democrat by at least 6%.

The continuing humor of the NY Times Corrections page

An article on Friday about the views of L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Iraq, about the country's future misstated the weight of the bombs that United States forces have dropped recently on sites believed to harbor urban guerrillas. They are 500 pounds each, not 500 tons.

As Maxwell Smart might say: "Missed it by that much."

Wednesdays are for W

As Blogs for Bush notes today, George Soros and his cabal of Hollywood halfwits are poised to raise over $300 million to try to derail President Bush’s re-election. If you think the rhetoric of 2000 was bad (e.g. the execrable NAACP ads about Robert Byrd) then wait until the Howard Dean-impelled, blind anger of the Democrats bursts forth in 2004. Now is the time to support President Bush for the good and safety of our country. Visit the George W. Bush re-election web site and volunteer or donate. Thank you.

Madeline goes bonkers - Matt Stinson, Country Store, and the Corner are all reporting on a conversation that Fox News commentator Mort Kondracke had with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She allegedly insinuated that we've captured Osama Bin Laden but Bush is waiting until before the election to announce it. I can't make this stuff up.

Daily Kos says: “What polls?”

On the right margin of Daily Kos is a section called “Poll Watch” that tracks President Bush’s approval/disapproval numbers. It hasn’t been updated for nearly a month; why is that? Let’s compare with the most recent approval/disapproval numbers via Real Clear Politics.

Daily Kos Fox News (11/18-19): 52% / 41% (+11)
Real Clear Politics Fox News (12/4-6): 52% / 34% (+18)

DK Gallup (11/14-16): 50% / 47% (+3)
RCP Gallup (12/5-7): 55% / 43% (+12)

DK NBC News/Wall Street Journal (11/8-10): 51% / 44% (+7)
RCP NBC/WSJ (12/13): 52% / 41% (+11)
RCP NBC/WSJ (12/15): 58% / 34% (+24)

Hey, like Polipundit, I don’t think these polls are all that meaningful and a year is a lifetime in politics. But if you’re going to have a poll watch, shouldn’t you be a little more honest in updating the numbers?

Dean on the defensive

From the Boston Globe: “A speed bump for Dean in capture of Saddam”

I preferred Dean's more indecisive period just after Baghdad fell last April, when he confessed ambiguity when asked if the United States was better off with Saddam toppled from power. His more recent discovery of the view that it really is a good thing he's gone is more troubling because it raises the obvious question of how you can claim credit for having been against something whose main result you consider good.

And here’s David Brooks in today’s NYT:

Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.

Tom Oliphant in the Globe makes the case that developments in Iraq could shake up the race in New Hampshire while Andrew Sullivan advises Joe Lieberman to make a strong case for his pro-war stance. Things could get interesting.

A rare moment of lucidity on the NYT Letters page

From today's paper:

To the Editor:
You report that "Saddam Hussein, once the all-powerful leader of Iraq, was arrested without a fight on Saturday night by American soldiers" (front page, Dec. 15).

Suicide bombers, take heed. Your leader did not follow his own advice. There is no honor in death. Man's natural instinct is to live — even if it means surrendering to the enemy.

Fight to live honorably, not to die as someone's pawn.

Well put.

Dean’s Pretzel Logic: Catching Saddam was a great thing I wouldn’t have done

I only half-caught Dean’s foreign policy speech but it must have interrupted a Fox News show called Day Side because afterward the host was asking people in the audience what they thought of Dean’s speech. The people queried seemed baffled and declared the speech “made no sense.” (I’ll try to find a transcript later.) It didn’t look like Dean made a good impression.

Update: OK, I found a little blurb where Dean said that it’s great that Saddam Hussein is in captivity, but it doesn’t change his policy on Iraq. That policy, by the way, was based on not doing anything to contain Saddam Hussein. Bravo, Governor!

Things just get worse and worse for Democrats: John Breaux to retire

They can forget about winning back the Senate; now the Democrats have to worry about losing their 40-seat filibuster machine.

And the Pats won yesterday! Duck Season has a picture from the Patriots-Jaguars game yesterday. Cool.

Like the script from a great movie

Sydney Morning Herald: "Let's negotiate, Saddam says"

But one of Saddam's arresting officers said yesterday that the dishevelled former dictator had immediately offered to negotiate when captured on Saturday night.

"He said: 'I'm Saddam Hussein, I'm the president of Iraq and I'm willing to negotiate'," recalled Major Brian Reed, operations officer for the first brigade of the Fourth Infantry Division.

Major Reed said he responded to Saddam: "President Bush sends his regards."

Quote of the day (so far!)

Yet another reason to love Bush

From the Washington Post story “For 14 long hours, keeping the secret”

Bush told Rumsfeld that the capture must "be handled in a military fashion and be announced from Baghdad," a senior official said. Administration officials explained that they wanted the news to appear to be a victory for the Iraqi people rather than a personal triumph for Bush, who six months before the invasion called Hussein "a guy that tried to kill my dad," a reference to a 1993 assassination plot against former president George H.W. Bush.

Can you imagine Bill “The Big Me” Clinton doing the same?

Survivor update

I'd like to write so much more, but I'm exhausted from the events of the day (that and shoveling snow). Let's just say that the second best thing to happen today was that bastard "Johnny Fairplay" only made it to #3. Sandra won Survivor with an overwhelming 6-1 vote over the insufferable Lil.

Andrew Sullivan finally posted some comments today. I liked this one best:

Taking Saddam alive - and giving him all the dignity of a bedraggled hobo - is about as big a propaganda victory as the forces against terror can hope to accomplish.

As Tom Brokaw noted this morning (paraphrasing T.S. Eliot): Saddam didn't go with a bang, he went with a whimper.

Weekend Pundit has “Thoughts on a Sunday Afternoon” including the foolhardy comments of John Kerry this morning.

United States Central Command has just updated their web page with this press release.

President Bush’s special day? They captured Saddam yesterday, December 13th, and that date stuck out in my mind. Three years ago, it was also the day that Al Gore gave his concession speech, effectively ending the contested 2000 election. Merry Christmas!

They knew last night: In his pre-MTP news appearances, Tim Russert said he attended some sort of holiday party last night and President Bush, VP Cheney, and CIA director George Tenet seemed "unusually festive." Unbelievably, the news held for at least a couple of hours. Now we all know.

President Bush will speak at noon today.

The morning news

My wife woke me up and said those four magical words: “They caught Saddam Hussein.” I leapt out of bed so quickly that my dog, who does not like sudden moves or loud noises, retreated to a corner. My heart, jolted out of sleep mode, started racing. This is just the greatest news.

There’s a powerful urging to gloat a little, to pour over recent statements by Democrats or the French, but I’m going to try to resist. (It’s hard, esp. after listening to John Kerry on Fox News this morning.) Right now I’m just going to pray that this leads to a collapse of insurgency action so that our troops can be a little safer. Then, I’m going to pray that Hussein gives up the weapons of mass destruction.

God bless the U.S. troops and the coalition forces. (More commentary later.)

Saddam Roundup: The Command Post has reports pouring in, NRO's Corner has ongoing commentary and Blogs for Bush has a very nice review of the blogosphere's reaction.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him"

Saddam Hussein captured by U.S. Forces

Saddam Hussein captured!

Update your links: Ryne McClaren and Ain't Done It have moved. While you're updating your blogroll, add Viking Pundit.