The Pajama Pack

Blog status update

2008-05-27T16:43:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to notify my readers (what's left of them) that I have a new home, and you can find it at TheNextRight. Please bookmark it and check in whenever time permits.

I'll still use this one from time to time -- or, at least I plan to. Who knows at this point. But, what I do post here will likely be on the lighter side of things. So, posting frequency depends largely on my mercurial nature.

Thanks for checking in, and I truly hope you'll join me at my new home.

Walt

Obama got pwn3d. . .

2008-05-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

. . .by Senator McCain yesterday in what is a masterpiece of a response to the charge that he doesn't care about the troops. First, he landed this bone-crunching body blow:

Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge.

Then, after going on at some length to spell out the facts surrounding the issue, and that he has offered legislation that increases veterans' benefits while encouraging reenlistment -- something that the bill that was voted on in the Senate yesterday failed to do -- he puts Obama on the mat with a right cross to his glass jaw:

Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.

I suspect Obama regrets his decision to take on McCain in this instance. He clearly came out on the losing side this time.

Here's a bit of free advice for the Illinois senator: avoid talking about military issues for the rest of the campaign. It's not your strong suit.

I don't know about you, but. . .

2008-05-20T18:08:00.000-05:00

With much regret. . .

2008-05-19T16:29:00.000-05:00

. . .I'm forced to announce that blogging will be extremely light for the foreseeable future. Life has a way of putting your endeavors asunder from time to time, and that's the case here. I have a few issues to work through for the time being, and though it may come as a shock to the reader, none of them require incarceration or rehab. It's just another one of life's little curveballs, and I need to hit the batting cage for a while.

Hopefully, this hiatus will be brief, but at the moment, there's just no way to tell how long it will be. I do want those who stop by to read my rantings on a somewhat regular basis to know that I very much appreciate their time, and I hope I have contributed something to their thinking over the past few months. As badly as I hate to walk away right now, given the fact that I'm just now starting to get my writer's voice back, I don't really have a choice in the matter.

Again, thanks to those who go out of their way to read what I have to say. I hope you got as much out of reading it as I got out of writing it.

Dumb rationalizations. . .

2008-05-17T15:10:00.001-05:00

. . .aren't uncommon in politics, but this one by Barack Obama, in his attempt to explain away Hillary Clinton's commanding lead in Kentucky, is exemplary:

"Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

Umm. . .Senator Obama? Didn't you know that Illinois -- your home state -- actually shares a border with Kentucky, and that Arkansas doesn't? I do realize that southern Illinois is largely an afterthought to everyone north of Springfield, but it is still technically a part of the state.

Wait. Could it be that Kentucky, like Arkansas, is one of "those places" that you have a hard time relating to because of all the bitter, superstitious bigots?

Seniority has its perks. . .

2008-05-16T16:58:00.001-05:00

. . .when it comes to rising through the ranks of Washington politics. And, frankly, that's part of the problem. It seems that incumbency is to political parties as stupidity and gullibility is to Scientology -- the most highly prized attribute among members. Unfortunately, it's almost as easily attained and comes at a very small price. One of the hardest things to do, except in times when one of the parties has sent itself into a tailspin through its own incompetence, perfidy, and moral squalor, is to unseat a sitting member of the House or Senate. The likelihood against it in any given year is roughly 9-to-1.

And, it's that relative safety that allows longtime, and even relatively short-time, members of Congress to take their constituencies for granted. They convince themselves that, as long as they make like the good daddy and bring home the bacon and the occasional hundred-dollar pound of ham, their districts will see them as a valuable, near-indispensable power conduit in Washington. They completely forget that in the end, what people want their representatives to do while they're in D.C. is to represent their interests, and not just procure grants for parks named after some old lady who once saved a seal pup from a clubbing by throwing her body over it and absorbing the blows as they rained down from the hand of a bloodthirsty furrier.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to keep politicians from developing a rather brawny sense of self-importance. In fact, anyone who desires to venture into the world of public office-seeking is required to have an ego bigger than a medium soft drink at a fast food joint before they're allowed past the velvet rope of party politics. That's why people like me, with all my foibles and an intact sense of shame, prefer to remain on the outside pleading like Jonas Brothers fans to be listened to for one spare minute, or even less.

As a member of the rank-and-file, and a relatively young one at that, I've seen this happen a lot. That's not to say I keep a scorecard handy and note the behavior of every politician in relation to the expectations of his constituents. "There's Mitch McConnell. We expect him to represent the fiscal sanity and moral rectitude of Kentuckians. But, there he goes, driving his fancy Buick and stealing the identities of the elderly in order to bilk them out of their retirement savings." No, it's actually just an overall sense that you get when you watch from afar and note the complete lack of progress on any front which you consider of importance with regard to the business of government, and then see some dolt with an "R" by his name on one of the TV shoutfests telling you how bad the other guy is.

After a certain period, it finally dawns on you that this guy has spent the last ten years in Washington just so he might stand a chance of appearing on Hannity & Colmes, because he just knows he could send one of them into sputtering paroxysms of apoplexy.

COLMES: "Senator, isn't it true that you're known as the Prince of Pork?"

SEN. HOFFSPENDURGAN: "That's what she said."

After a while, the lighthearted jabs and almost-over-the-line retorts wear thin with the folks back home and they start to suspect that their hometown boy just might be a bit of a grandstander. The next thing you know, the other party sees an opportunity to engage in the most unfair practice imaginable in modern politics; they examine his legislative record and start telling people about it. This is the kind of dirty politics that politicians just won't stand for, and yet, voters don't seem to mind it all that much.

So, it strikes me that, as long as Republicans are for merit pay for teachers and civil servants, maybe we ought to apply the same to the high profile pedagogues and walking civic wonders we call congressmen and senators. Here's my proposal: Let's tie committee chairmanships and seats to not only the number of years a member serves in the House or Senate, but their tendency to vote in line with the Republican caucus. Granted, it might stack the deck against the moderate and liberal Republicans who get elected in hopelessly blue states. But, it seems to me that among all the statisticians and number-crunchers at the RNC, someone could devise a handicap system that would encourage more party-line voting through a punishment/reward system.

As I understand it, the system is currently run by way of the wheel-and-deal mode of reciprocal back-scratching, and that in some sense, that serves as a bit of a handicapping system. But, once a person has attained that sought-after chairmanship, uprooting him from it requires the use of TNT and front-end loader. As a consequence, there's very little incentive to show any party loyalty once you've landed the job.

After having spent several years as Senate majority whip, and now as Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell would do well to implement this sort of thing. He's amassed enough respect within the Republican caucus to implement a change of this sort, though I'm sure the resistance will be considerable. You start messing around with the ways of the Senate and you're liable to be accused of going against tradition (gasp!). I'm not sure there's anyone in the House Republican with enough clout or influence to shake things up in such a manner, but it would be greatly appreciated by the folks back home if someone made an honest gesture to do so.

But, clearly, something needs to be done. If the GOP doesn't make some drastic changes in the way it conducts its Washington business, the elephant will soon be as threatened as the polar bear. And it'll be the voters doing the threatening.

The worst part. . .

2008-05-15T20:31:00.000-05:00

. . .of this collective conniption being had by some on the right is the threats of people like Andy McCarthy to leave the Republican Party because John McCain is the nominee. Why don't they quit teasing the rest of us and just go? It's fairly obvious he doesn't like us. We're clearly nothing more than a sty full of swine, unworthy of his pearls.

The Limbaugh Jihad. . .

2008-05-15T19:06:00.001-05:00

. . .continues against John McCain and any other Republican who isn't an across-the-board conservative. That, my friends, is part of the problem that Republicans face today. You see, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and so many other conservative commentators who make their living doling out red meat to the most carnivorous among us are often compelled to tear the flesh from the bones of more moderate Republicans in order to keep their audiences well-fed, and to show that they're not mere party hacks. It's the conservative flip-side to Barack Obama's quest for black authenticity.

If you aren't giving Republicans hell when they stray from the pack, then you're no better than Ted Kennedy, the wisdom goes. Well, it's high time that conservatives saw past all the showmanship and finally get real. In order to get anything accomplished, there are times when senators and congressmen have to make some strange bedfellows. Thus it ever was.

That doesn't mean that conservatives ought to shed their integrity for the sake of political expediency. Recruiting Ted Kennedy will do the GOP no more good than would recruiting Ru Paul. But, for heaven's sake, isn't it better to have Richard Riordan in the California delegation than it is to have Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein? Yes, they have similar positions on social issues. That's the price of being an elected official in California. But, Riordan at least would cast the occasional vote against raising taxes and might be a bit more reliable a vote against regulatory excess. There is something to be said for that.

Someone whose opinion I have grown to respect considerably over the years recently inveighed against the idea of supporting moderate Republicans in places where they might have a chance of getting elected as opposed to allowing the Democrats to simply snatch up valuable congressional seats by insisting on running candidates who have no chance of getting elected. His logic held that once moderate Democrats get elected, they conveniently forget all about the idea of moderation and start marching in lockstep with the left-liberal leadership, whereas moderate Republicans feel no compunction to cast a single conservative vote once elected.

He is not alone in his way of thinking, and it's a way of thinking that is reinforced by many radio talkers, columnists and commentators every day as they rail against apostate Republicans for casting votes that don't comport with the accepted definition of conservatism. Yet, an honest appraisal of the voting patterns of moderate and even liberal Republicans in the Senate shows that they are, more often than not, more reliably conservative than supposedly moderate and conservative Democrat senators. The ACU ratings of the Senate from 2006 back up my assertion. For instance, Chuck Hagel is almost unanimously considered a liberal Republican. Yet, his ACU rating for '06 is a pretty respectable 75%. Contrast this with Evan Bayh, who is considered the very model of Democrat moderation as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council. His ACU rating for '06 is a very unimpressive 16.

Of course, there are Senate Democrats who tend to vote more conservatively than does Bayh. Kent Conrad's ACU rating is a relatively respectable (in Senate Dem terms) 33%, which puts him roughly in line with Republican Olympia Snowe, who votes conservative at a 36% rate. But, even if Snowe is only conservative about one third of the time, that's still a pretty favorable rating when you compare it to Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu, at 24%.

The upshot of all of this is that there is no good reason for conservative Republicans to concede legislative seats to Democrats. Quite simply, any seat where you can elect an even slightly more conservative candidate than the Democrats are offering is a seat that Republicans should be fighting for. Our conservative punditry can sit on the sidelines giving raspberries all day long, but when all is said and done, the object is to put a legislative agenda into practice, and if you can gain a five percent advantage toward that end, it ought to be taken until a ten percent advantage presents itself.

Of course, this will cause a lot of people's ears to suddenly be pinned back as an affront to their principles. Indeed, it isn't easy to vote for someone with whom you don't agree half the time, or less. But, in sitting on your vote, you can rest assured that there are plenty of people who are more than happy to vote for someone with whom you agree zero percent of the time. And, while conservatives sit home soaking their principles in cheap scotch, the folks who put in your arch-nemesis will be popping champagne corks and looking forward to sticking it to you on every single vote that passes through the legislative body.

Gays in California. . .

2008-05-15T14:56:00.000-05:00

. . .and across America are celebrating today as social conservatives lament the California Supreme Court's decision to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage. The say the very least, these are tough times to be a social conservative. They face dwindling influence in Congress as Democrats look forward to bigger majorities this fall, and the fact that there are no candidates running for the White House who support the Marriage Protection Amendment. Even the Constitution Party, considered a refuge for disenchanted conservatives looking to send a message to the GOP, opposes amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage. And, finally, there's the fact that, as of December 2007, a majority of Americans favor the recognition of civil unions with legal rights similar to those afforded to traditional married couples.

As all this plays out, the religious right, which still wields considerable influence within the conservative movement, must be asking itself some very serious questions about the tactical and strategic wisdom of placing so much of its lot in elections at the federal level. Clearly, the future of the Marriage Protection Amendment has never been so bleak. So, perhaps the time has come for the Christian Coalition and its affiliated groups to place a much greater emphasis on action at the state level in hopes of having an impact from the ground up.

The Republican brand. . .

2008-05-14T14:23:00.002-05:00

. . .and its sad decline in the public's esteem is on the minds of an awful lot of conservatives today, and everyone seems to think they have the answer. I'm not sure if I do or not. But, what I do have is conjecture. And that's really what the whole blogging thing is all about, isn't it? Well, at least that's what it's all about for bloggers like me, who don't have access to Lexis-Nexis and researchers and interns and such. I have to rely on a memory that is occasionally sketchy, gut feeling, observation, and Google -- by far the most useful of the tool set.

Sometimes, though, Google is ill-suited to find the information you need to bolster your case -- especially when the case you're trying to make is built by mostly gut feeling and observation. And, that pretty much sums up this one.

I believe that the collapse in public approval for the GOP right now has as much to do with what the Democrats have done as with anything that Republicans have done over the past several years. As the old maxim goes, nothing succeeds like success, and having achieved electoral success, voters are doing what comes naturally and backing the winner. (It would be terribly impolitic of me to use bin Laden's "strong horse" analogy in this context, so I won't.)

But, the manner in which the Democrats managed to achieve their electoral success has a good deal to do with it, as well. They've been very smart over the past couple of election cycles and shown themselves to be adaptable. After a decade of life in the minority, they finally wised up and realized that if they were going to have any hope of regaining the majorities they once enjoyed largely unchallenged, they were going to have to adjust to the new political reality rather than continue to insist on perpetuating the silly notion that the only reason that they were losing at the ballot box was because they were indistinguishable from Republicans. It finally dawned on them that, in the places where they were losing, it was simply because the people there preferred a more conservative approach to government.

Accordingly, they began recruiting candidates who were more appealing to voters who held more conservative positions on certain issues than the Democratic Party as a whole is generally known to hold. In the past, Democrats were subject to much more pressure to adhere to the national party's dictates with regard to social issues or risk being targeted by the withholding of party funds and the financing of primary opponents who more reliably toed the party line. Now, it seems that wisely decided that the best course of action was to achieve a Democrat majority and work toward incremental implementation of the national party's agenda. This will create some friction within the party with regard to cultural and social issues like guns, abortion and gay marriage, but it will also go a long way toward achieving other goals that are equally important to the Democrat rank and file, such as nationalized healthcare, environmental restrictions, and so-called economic and social justice.

By recognizing that their big-picture plans don't stand a chance of coming to fruition as long as Republicans continued to win in areas where views tend to be more emphatically conservative on social issues, they have given themselves a chance to at least achieve whatever goals they have in which they enjoy an electoral advantage over conservatives. In short, they prioritized the goals in such a way that would put success more easily within reach. And, having achieved electoral success, they are free to set the national agenda in such a way that puts the national party in a more favorable light with voters.

The GOP has been absolutely woeful in this regard. As the Democrats have become more focused on achieving specific goals, Republicans have taken on a completely defensive posture. On issue after issue where there is public dissatisfaction, the Democrats have promised government-based solutions while the Republicans have offered nothing more than critiques, and never a counter-offer to the voters. It is simply not enough to try to scare voters away from an idea if you don't have something better to offer as an alternative.

If Republicans hope to regain the public's trust, they're going to have to follow the Democrats' example by finding the issues of greatest concern to the voters and coming up with private sector-based alternatives to the government-based solutions offered by the opposition. Then, they will need to recruit candidates who can advance those alternatives, even if it means supporting some who do not always adhere to every jot and tittle of conservative orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that we must accept an influx of Chafee-style Republicans who seeming have no conservative moorings of which to speak. But, we do have to face the reality that there are many potential candidates out there who can advance a specific set of conservative goals while being unreliable on matters that, while important, may not be the most pressing issues in the minds of voters at any given time.

Many movement conservatives see any sort of heterodoxy as outright betrayal of the entire movement. This is always going to be the case. But, in times when orthodoxy threatens to undermine the entire movement, you have to do what it takes to remain viable in hopes of living to fight another day. That's going to require tailoring the conservative agenda to suit the particular times by rearranging priorities. This carries the risk of alienating some important elements of the movement, to be sure. But a failure to adapt to the times is a recipe for extinction.

Case in point: As I pointed out recently, Republicans, and the conservative movement in general, have failed abysmally to address the concerns of the public with regard to "climate change" or "global warming". Rather than offer alternative means of addressing the concerns that a great majority of voters have, they've simply pooh-poohed the very idea. This will lead to candidates, and the party at large, to be seen as "out of touch" with the voters. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it doesn't pay to have this image in the eyes of voters.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posted a useful item at The Corner this morning, citing Bjorn Lomborg as a go-to guy with regard to climate change hysteria. Many conservatives are already well aware of Mr. Lomborg's work, and he is not someone who can be easily dismissed. It's a shame that the general public isn't more aware of him than it is, and it doesn't speak well of conservatism that this is the case. Be that as it may, it simply isn't enough to trot out climate experts who view they hysteria with a great degree of skepticism. Because, in the voter's mind, the phenomenon of climate change isn't a singular issue, but one that is intertwined with other issues.

Lomborg councils in response to the Gallup poll that showed that an overwhelming majority of voters believe that climate change is real that, even though that may be the case, it isn't one of the top priorities in the public mind.

While this is undoubtedly true, as polls do indicate, it is directly and indirectly associated with other issues that the public view as extremely pressing. Because, as environmentalists have long been making the case, people see climate change as the product of the over-reliance on fossil fuels for energy. Fossil fuels are the source of income for two of the most hated entities in the public mind today; big oil companies who "put profits before people" and middle eastern sheiks whose every move seems designed to undermine the American way of life.

By dismissing out-of-hand the perceived threat of climate change, candidates and their parties leave themselves open to charges that they are doing the bidding of "big oil" and the Arab sheiks who seek our destruction. There's also the perception that our reliance on these fossil fuels and the extent to which we're beholden to its sources leads the nation into unnecessary wars that could be avoided if we adopted a more "green" approach to satisfying our insatiable need for energy. There's the perception that investing in the development of other sources of energy will help us to avoid future investments of precious blood and treasure in the middle east.

Simply offering up the idea of tapping domestic sources of oil doesn't really address that issue in the minds of voters, nor in reality. It is a temporary alleviation of symptoms, at best -- though one that is needed greatly and immediately. Unfortunately, it won't provide that relief immediately, as it takes considerable time to develop oil fields and pipelines. Voters understand this, and they can easily be persuaded that it is a "Band-Aid" approach that doesn't address the core of the issue. They also recognize that following this plan will provide even more profits for "big oil" -- something that they're not keen to do these days, given the prices they're paying at the gas pump.

John McCain has offered an approach that, while not exactly what conservatives see as "business friendly", does offer some sense to voters that he's an independent man who is not afraid to do things that might offend the bad guys for political expediency. Whether we like it or not, the public sees the Bush administration as just the opposite, and it is reminded of it every time they fill their tanks. It may not be fair, but it's the political reality that we live in. And, until someone can change that perception, conservatives are simply going to have to deal with it the best way they can. McCain is offering a plan that establishes himself as an agent who is independent of the hated oil companies and Arab sheiks, while taking a more market-based approach than those of his competitor.

This is just one of the priorities which Republicans are going to have to address very soon if it is to regain the trust of American voters. McCain offers a blueprint that, while not perfect, seems to be the best way to address the anxiety of Americans without giving in to a knee-jerk desire to punish business for being profitable. And, the fact is, there is no way that any proposal is going to implemented whole cloth. It seems that the best course for conservatives in the current climate is to accept the premise of the McCain plan while working in Congress to make it more palatable to industry, while at the same time, educating the public about the facts of climate change and the role that fossil fuels play in our environment relative to all other phenomena that have an impact on it.

Blogging will be light. . .

2008-05-13T16:02:00.000-05:00

. . .today, due to some pressing personal matters. Hopefully, I'll be able to post more tomorrow.

Thank you!

The McCain pile-on. . .

2008-05-13T14:02:00.000-05:00

. . .has begun in earnest. Every pundit who has been an unmitigated failure in persuading the public that global warming, climate change -- whatever you want to call it -- has taken the opportunity to inform us just how much of an idiot he is for recognizing the political reality (if you want to see it cynically), or being among the 86% of Americans who believe that something needs to be done about the issue.

NRO's editorial on McCain's environment speech yesterday:

It indicates a foolish willingness to sacrifice trillions of dollars on the altar of fashionable, though uniformed, opinion and political expediency.

I wonder if the editors at NRO paused to consider for a moment that these trillions of dollars that they're concerned about are a mere pittance in comparison to the multi-trillions of dollars that Barack Obama's plans will cost, and why they didn't bother to recognize that fact in their editorial. I wonder if they thought about whether or not this was something that they should have been addressing with greater regularity and enthusiasm for the past ten years, while the public was steadily being won over by the environmentalist movement until their positions became the overwhelming consensus.

I don't like the idea of giving in to the greenies any more than anyone else does, but there comes a time when you have to face facts. And, the fact is that, in the world we live in today -- the one for which we're trying to elect a leader -- the greenies aren't just a few scattered assemblages of dirty haired trust fund radicals. They're our children's kindergarten teachers, our secretaries, our restaurant managers and shoe salesmen. They're bank managers and construction workers, soccer moms and strippers, pizza delivery guys and dentists. If you stand on any street corner and ask people, "Is global warming real?" nearly nine out of ten people will tell you that it is, and look at you as if you were an idiot for even asking.

The time has long past for conservative media figures to quit carping at candidates who recognize the political reality and get to work on bringing public perceptions in line with the reality-reality. Wasting time and energy criticizing presidential candidates for doing what they must do to get elected, or actually being in step with the public is, quite frankly, idiotic. It will do nothing to change public perceptions and, instead, will undermine the one opportunity put the brakes on an all-out confiscatory environmentalist agenda that could cripple our economy for generations before the public finally starts to question the accepted wisdom.

Climate change alarmism. . .

2008-05-12T16:03:00.004-05:00

. . .is one of those areas where I party company with John McCain. I simply don't believe that it's the pressing matter that it's being depicted as, and I'm pretty skeptical that it's being caused by human activities even if it is occurring. Granted, I'm no scientist, so I'm poorly armed for battle on this front. At the same time, it strikes me that there's sufficient scientific disagreement on the matter to preclude the "game over" calls that are issued by its proponents whenever they're confronted by contradictory opinion.

Mark Levin has posted some links to a letter from several credible scientists to the UN Secretary General that casts doubt on the causes of, and proposed solutions to, the problem. I don't think these doubts should be discarded out of hand as the work of contrarian kooks working at the behest of industry and other special interests. As best I can tell, the signatories are well regarded scientists and should be taken seriously.

That being said, if you look at polling data, the public is very much concerned about the issue of climate change. Although, it seems worth pointing out that, as the economy has become more of an issue, global warming is starting to decline as a priority in the minds of voters. Still, it remains an important issue to an undeniable majority of Americans.

Given the public pressures to act on the issue, I don't see how conservatism can gain anything in the long term by simply refusing to act on an issue that is of considerable importance to a sizable majority of voters. At the very least, people want to know that their leaders are taking their concerns seriously enough that they feel the need to address them. It would be a huge mistake for any candidate to stand before the public and tell them that they're concerns are unfounded. Like it or not, there is a sense among the majority of Americans (and the rest of the world, for that matter) that global warming needs to be addressed. And, until they're convinced otherwise, it would be dangerous for conservatives to behave as though they don't have legitimate concerns.

My best hope is that over the course of the campaign, a legitimate debate take place that will serve to put the issue into perspective. That means there needs to be an organized push-back against the wild alarmism of Al Gore and the environmental movement as a whole. This isn't going to be an easy task, given the fact that nearly every mainstream media institution has decided that the debate is over, and that anyone who dares to question the conclusions of what they deem to be "the consensus" among all "reputable scientists" is akin to a Holocaust denier. For good or ill, this is the atmosphere under which skeptics must operate.

I hope that one of the focuses of The Next Right will be to assemble a forceful, well organized, credible rebuttal to the alarmist rhetoric that has gotten us to the point where we are today. There will also need to be a respected and persuasive person to take charge in taking the case to the public. It will need to be someone who holds too much clout within the scientific community to be dismissed as a crackpot, as well as someone who can effectively present the case to a public which has been subjected to years of a relentless stream of frightening rhetoric about the damage that is supposedly being done to the planet.

Right now, the best that conservatives can hope for, given the circumstances under which we're forced to operate, is to slow down the push for increasingly onerous regulation by offering more modest proposals than the environmental lobby is demanding. While Sen. McCain's proposals may be onerous in the eyes of industry and global warming/climate change skeptics, they're likely to be seen as reasonable, modest measures in the eyes of the majority of voters. And, the simple fact is that conservatives cannot afford, particularly in the political climate we face today, to not offer anything to counter what the Democrats are proposing. And, the GOP cannot afford to be saddled with the image as the Luddite Party that is beholden to the oil industry that has become the object of near universal scorn among the electorate.

We're going to have to face it. Global warming, climate change, the greenhouse effect -- however you want to couch it -- is on the minds of the voters. They believe it's happening, they don't like it, and they're blaming Republicans for being in the pocket of big polluters who don't care about regular people. In order to maintain viability as a party and as a conservative movement, there is little choice but to address the concerns of voters while doing the best we can to avoid harming our economy.

This is going to require a longterm strategy as well as short-term proposals in order to allay the immediate fears of the public. Hooting down those who are pushing the issue will only backfire and create the impression that conservatives are either ignorant, uncaring, or both. That is a recipe for long term disaster from which the nation's economy might not recover for generations.

McCain's proposals seem to be the wisest course for a Republican candidate to take in the current political atmosphere. But, I think it would be even wiser for him to extend an invitation to scientists from across the spectrum of thought on the matter, being sure that advocates and skeptics alike get a chance to express their views and concerns with regard to everything from the degree to which climate change is occurring to the consequences of acting and not acting, and the degree to which humans can and do influence it. He should also recognize the emergence of a recent change in global temperature trends and acknowledge that there are very legitimate reasons to take a go-slow approach to tackling the issue.

Finally, I think he should make it clear that both science and industry have a place at the table when it comes to discussions as to what should be done about it. After all, no single institution is going to suffer more from the results of an abrupt change in climate than another. And, if he maintains the position that even if it turns out we are wrong about climate change, at least we will have left a cleaner planet for future generations, he ought to be open as to how much federal intervention is appropriate to bring it about, and how much cost is tolerable in order to attain the goal.

McCain has established that he is completely open to the idea that something needs to be done to prevent damage to the planet. At the same time, he should show an openness to ways of keeping to a very minimum the amount of government intervention in our free market economy in order to avert a disaster that may not even be happening. After all, when people can't find work because the economy is slow, they really don't give a damn how normal the weather or sea levels are.

Mother Jones is thrown. . .

2008-05-12T14:59:00.000-05:00

. . .under the bus by a lot of liberals these days who don't like the simple mountain folk she once fought for. Jim Geraghty has collected some tidbits from around the lefty blogosphere that point to a growing resentment toward West Virginia and Kentucky voters who are expected to soundly reject Barack Obama's candidacy in their upcoming primaries.

As a proud Kentuckian, the notion that Democrats look down their noses at folks like me comes as no surprise at all. It's something I've grown to accept and even revel in over the years, in fact. There's nothing quite so reaffirming of one's status as "salt of the earth" as the sneering disapproval of the effete elite.

Strangely enough, Kentucky is a predominantly Democratic state, with Dems enjoying about a 2-to-1 registration advantage over the GOP. You couldn't tell it by looking at our congressional delegation, but it's true. In fact, the county I call home enjoys about a 9-to-1 Democrat advantage in registration due to the high concentration of union households. And, yet, the district is represented by Republicans in both the U.S. Congress and at the State House (for now).

One reason that Republicans have enjoyed electoral success in the Bluegrass despite this wild disparity in party affiliation is the fact that blue collar, working class people in the state feel completely abandoned and disrespected by national-level Democrats. They register with the party out of a sense of loyalty and tradition. I get my share of grief from family members for being a Republican as a result of that fact. I can't count the times I've heard, "If your granddaddy knew you were a Republican, he'd roll over in his grave."

Right now, I'm itching to get to our family's traditional Memorial Day gathering. Something tells me I won't be getting much grief this time around. No one wants to hear my reply. They know full-well that, if my granddaddy knew how his Democratic Party feels about him and his fellow working class Kentuckians, he'd have switched parties a long time ago.

Of course, this won't stop the Netroots from tarring as a racist every voter who refuses to buy into the Obama hype. Part of their plan is to bring about "social change" by browbeating and intimidating Obama's critics into silence by questioning their motivations. And they truly believe that the only reason a person could possibly not vote for him is because they are racist -- if not overtly so.

And so, the racial McCarthyism of "dog whistle racism" charges will grow. It could possibly succeed in silencing a good number of Obama's critics. But, once they get into the voting booth and think about whether or not they want to live under the thumb of their betters for the next four years, they're not going to think kindly of the candidate who allowed his forces to slander them as ignorant bigots.

This is not the way one goes about transcending race, and the Democrats need to think long and hard about the consequences of using such intellectually thuggish tactics.

"You run one time, you got yourself a set of chains. You run twice you got yourself two sets. You ain't gonna need no third set, 'cause you gonna get your mind right. And I mean RIGHT."

Strother Martin as "Captain", in Cool Hand Luke

The thing about Derb. . .

2008-05-12T12:55:00.002-05:00

. . .is that, while at times he can be an irremediable curmudgeon, you can't help feeling an occasional pang of sympathy for the guy. You get the impression that even though he delights in jamming a thumb in the eye of anyone who questions him, he can't figure out why on earth anyone would take it personally.

But, say what you will, the man is an open book. Today, he posted a link to the results of a personality test he took after reading an article about it in the London Times, and while he seemed a little taken aback by them, he conceded that he wasn't exactly shocked. It was somewhat what I expected the results of a John Derbyshire personality test would look like, though I must I wouldn't have expected them to be quite so emphatic, and I never would have expected his scores on vulnerability and emotionality to be anywhere near where they are.

Having seen Derb's results, I decided to take the test myself. And, like Derb, I can't really argue with the results. They seem pretty accurate to me. From what I can tell, the only areas where Derb and I have anything in common is that we are both extremely lacking in self-discipline, and we both seem to be extremely slow-paced people.

In my case, the neuroticism score was a bit higher than I would have thought, but not off-the-charts. I do have acquaintances who might take issue with the score as a pretty low-ball figure, however.

I've always loved taking those kinds of tests, so I thought I'd share it with my reader(s). I can't vouch for the scientific validity of the results, though as I said before, it seems to have me pretty well pegged. Take it yourself and see what you think.

Obama's racial McCarthyism. . .

2008-05-11T21:05:00.000-05:00

. . .strategy is laid out pretty plainly in a Newsweek piece by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas. Of course, this isn't entirely unexpected. I've written about it in the past myself. And, it's not totally unexpected that mainstream media outlets would be a party to it. After all, the Obama campaign has been successful in cultivating a good deal of sympathetic press.

It's a little surprising to see the degree to which Wolffe and Thomas are complicit in regurgitating the Obama campaign's assertions that the candidate is being unfairly maligned. Never at any point does the article address whether or not Obama's relationships with the various shady characters in his very recent past are legitimate grounds for criticism, other than to grant the assumption that they're not. They simply run right past the question.

What is breathtaking, however, is utterly cynical way in which the article puts forth the implication that any questioning of Obama's judgment with regard to his personal relationships constitutes the phenomenon of "dog whistle racism". It simply lets the Obama campaign take the wheel and drive the reader straight to the destination that best suits it. No stop signs, no detours, not even a flashing caution light.

What is happening here is a despicable attempt to tar Obama critics, and the Republican Party as a whole, as racists before the general election campaign even gets underway. I've been a close observer of politics for years, and I have yet to see anything in my life that matches this ploy in terms of cynicism. Pure preemptive slander.

Mark Salter replied to the article via email, which Newsweek was kind enough to link in the small, italic print at the very end of the piece. Personally, I think he went entirely too easy on the magazine's editors for publishing such a blatantly propagandistic screed without an accompanying rebuttal. It's an outright smear against anyone who questions Obama's messianic image.

It's good to have this all recorded in the pages of Newsweek. When the McCarthyite accusations start flying, conservatives will have this piece to point to as evidence that it was the Obama campaign's plan of attack all along. Unfortunately, a once-respected publication has allowed itself to be co-opted and thrown into the mix with eyes wide open.

So, conservatives should consider this a warning -- you're going to be accused of being a racist simply because of the fact that you oppose Obama. Your reasons are immaterial as is the legitimacy of your questions. It's going to happen. Now is the time to push back. If conservatives don't let it be known forcefully and immediately that they will not be tarred as bigots simply because they prefer not to accept Obama's image on faith, they're going to have to live with the consequences for many elections to come.

Only John McCain. . .

2008-05-11T20:03:00.000-05:00

. . .is capable of keeping Republicans in the executive branch, and it's a shame to see so many conservatives continue to carp about his inevitable nomination. There has never been a time in the party's history when it was more poorly positioned to remain in power. The party has never been held so low in the public's esteem. Its standard bearer, President Bush, is currently laboring under approval ratings worse than Richard Nixon's. House and Senate Republicans are lagging far behind their Democratic counterparts in fundraising.

And, yet, in spite of all these factors and the fact that he is, to put it as charitably as I know how, not the darling of his party's base, Sen. John McCain remains highly competitive with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polling. Given the deep unpoplarity of the Republican brand right now, you have to wonder if some of McCain's popularity is a product of the disdain with which he is held by members of his own party. I can't speak for other Republicans, but I can attest that part of what has driven me into his corner is that he angers some of the right people.

Admittedly, there have been times when I've vehemently disagreed with the senator -- McCain-Feingold and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts spring to mind. But, I can't help feeling a jolt of good cheer at the apoplexy that the mere mention of his name inspires in some of his critics. Mostly, these folks have solid, conservative beliefs with which I tend to agree. But, they're also people who are entrenched in the conservative-Republican power structure whose positions are threatened by his emergence. Regardless of whether or not I agree with their views, I can't escape the feeling that having these people trembling with rage is a good thing, particularly in light of the current state of the conservative movement and the Republican Party over which they've exercised so much control in recent years.

As is universally the case with any institution, long-entrenched power structures tend to be their own undoing. They tend to become fat, lazy, complacent, and given enough time, corrupt. And, that is precisely what has happened to the GOP's leadership during the Bush years. While the Bush administration has remained gloriously free of corruption, particularly in comparison to the administration that directly preceded it, the same can't be said of its legislative counterpart. Both, I think, can be fairly accused of laziness and complacency, however.

The Republican congressional leadership's torpor has been particularly egregious, and it paid a price for it in the 2006 midterm elections. Suddenly, the Democrats were in control and the Republican caucus, after having been in power for the bulk of the twelve years following the "Gingrich Revolution", had no idea how to react. The showed absolutely no sign of a renewed commitment to conservative principles of any kind -- social, fiscal, or national security. Having long ago abandoned those principles, and sensing that there was trouble brewing among the electorate, many Republicans turned to illegal immigration as a gimmick. Much to their chagrin, many voters picked up on the fact that they were using it as a diversion in hopes of keeping people from noticing the royal screwing they'd been receiving at the hands of their purportedly conservative elected officials.

This is the atmosphere that gave rise to John McCain, and whether or not he's the perfect vehicle for the change that must happen if the conservative movement is to survive, there's no doubt that he is the necessary agent to bring about the kind of changes that need to be made if the Republican Party is to have any hope of being a viable vehicle for conservatism in any form. No other candidate in the field of also-rans had the capacity to shake up the conservative establishment to the degree that John McCain has. And, whether one loves or hates him, it can't be denied that the establisment needs a good shaking. After all, the conservative leadership with which we've saddled ourselves has not only failed to hold the line on size, scope and cost of government, but run right past it like a juiced-up greyhound chasing a crackhead in a rabbit suit.

Rank and file conservatives are slowly lining up behind McCain, but there remains a significant number of hold-outs who are still enraged at the way he has run across the establishment conservative grain over the past several years. This won't be easy to repair, and in some cases, it'll be impossible. Once people have gotten used to having their ears tickled by the dulcet tones of politicians full of promises, delivery on those promises becomes secondary to the courtship. And, the failure of a politician to sufficiently engage in the courtship ritual is unforgivable, whereas the failure to deliver on the promises is not. Witness the hero status that Rick Santorum still enjoys among social conservatives despite his very active support of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. Then, witness the villification of John McCain and skepticism over his judicial philosophy in spite of his active support of Justices Alito and Roberts.

Conservatives who refuse to support McCain in this election are missing an opportunity that won't present itself again for a good, long time. We have a chance to clear out a lot of deadwood and create a path for a new generation of conservative leaders who truly represent their constituencies without giving in to the time-honored traditions of Washington which dictate that getting and keeping power takes precedence over principle. While McCain may be a maverick in areas that anger some conservatives to no end, the fact is that the Republican Party has been in dire need of mavericks in recent history. When the party line is unnecessarily costing lives in Iraq, someone needs to buck it. When the party line is needlessly bankrupting future generations to pay for entitlement programs, somone needs to buck it. And, when the party line says that corruption is acceptable when its goal is to maintain power for your own side, someone needs to buck it.

If more conservatives had demonstrated a willingness to buck the Republican Party line these last several years, the American public wouldn't be ready to toss them out on their ears right now.

Hackneyed Generation X. . .

2008-05-09T17:37:00.000-05:00

. . .moment alert!

I'm outta here for the night. So, rather than go into some long explanation as to what's tearing me away from my keyboard right now, I thought I'd distract my readers with the standard five-o'clock-on-a-Friday radio fare. Enjoy.

Most likely, I won't be doing any blogging tomorrow. I'll probably be in the great state of Missouri, at the Sikeston Drag Strip. I have my priorities, and horsepower and the smell of tire smoke and grape scented exhaust fumes are pretty close to the top.

The Next Right. . .

2008-05-09T16:49:00.001-05:00

. . .is:

. . .the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate.

I think this is an excellent idea, long past due. One of the most regrettable developments over the last five years, or so, has been the right's seeming inability to create an organized online presence. It's doubly regrettable when you consider the dominance that the right held within the blogosphere just a few short years ago. Our failure to coalesce around a central set of goals and objectives has cost us dearly, and with any luck, The Next Right will go a long way toward remedying the problem.

The importance of starting an online movement of this sort, I think, is demonstrated by the facts I addressed in my previous post on Mark Krikorian and the way in which the illegal immigration issue has been handled over the past few years. If The Next Right succeeds in its stated purpose, there will be a viable counterpoint on the Web to the undue influence of groups like NumbersUSA. As things currently are, these groups wield far greater influence than their numbers actually suggest they are entitled to, simply because they are far more organized and focused than their opponents.

Also, it has the potential to be a guiding force for what seems to be a rudderless Republican Party. As influence goes, it's hard to argue against the idea that an organized online grassroots community would be a healthy one for the GOP. The left's success in establishing such has been overwhelming with regard to fundraising and overall political action. I suspect we'll see a lot of good things coming from this new effort, and I plan to take part in it enthusiastically. I only hope that the whole right side of the blogosphere recognizes the crucial need for such an entity. I daresay that conservatism (and libertarianism) are in danger of being completely overwhelmed if this effort isn't taken very seriously, and that the elections of 2006 are an ample demonstration of that fact.

Bookmark it and keep an eye on it. I suspect big things will be forthcoming.

Mark Krikorian takes a trip. . .

2008-05-09T15:15:00.001-05:00

. . .behind the woodshed today at The Corner. Both Roger Clegg and John J. Miller give him a long overdue spanking for taking liberties with facts and basically being a jerk.

I can only assume that Clegg and Miller probably have a better overall view of Krikorian and his influence on the immigration debate than I do. So, I won't try to make the case that people are finally "catching on" to his noxious presence. As I've said before, conservatives can have good faith disagreements on immigration policy. It is not an issue that is dispositive of one's political leanings depending upon which side you come down.

But, I do have to say it's refreshing to see that I'm not the only one who grown weary of the rhetorical thuggery of Krikorian and his ilk. With help from Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, and other fire-breathing border hawks, Krikorian and his minions have turned immigration policy into, essentially, the Brown Scare. To my undying delight, Miller and Clegg seem to have decided that the time has finally come for less strident conservatives to push back against the hyper-accusatory tone of those who have dominated the immigration debate on the right for the past few years.

In fact, the most irksome component of the immigration debate, particularly over the past couple of years, hasn't been the government's lack of spinal steel in dealing with the issue, or the fact that the most recent attempt to address the issue crumbled under the weight of the manufactured outrage of groups like NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies. What rankles is the fact that these monomaniacal howler monkeys have deemed themselves fit to make pronouncements on not just the conservatism of those on the right who counsel a more patient response to the problem, but on their very Americanism.

I truly hope that Miller and Clegg are just the beginning of a wide-ranging phenomenon of committed conservatives in beating back this scurrilous attempt to browbeat people with honest disagreements with the single-issue border fanatics into meekly bowing to their demagoguery and intimidation. The need for this should be plain to all in the wake of Tom Tancredo's disgraceful attack on Pope Benedict XVI for merely reaffirming the Catholic church's long-held position that all people, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to the compassion of their fellow man.

As I was writing this, Kathryn Jean Lopez has interceded to suggest some restraint between the combatants, reminding them that conservatives on both sides of the issues "have a lot more in common than continuing resentments might suggest." She is, of course, right. But, it strikes me that the person most in need of that bit of caution is the person who initiated the turmoil by lashing out at a fellow conservative, Linda Chavez. And that person has been in need of such counsel for some time now.

Oddly enough, this all started with Andy McCarthy's flamboyant displays of grievance over the silly notion that the State Department is trying to silence his (and everyone else's) use of the word "jihad" in discussing islamic terrorism, which caught my eye a couple of weeks ago. How fitting is it that those who are angry at the very idea that someone would suggest a more strategic use of rhetoric would engage in such overheated rhetoric to decry those who make the suggestion?

Having wasted the day. . .

2008-05-08T15:09:00.000-05:00

. . .installing an all-in-one printer and listening to the tech support guy from Kodak yammer on about stuff that I already know, the blogging will be extremely light today, as I have an engagement to attend to this evening.

This soirée consists of several men sitting at a bar making demands of young ladies while ogling them and making the occasional double entendre when they're just out of earshot. You know -- the kind of thing Hillary emulated in Pennsylvania to bolster her blue collar bona fides.

While I'm out engaging in this merriment, I would appreciate it if everyone who reads this post would call up Kodak tech support and tell them just how crappy their installation software is. Because, you see, when you run the software all the way through, it instructs you to connect the USB cable between the computer and the printer. When you do that, in an ideal world, it will automatically detect the presence of the printer, and then you're free to go about printing cartoons, emails, photos, what-have-you.

But, when the software doesn't detect the presence of the printer, it continues to scan forever until it finally does pick it up. It doesn't, say, time out after a certain period of time. It doesn't give a hint as to the progress level of the detection. It just sits there with a few little green bars moving across a white field, pretending that actual work is being done. And you, the hapless installer, are left wondering, "OK, is it supposed to take this long? Or, do I need to give the monitor a whack as if it were a black and white TV with bad vertical hold?"

Normally, this isn't such a big thing. Sometimes, a computer will stop responding in the middle of a software installation, and you can simply reboot and start over. But, in the case of this printer, you have to install the godforsaken Microsoft .NET framework which, depending upon whether or not you're using the latest multi-threading, HellaMegaTerrabit processor, or some consumer-level desktop PC, takes anywhere from six to eight weeks to install. So, you kind of want to avoid having to start the whole process over.

In the end, though, it all turned out OK because, after having spent all that time scowling at the guy on the other end of the phone -- who really did nothing to deserve it, but nonetheless -- I discovered that the problem was a bad USB port. Simply moving the cable to another fixed the issue, at least for now.

The things I do for my mother with Mother's Day looming large. . .

And, there you have it. My day is shot, the blogging will be light, and soon enough, I'll be enjoying the ribald humor of my fellow knaves and rapscallions over the cool, crisp flavor of sweet, sweet beer.

It is comforting. . .

2008-05-07T19:05:00.000-05:00

. . .to know that this guy is being feverishly courted by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns right now.

A theme for McCain. . .

2008-05-07T17:17:00.000-05:00

. . .seems to be the order of the day among the conservative blogosphere. Via Jim Geraghty, I came across Jennifer Rubin's post on the subject at Commentary's blog, Contentions. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, I've been mulling this over for the past couple of days, trying to come up with the one thing that John McCain symbolizes that Barack Obama simply cannot, and it was relatively easy for me.

While Obama symbolizes (for some, anyway) the sense of hope and the opportunity for change, John McCain embodies something that is far more deeply ingrained in the American experience. After all, no one in this country, and very few on earth, have ever been in a more hopeless situation than the one John McCain found himself in during his days as a POW in Vietnam. He is living proof of the importance of hope.

But, beyond hope, there is perseverance. Because, even in times when there is no hope, the defiance and perseverance of the human spirit can carry the day. Again, no one embodies that part of the American spirit more than John McCain. Ask his captors. Ask anyone who knew him as a POW, and you'll find no one who was more defiant in the face of a more hopeless situation.

And, to go one point further, there is in the American character the ability to thrive in adversity. And, from McCain's days as a POW, all the way through the darkest days of his campaign for the Republican nomination, John McCain has exemplified the American ability to thrive in adversity.

John McCain's theme for this election should be: In tough times, Americans rely not only on hope, but on their unique ability to persevere, and even thrive under adversity. John McCain has proven at every turn that he is the man to guide America through these tough times, because he embodies the American character.

Now! Hampshire. . .

2008-05-07T15:03:00.000-05:00

. . .is open for business. It's the latest brainchild of Patrick Hines, and today, she sets out on her maiden voyage. It's a "hard news" site without centered around the politics and goings-on in New Hampshire. While it doesn't focus on opinion journalism, reader comments are solicited on the stories that it publishes.

On its first day, Now! Hampshire has managed to land a couple of great interviews -- one with Sen. John Sununu and one with Gov. Shaheen. Not a bad way to kick off a new site, is it?

Click on over and check it out. It looks to be a very promising venture, and I hope it's a rousing success for Patrick.

Are the scales falling. . .

2008-05-07T13:22:00.000-05:00

. . .from Mark Levin's eyes? He started out the day as he does every other day -- trashing John McCain as an apostate by pointing out that a considerable number (23%) of Republican primary voters in North Carolina and Indiana voted for someone else. Of course, he didn't come out and say "John McCain is an apostate, and no true Republican will vote for him," but on the heels of everything else he's said about him -- particularly over the past six months, it's not hard to pick up on the implication.

Andrew Stuttaford, not exactly a McCain stalwart, stepped in to point out a very basic reality that ought to be plain to anyone who's ever pondered on how one goes about winning elections -- that even Republicans need the votes of independents and Democrats to pull it off. He also points out that the percentage of people who have a favorable view of the Republican Party right now stands at 27%, and that assuming that this percentage is representative of the Republican base (for the sake of argument), the 23% of the base who voted for another candidate makes up a very small percentage of the total electorate. So, it seems that McCain's choice at this point is to try to cater to the 6.75% of the purported base which is apparently angry with him, or the vast swath of American voters who are waiting for him to differentiate himself from the Republican Party that they're not too crazy about right now.

Levin then comes back to challenge Stuttaford's math, but comes around to his view shortly thereafter, but questions how McCain ought to go about appealing to the broader electorate -- taking jabs along the way at William Kristol, David Frum, and David Brooks for insufficient Reaganism.

But, this gets us at least a few feet down the road with Levin. At least he is showing a willingness to recognize that a Republican can't get elected to the White House by running a campaign geared toward getting elected to the Alabama state house. The hard part is going to be training Levin not to claw at his skin and launch radio jihads every time McCain makes an overture to the American center.

About those predictions. . .

2008-05-06T20:25:00.002-05:00

. . .I posted earlier this morning. It looks like my Indiana prognostication might hold up, though perhaps a tick closer than I called it. But, holy crap! North Carolina! Here in Kentucky, we call that a good ol' country ass-whuppin'. Of course, some of the coastal counties haven't reported any results as of this writing, but I can hardly imagine a scenario wherein my predicted close call could come to be.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means Hillary goes on to fight in Kentucky and West Virginia. I think it's reasonably likely that she'll put together a win on the order of Obama's NC win, here in Kentucky. I don't have any polling figures to point to, so I'm operating on pure gut feeling. But, I would be surprised if Obama loses by less than a 15-point margin. I think West Virginia probably goes well for Hillary, too. Maybe not as heavily for Hillary as Kentucky, but she should win by a substantial margin.

Both states have relatively small numbers of black voters, so Obama won't be able to count on a significant boost, even though he comes into the contests with near unanimous black support. Again, this is pure gut instinct, but I suspect that his 90%-plus level of support among North Carolina blacks could possibly redound to his detriment in both states -- particularly if word gets around that his supporters in North Carolina and Indiana have accused the Clinton campaign of "Dog Whistle racism".

Among Kentucky Democrats, there's a fairly solid core of affinity for the Clinton brand. Don't be surprised if her campaign decides to push back against the "dog whistle" charges as she's campaigning here. After all, it is an extremely cynical ploy to intimidate her campaign into backing off from the very legitimate concerns about his electability. Obama's supporters are essentially saying, "If you play your strongest hand, we're going to tar you as a racist."

If Kentuckians, and I suspect West Virginians, get the notion that they're being browbeaten into voting against Clinton to prove they're not bigots, it will backfire badly.

UPDATE: As of 10:52 Central Time, it looks like my predictions have been pretty bad. Obama is now within one point in Indiana. The North Carolina results are tightening up, but not enough to soothe my wounded pride.

If Andy McCarthy believes. . .

2008-05-06T17:57:00.000-05:00

. . .the following, the man is quite simply delusional.

The Gang of 14 deal killed more judicial nominations than it saved. It elevated senatorial privilege over constitutional duty. It protected senators who didn't want to stand up and be counted. It took off the table in 2006 what would have been a winning issue for Republicans.

But, leave it to an attorney to convince himself that voters turn out at the polls because judicial nominees aren't being treated fairly in the Senate.

No, Andy. What cost the Republicans in 2006 was that a gaggle of latter-day Blackshorts, led by Tom "Spode" Tancredo, hijacked the entire agenda of the Republican Party for a year and a half and alienated a good percentage of Republican voters to the extent that they didn't bother to show up to vote.

It's time both McCarthy and Levin got over their little Gang of Fourteen tantrum. Nobody outside the inner circle of conservative D.C. lawyers and smattering of activists gives a damn about it at this point.

The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone. You hear them shouting "Heil, Spode!" and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: "Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?"
— P. G. Wodehouse (Bertie Wooster speaking to Spode) , in The Code of the Woosters (1938)

My predictions. . .

2008-05-06T01:56:00.000-05:00

. . .for today's primaries:

Indiana

Clinton 54%
Obama 46%

North Carolina

Obama 52%
Clinton 48%

McCain's judiciary speech. . .

2008-05-05T17:29:00.000-05:00

. . .is being previewed by, so far, Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback according to Jim Geraghty at Campaign Spot, who spoke to Brownback earlier today. He provides a little bit of McCain's history on the matter, which ought to serve as a pretty good preview of what to expect, as well.

Of all the complaints that some conservatives have had with McCain, I've always thought that his judicial picks were the ones least based in reality. The Gang of Fourteen deal is slowly winning backers over time, as people come to realize just how bad the logjam in Washington was, and how utterly hopeless the prospects of getting more judges confirmed would have been following the 2006 elections.

Of course, there are activists who will steadfastly refuse to be won over by anything that McCain does. In the end, though, those folks are isolating themselves and diminishing their influence by their intransigence.

Reason's resident dullard. . .

2008-05-05T15:37:00.001-05:00

. . .Steve Chapman has an article posted today comparing G. Gordon Liddy to Bill Ayers, claiming a moral equivalence between the two, while also trying to make the case that Liddy is as close a political ally to McCain as Ayers is to Obama. While Chapman does have a point that both of the men have rather checkered pasts, and both are guilty of some rather outrageous rhetoric, I can't help but wonder if Chapman really wants to have this debate.

H/T -- Ramesh Ponnuru @ The Corner.

Obama's rebound in support. . .

2008-05-04T21:30:00.000-05:00

. . .looks a little fishy to me in the latest CBS/New York Times poll. I'm no expert in polling analysis, or anything else for that matter. But, how on earth can you possibly extrapolate a candidate's support among voters from a poll with this kind sample?

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 671 adults nationwide, including 283 Democratic primary voters, interviewed by telephone May 1-3, 2008.

As I said, I'm no expert, but this strikes me as an exercise in meaninglessness.

Yesterday's Kentucky Derby. . .

2008-05-04T16:23:00.002-05:00

. . .has stirred up a heated debate over at Lucianne.com. The article that prompted the debate, by Sally Jenkins, makes good points that, I think, get lost in the stridency of the opening paragraph. Accusing NBC of cowardice for cutting away from the gruesome scene in order to show Big Brown's victory is to essentially accuse all horse racing fans of cowardice for not wanting to see the heartbreaking spectacle of a beautiful animal put to death to spare it the agony of its grotesque injuries. In taking this tack to open an otherwise fair piece, Jenkins, I think, can be fairly accused of taking a moral cheap shot at NBC for allowing viewers to look away from the carnage of a universally lamentable event.

The camera cut away from her, but it should have stayed on her. Eight Belles had run herself half to death yesterday, and now the vets were finishing the job as she lay on her side, her beautiful figure a black hump on the track. Horses don't just fall down like that, you thought as NBC flitted away, cowardlike, from the sickening picture to the more appealing image of the Kentucky Derby victor, Big Brown.

This is not to say that Jenkins's outrage isn't understandable. As an animal lover who doesn't cross over into the woolly-headed world of animal rights activists like PETA, I can fully sympathize with her anger at the suffering of Eight Belles. The very bottom line is that this beautiful animal was made to endure ghastly, intolerable pain for the sake of human amusement. It ought to shock the conscience of anyone with any sense of compassion to know that any sentient creature should endure such agony for even a moment, regardless of the circumstances.

But, there's a further tragedy at play in the way Jenkins approached this article. In immediately putting on the defensive everyone involved in the horse racing industry -- from owner and trainer all the way down to the spectator -- Jenkins has created a fight rather than a thoughtful discussion among well-intentioned people. The owners of these horses truly love them, as Jenkins acknowledges in the article. Yet, when she uses such a loaded term as cowardice to describe NBC's decision to cut its cameras away from the tragedy in order to show Big Brown's victory, she calls into question the morality and humanity of everyone who took part in the event.

That's what's so unfortunate and unfair about that first paragraph. It seems to assume a complete disregard for the welfare of these animals on behalf of the people involved, even though she goes on to acknowledge otherwise later in the piece. But, you can't impute moral turpitude to people simply because they participate in and enjoy a sport in which there are frequent instances of excruciating, career and life-ending injuries to its competitors. While these injuries may be a consequence of the actions of the humans involved, whether they be related to breeding practices, or simply a matter of putting them in competition at too early a stage in their development, no one engages in these practices without any concern for the animal. And no sane person goes to a horse race in the hopes of witnessing such a ghoulish spectacle.

For those of us who are truly troubled by the growing frequency and severity of the injuries in thoroughbred horse racing and want to see more forward-looking practices within the industry, wouldn't it be better to give the practitioners the benefit of a heavy heart and a sense of tragedy at the loss, rather than force them into a position of defiance by portraying them as amoral monsters? If the object is to prevent the suffering of a beautiful and defenseless creature, shouldn't we focus on the creature and the price it paid for our amusement, rather than impugn the humanity of the people who are, after all, just going too far in giving us what we want?

After all, we're not talking about people who dwell in laboratories creating abomination after abomination without regard to the agony endured by their mistakes until they get it right. We're talking about people whose eyes well up at the beauty of the graceful stride of a magnificent, athletic animal doing what it loves to do. These are people who lie awake at night, unable to sleep for the visions of glory that these animals conjure up in their minds. They're people who will cry their hearts out every time they think of what happened to Eight Belles for the rest of their lives.

Give them their due.

For the single ladies. . .

2008-05-03T19:07:00.000-05:00

Break.com - Watch more free videos

. . .who need to be reminded to lock their doors.

The Church of Oprah. . .

2008-05-03T17:39:00.000-05:00

. . .appears to have nailed a list of grievances to Jeremiah Wright's door, via Newsweek. Cynic that I am, though, I can't help wondering if this is a genuine reformation, or a very clever attempt at inoculation, known to all parties involved.

On one hand, you have Jeremiah Wright in 2002 speaking to Christianity Today, stating that when he encountered her in social situations, she would tell others, "Here's my pastor!" On the other hand, friends of Obama went to pains to draw a distinction between the rationale behind Oprah's decision to leave the church and Obama's decision to stay:

"[His] reasons for attending Trinity were totally different,'' said one campaign adviser, who declined to be named discussing the Illinois senator's sentiments. "Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American and, more importantly, as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America. Winfrey wasn't going for that. She's secure in her blackness, so that didn't have a hold on her.''

On yet another hand, we have Oprah's friends seeking to establish further distance between the Oprah-Obama tandem and Jeremiah Wright, stating:

"She felt that Wright would never do anything to hurt a man who looked up to him as a father figure," said her close friend. "She also never thought he'd intentionally hurt someone trying to make history and change the lives of so many people.''

Given the fact that the Wright quote is of a certain vintage, it's hard to say whether or not the sting still lingers for either of them. It could very well be that there's been a meeting of the minds since then, with Obama's candidacy in mind, and that there's an agreed-upon course that all signed onto when Wright inevitably became an issue. The cynic in me who has spent entirely too much of his life observing the antics of the politically ambitious tends to lean in that direction.

At the same time, it's hard for me to believe that Obama would have gone to the trouble of giving a major address on racial issues like the one he gave in Philadelphia, wherein he flatly refused to disown Wright and even compared him to his own grandmother, unless he still felt some sense of loyalty to him. Could it be that his campaign felt that to immediately disown Wright would have alienated the black community more than it would if he had made an initial show of support, only to have Wright theatrically undermine his campaign, giving him the perfect opportunity to rid himself of the troublesome preacher?

Oh, to hell with it all. There's no point in trying to read all these people's minds, really. But, what I do know is that my original inclination to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the most cynical exercises in modern politics has been utterly destroyed.

And, for the first time in my life, I was interested in what Oprah Winfrey had to say about something.

Carl Bernstein's broadside. . .

2008-05-03T16:05:00.001-05:00

. . .against Hillary Clinton today is pretty revealing. It not only shares a few intriguing details about the former first lady, but it also reveals a tickle of the truth that those of us on the right have been trying like hell to shine a light on for many years. Now that Hillary is running as the latter-day Scoop Jackson to some degree of success, it seems at least one of her erstwhile media allies feels sufficiently betrayed to stop sitting on a few facts that were, at least according to him, irrelevant up until now.

Meanwhile, Joe Conason is putting on a valiant show of loyalty to who might possibly be the only man in politics who exceeds him in intellectual squalor, longtime Clintonista Sidney Blumenthal. It appears that Sid has been taking heat from his fellow travelers of late due to his legendary ability to fling political scat into the whirring, oscillating fan that is the Beltway press. It's an old habit of Blumenthal's, says Joe, whose countenance never strays from that of an old man in a diner who has just shoveled a spoonful of cold gravy into his gob.

According to Conason, Blumenthal is being tarred in a manner similar to that in which Bernstein claims Obama is, i.e., the guilt-by-association pule that nearly everyone on the left seems hasty to employ these days. It seems that some on the left shouldn't be angry about what Sid Vicious has been sending out in his blast emails so much as they ought to be outraged about the recipients who made use of materials sent out by supposedly other Clinton campaign aides, e.g., The American Spectator and WorldNetDaily.

You see, according to Conason, Blumenthal's communications should have all been considered confidential, since he himself replies to the emails with the occasional "mocking jab" which he didn't feel in any way obligated to report to the public. And, since the people who reported the materials that Blumenthal distributed weren't listed among the intended recipients, Sid shouldn't be blamed for the fact that they reported on them. After all, how could he have known that someone might use the "forward" function upon receipt of such juicy tidbits? (Then again, how does Mr. Conason know that Blumenthal didn't "BCC" these materials to offending journalists like Jake Tapper and Joe Klein? Hmmmm?)

Ah, but this is the world of Democrat politics, replete with all the titillation and slimy associations that it implies. In a just world, this all ends in a Shakespearean flourish, when Barack Obama turns to Hillary, and says, "Come, let's away to prison. We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage."

The Messiah's pariah. . .

2008-05-01T15:18:00.001-05:00

. . .took it on the chin today, when Northwestern University yanked his honorary degree from the lectern. That has to smart, given the standards of your typical university, and Northwestern's stellar reputation as a haven of leftwing thought.

Aside from the implications with regard to the broader left, you have to wonder what this all means for the so-called "black community". That, actually, has been the most troubling aspect of the whole uproar. Since Obama has distanced himself from Wright this week, there's been considerable gnashing of teeth among the black left punditry. Witness the article by Mary Mitchell to which I linked last night.

What offended me, aside from the outright politico-racial whorishness that the entire column embodied, was the way in which Mitchell sought to draw a dividing line between the "black community" as it is represented by Jeremiah Wright, and the rest of the world. Not only did she take offense at the notion that "white punditry" might dare utter a disparaging word about what is said within black churches, she seemed to be trying to make the case that anyone who was offended by Jeremiah Wright's unmitigated idiocy was attacking the entire "black community".

Taken to its logical conclusion, Mary Mitchell's defense of Wright seems to be based on the fatuous notion that, as a representative of the "black community", Jeremiah Wright is off-limits with regard to criticism. That being the case, it doesn't matter whether or not you're a member of the dastardly "white punditry" class. You can be black and still find yourself on the outs with Mitchell. You will have "sold out" the community.

What it amounts to is racial McCarthyism. It's a way of bullying dissenters into acquiescence. And, if Barack Obama doesn't take a firm stand against the kind of filthy stupidity that Mary Mitchell and others are propagating in an attempt to shield the radical black left from any form of criticism, it will be an indication of just how weak a leader we can expect to have should he somehow be elected to the White House.

The time to rid political culture of the influence of the likes of Mitchell has come. Until she and her ilk (Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, et. al.) are honestly and frankly challenged before the eyes of all Americans in their moronic assertions of black infallibility , they will continue to be a noxious presence in the quest for liberty and justice for all.

I daresay that anyone who has had occasion to engage me on matters of racial politics, particularly over the last few years when such matters seem to have taken on a more prominent role in political discussions, will agree that I'm not one who is quickly stirred to anger by people who choose to celebrate their cultural uniqueness. I frequently go out of my way to impute the most innocuous of motives to people who make overt celebratory displays of pride in the cultures of their non-American forebears, very often at odds with my fellow conservatives. I believe that it is not only possible, but ultimately desirable for people to truly and deeply love America while embracing the traditions and cultures from which their progenitors hail. I don't want to live in an America that can't tolerate a St. Patrick's Day or a Columbus Day out of a sense of insecurity that it might be somehow deleterious to Americanism.

But, when the shrieking banshees of various "communities" seek to wall off themselves from the the criticism of Americans at large, especially when America at large is the target of so much of the communities' criticism, I'll draw a bright, defiant line every time. And, when folks like Mitchell, West, Dyson, and Smiley seek to play the role of overseer when much-needed dissidents break free of their intellectual shackles, I'm filled with an almost indescribable disgust that, from now on, I feel absolutely no desire to disguise.

People like Rev. Wright, to a minute degree, can be excused for their heresies simply because their views are so plainly and obviously ignorant and loathsome that moral outrage can be easily expressed, and their statements can be openly and objectively put into context and criticized. But, when there's a cadre of intellectuals, writers and pundits who enforce a blatant code of intellectual segregation within the "black community", the violation of which carries the threat of excommunication, there must be a loud, unremitting voice speaking truth to that iniquitous power.

Obama's separation from Wright. . .

2008-04-30T20:03:00.002-05:00

. . .over the past couple of days has had the odd effect of giving me a slight twinge of empathy. Granted, it is the barest hint of a twinge of a pang, but it's there nevertheless. I suppose it's because, while I think Barack Obama is wildly wrong, and in some respects dangerous to our nation, I can't help feeling that at the center of his elitist, arrogant, left-liberal core is a somewhat befuddled, but well-meaning heart.

Most likely, this is a product of his undeniable ability to connect with people through the spoken word. Listening to the man, you can't help but feel as though you're hearing the words of a person who truly does care about the plight of his fellow human beings. Whether this is a well-practiced bit of flim-flam picked up over the years as he's polished and perfected his craft, or an outgrowth of his deep conviction that he, and he alone, is prepared to shape America into a place where everyone can beam with pride in being a part of it, I'm not qualified to say. What I am qualified to say is that, as one of those people of whom he spoke at that San Francisco speech, he has come to embody the single most offensive element of left-liberal ideology: the smug condescension that allows some people to conclude that liberals could fix everything for the people, if only the people would get the hell out of their way.

What stirred my sense of human compassion for Obama was a piece by CBS's Jay Levine which questioned whether or not Jeremiah Wright intentionally set out to damage Obama's campaign. The very title of the piece, "Pastor vs The Pol: Did Wright Mean To Hurt Obama?" somehow has the effect of sad puppy eyes. It reminds me of every time I've carelessly said something that made a woman cry without meaning to. Suddenly, the head drops a little and I find myself wondering, "OK, am I really a human being at all, or just some cold, heartless automaton specifically designed to crush souls?"

And, just when the media had me at "hello", it rudely interrupted itself and stopped at "hell". Hell came in the form of today's column by the execrable Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mary Mitchell -- a woman for whom my distaste can't be properly expressed without using the kind of language that would cause the staff of the Ohio Attorney General's office a case of the vapors. Here's a sampling of the offending screed:

This is a sad day for Black America.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

Obviously, Wright's timing for a press conference about his sermons couldn't have been worse.

Still, when Obama says he is "offended" by Wright's latest comments -- given in defense against an orchestrated assault on his character and on his ministry -- he's opening up a can of worms.

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Even so, after Wright's fiery speeches surfaced on the Internet, most African Americans understood why Obama had to distance himself from Wright.

This filth-flarn-filth-flarn-such-and-such-and-so-and-so (apologies to Bill Cosby) is such a complete moral dullard that she manages to saddle "white pundits" with the up-jumping "divisive issue" at hand!

No, Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem, says Mary. The problem is the issue. And, the issue is being foisted upon the public by "white pundits" who should be minding their own damned business.

Well, Mary, white pundits were gleefully going along with the premise of the Obama campaign, and for years they had completely ignored what was going on in the apparent secret society that is the "black church". And look what that got them. While they were dutifully keeping their noses pointed the other way, celebrating you as a voice of diversity in the nation that has allowed you to make a comfortable living spewing your insipid nonsense by the barrel, your deeply respected institution -- or at least this iteration of it -- spent twenty years teaching you that it's your spiritual obligation to loathe the very idea of America.

So, Mary, what started out as a day of post-partisan recognition of common humanity has turned into an evening of bowel-roiling disgust leading me to make a solemn vow to rethink every charitable thought I have for Barack Obama until I see him, with my own eyes, throttling you like the moral and intellectual rag doll that you are.

Rove's piece on McCain. . .

2008-04-30T19:17:00.002-05:00

. . .in today's Wall Street Journal contains some details that I never knew about the senator. I am far from an expert on McCain, but I thought I at least had a pretty good handle on the what he experienced as a POW. If there is much more to his story that resembles what Rove shared in his column today, it would be a crime to allow this great man to lose to either one of the pikers currently flaying one another trying to grab the top spot on the opposing ticket.

Here's a particularly poignant passage:

Mr. [Bud] Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."

The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.

But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.

Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.

I won't deign to speak for others, but the discipline and "testicular fortitude" required to force a bone into its proper alignment for someone you care about, without the aid of painkillers of any kind, is of a kind I cannot imagine in myself. I suppose under the given circumstances -- which I have no way of ever being able to fully grasp -- anything is possible. But, as I sit here and think about what it must have been like for him to do that, I can't help feeling like a much, much smaller man than the Republican nominee.

Yes, it had to be hell for Col. Day to endure. I know what a severely broken bone feels like, having crushed my wrist in the past. But, the kind of psychological and, yes, moral strength required to do what McCain did in the name of camaraderie and respect strikes me as almost superhuman. I'm sure he would say that it was "just something he had to do". Somehow, that doesn't cover it for me. Not even close.

For all the puling and carping coming from the outer reaches of sane conservatism over this man being the Republican nominee, for me, it will be an unvarnished honor to pull the lever in his name this November.

More light blogging. . .

2008-04-29T17:43:00.000-05:00

. . .tonight as I have to step out for the evening. With any luck, I'll have plenty to say upon my return to the blogosphere tomorrow. Hell, I may even come back tonight -- though, I'm skeptical.

Wright's Press Club appearance. . .

2008-04-29T16:15:00.001-05:00

. . .seems to have stirred a bit of controversy, huh? And not just the content, but the way in which he found himself there. It appears that Barbara Reynolds, a Clinton supporter, is at least partially responsible for greasing the skids to get him behind the podium, according to Ben Smith at Politico.

Apparently, it wasn't the first time she'd tried to get him a spot at the National Press Club -- having attempted to get him a speaking slot there a couple of years ago, only to be rejected. But, now that the reverend has become "newsworthy", Press Club president Sylvia Smith managed to make room for the anti-American cleric and bane of Barack Obama's presidential aspirations.

Apparently, Barbara Reynolds and Rev. Wright go back a ways, at least with regard to one another's work. Her name popped up in an article that Wright penned for Trumpet magazine (the circular for Wright's church) back in 2005. Here's a link to a downloadable .pdf file of the article. Of course, this doesn't prove, or even suggest collusion between the reverend and the Clinton supporter. But, if I were Obama, or a member of his campaign, my eyebrows would be chasing my scalp over the top of my head right now.

Rev. Wright's P.R. blitz. . .

2008-04-28T17:51:00.001-05:00

. . .has got to be giving Barack Obama a very serious case of indigestion right now. I'm not talking about a Maalox moment. I'm talking about a full-blown bleeding ulcer in need of surgical intervention. Like Jim Geraghty, I think Wright may have sunk Obama's campaign with his loose cannon antics over the past three days. He also speculates along with some of his readers that he may be setting Obama up for a Sista Souljah moment, which is plausible, though I'm a touch skeptical.

It would be the most idiotic time to try and pull a dangerously cutesy move like that, given how close the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are, both in temporal and polling terms. He's already given Americans a major address on race relations and missed the opportunity to put sufficient distance between himself and his pastor -- err, former pastor -- with it. There's really no way that he can top the favorable coverage that he received from that outing. Any attempt to repeat that performance would not only be anti-climactic, the message would be muddled by the ongoing debate over Wright himself.

The best thing Obama can hope for right now is for Hillary to suffer a bout of alcohol poisoning while out downing shots with the great unwashed, and for John McCain to be somehow tied to that polygamist sect in Texas. And, at this point, the degree to which even that would help is dubious.

I would caution any conservatives who happen to be walking the streets of San Francisco for whatever reason to be on the lookout for falling liberals. This could very well turn out to be Black Monday.

Did I miss something. . .

2008-04-28T16:07:00.000-05:00

. . .about the government passing legislation barring people from using the word "jihad", or what?

I've never quite understood the point of flamboyant sarcasm in cases like the one Andy McCarthy seems to be on these days. It always seemed good enough to me to simply go on using the word.

For example, I don't think I've ever used the word "African-American" in conversation. I may have used it in writing on occasion, simply to keep down the redundancy in the use of "black" in a race-related piece.

It always seemed to me that when you engage in that kind of dramatic parody, you've pretty much demonstrated that you've let "them" get into your head. Just keep using the word and forget the sideshow. No biggie.

McCain's view on Wright. . .

2008-04-27T17:53:00.000-05:00

. . .as an issue in the campaign going forward is pretty much in line with my previous post on the matter. And, the simple fact of the matter is that there is only one group of people who find the Wright issue out of bounds, and we already know who they're voting for.

Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin at Politico both have him "shifting" his position on the matter, as does Byron York at NRO. While I don't think that's a necessarily unfair characterization, I can't say it's entirely accurate, either. It seems to me that what McCain is doing is simply recognizing a reality that neither he, nor anyone else, has any power to change. The undeniable fact is that a great number of people find Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright troubling, and you don't have to subscribe to the notion that he holds views similar to those of his minister to be troubled by it. His complete silence on the matter up until confronted by it is troubling by itself.

If Barack Obama and his campaign feel that this issue is an illegitimate one, why on earth did they go to the trouble of giving a major speech on it in order to limit the fallout? The fact is, the Obama campaign was perfectly happy to discuss the issue so long as he was basking in the glowing coverage of the speech. But, now that it's turns out that it didn't solve the problem, they don't want to discuss it anymore.

What it all boils down to is that the only people who get to decide whether or not any given subject is a legitimate one in the course of a presidential campaign are the voters. If the Obama campaign wants to quibble over whether or not his pastor problems are legitimate, he needs to take it up with voters. McCain has made his feelings known, and its up to the electorate to decide whether or not they agree with him. It's not up to McCain to thwart the will of people who want an open, honest discussion about Obama's relationship to Wright. And, if Obama didn't want the people to discuss it, he shouldn't have engaged them in the discussion on that fateful day in Philadelphia.

Amazingly enough. . .

2008-04-27T15:09:00.000-05:00

. . .there are still some conservatives out there who are clawing at themselves like a bunch of cats trapped in a fishing net over McCain's denunciation of the North Carolina GOP ad tying their Democrat gubernatorial opponents to Jeremiah Wright. They seem to be under the false impression that, by criticizing this ad, that McCain has "taken criticism of Wright off the table," which is absurd. It has done no such thing.

What it has done is take an embarrassing and ineffective ad off the airwaves. In describing McCain's actions in this matter in such a way as to make people believe that he has precluded any reference or criticism of Jeremiah Wright, or Barack Obama's relationship to him, as out of bounds, they're employing the kind of rhetorical excess many parents are familiar with. I remember employing it myself as a teenager trying to obtain permission to use the car on a weekend night.

Me: "Hey, Mom. Can I borrow your car to go and hang out with some friends tonight?"

Mom: "No."

Me: "GAAAH!!! You never let me do ANYTHING!!!!"

I'm skeptical, but perhaps I can lend a little perspective to all of this by putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment.

Imagine that the GOP had a gubernatorial candidate running in a Catholic-heavy state, like Pennsylvania, for example. And say the DNC went up with an ad that stated,

"Republican candidate for governor, Joe Smith, has endorsed John McCain for president. So has John Hagee, who has likened the Catholic Church to a great whore and a cult. Joe Smith knows this, and has still endorsed John McCain. That seems like very questionable judgment. Joe Smith -- too extreme for Pennsylvania."

What would these angry conservatives be saying about such an ad?

Hewitt has Jeremiah Wright. . .

2008-04-26T23:41:00.000-05:00

. . .audio and transcripts up, and the stuff is absolutely devastating. As he points out, Obama has complained about the fact that so much of what's been said about Wright has been based on snippets and sound bites. Well, what Hugh posts can't be reasonably portrayed as such, and there's nothing exculpatory to be found in any of it.

This kind of stuff, regardless of whether or not McCain finds it a legitimate avenue of attack on Obama, is important to know. One way or another, people are going to become aware of it, and they're going to draw their own conclusions with regard to its legitimacy. There's absolutely nothing he can do to prevent it from being circulated, and it's not something he should attempt to stop even if he could.

Opposing the North Carolina GOP campaign ad was, in my opinion, the wise thing to do. But people have a right to know when a presidential candidate has sat silently in the pews while his pastor went on tirades like the ones Hewitt has unearthed.

Sen. Salazar accuses Rush. . .

2008-04-26T18:48:00.002-05:00

. . .of a "clear exhortation" to violence in Denver during the Democratic National Convention and demands that he be reprimanded by Clear Channel. You'd think he'd reserve his outrage for Recreate '68, an organization openly dedicated to creating the unrest that Limbaugh only dreams of.

Salazar is clearly making an obvious attempt at changing the subject of media scrutiny from the growing discontent and contumely among Democrats by putting Limbaugh, the one person for whom all Democrats share a blinding hatred, in the headlines for a few minutes. I suppose it succeeded to the extent that anyone gives a damn what Sen. Salazar thinks. But, what Salazar obviously doesn't understand is that, should there actually be any serious violence or civil unrest in Denver this August, any attempt to pin the blame on Limbaugh for it will backfire, leaving the Colorado senator red-faced and shamed before his constituents and an utterly incredulous electorate.

Limbaugh may have goofed in talking up the possibility of violence in Denver, but only insofar as it gave the Democrats an excuse to stop trashing one another and start trashing Rush. But, even if you take that view of Limbaugh's statement, you have to admit that it's, at most, a very temporary distraction. And, the simple truth of the matter is that anyone who thinks that Limbaugh is saying something that the average man on the street isn't already talking about is clearly out of touch with the electorate. People have been talking about this for weeks, if not months.

But, then again, Salazar isn't the only Senate Democrat who seems not to have the foggiest notion as to what's going on among the grassroots. The single worst offender on that front is about to be the party's nominee.

The NRO fainting couch. . .

2008-04-26T14:24:00.002-05:00

. . .is getting a workout today over McCain's condemnation of the Wright ad in the North Carolina gubernatorial race. In their hysterical swoon, they took a swipe at him while conceding that he has a legitimate reason to exercise extreme caution in matters involving race:

We understand McCain’s desire to steer well clear of any racial foul-play, but there’s none in the ad and he’s foolish to be pushed into the position of speech cop for every other Republican in the country.

The problem with that appraisal is that McCain has explicitly stated that he can't be the "speech cop" they accuse him of being. Speaking in Inez, KY, he stated, “I can’t dictate to them but I want to be the candidate of everybody,” and, “unfortunately all I can do is, in as visible way as possible, is disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning.”

NRO characterized the ad pretty accurately in calling it "a bank shot on top of a bank shot," but that while it's not a particularly effective ad, there's nothing illegitimate about it. That's a fair point, but it needs to be considered in light of the context which NRO's editors raise at the end of the piece:

From now until November, any Republican criticizing Wright will be accused of playing the race card. It’s a way to shut down discussion of Wright’s poisonous worldview, and of what it says about Obama. These rules stack the deck and stifle legitimate debate. Republicans must reject them.

Indeed, anyone who does criticize Wright from here on out is going to be accused of playing the race card. But, the fact is that this was always the case, regardless of whether McCain embraced, rejected, or completely ignored the ad. If conservatives circle their wagons around an ad that is not only ineffective, but an overreaching attempt to tie gubernatorial candidates to Jeremiah Wright, they make themselves an easy target for charges of racism. Even though the charges are false, the subject of Wright is undeniably racially charged, and if the North Carolina GOP can make a highly tenuous connection between him and their Democrat opponents, Democrats can turn it around and make a very dubious charge that the ad was racist, since it dealt with such a racially divisive subject.

By insisting on running the ad in order to display a rejection of the rules that stack the deck against Republicans, you're assuming that doing so will change the rules. There's virtually zero chance that this is going to happen. And, in the end, that rejection of the rules will only result in Republicans being accused of playing the race card while denying it. You still end up being the accused in an unfair process, whether you reject the rules or not. And, in using such a dubious connection as was used in the ad, it leaves you open to dubious charges from your opponent.

But, there's a benefit to be found in all of this. Because, at least now, there is a serious discussion taking place as to whether or not this ad plays the race card. The Democrats will make the case that, since the connection between the two gubernatorial candidates and Jeremiah Wright was virtually non-existent, it's legitimate to question the motives of the North Carolina GOP in raising him as an issue. But, what will they say when the connection between Obama and Wright, which is anything but dubious, is raised?

The Democrats will have a much more difficult time making their case when that happens.

The weekend beckons. . .

2008-04-25T17:04:00.000-05:00

. . .and I find myself once again ripped away from my little portal looking out onto the world of politics. But, let not your hearts be troubled, for I shall return upon the morrow with some cool crap.

In the meantime, it's time for a bee-double-ee-double-arr-yoo-en.

The New Kind of Politics. . .

2008-04-25T15:48:00.000-05:00

. . .appears to be coming solely from the McCain campaign, as this post at The Politico makes abundantly clear. While McCain decries the use of Jeremiah Wright in a North Carolina gubernatorial campaign ad as being of a tone which his campaign is seeking to avoid, Barack Obama's campaign manager is tarring McCain as the product of racist support. That's pretty low-road stuff.

Obama needs to repudiate this in strong terms, and he needs to do it now. Having his campaign manager running around defaming his opponent by implying that he courts racist sentiment to bolster his support further undermines the entire rationale of his candidacy. If you're running as a candidate who transcends racial barriers, you can't be taken seriously if your minions are engaging in fear mongering and racially divisive rhetoric at the expense of your opponents.

Of course, Obama will in all likelihood issue a terse statement that says, in effect, "I don't think John McCain is in the Klan, but I've never seen any proof that he isn't."

Ezra Klein's language. . .

2008-04-25T15:28:00.000-05:00

. . .is pretty atrocious in this Twitter post that wasn't intended to get out, so do not click this link if you are offended by extremely crude language. If you're curious as to what it is, but don't want to be offended, I'll put it this way: Ezra Klein expressed his disdain for Tim Russert by declaring that someone should engage in homosexual relations with him, and that there should be some kind of caustic chemical involved in the process.

Sorry, folks. That's the best clean-up job I could do.

A tip o' the derby to Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot, where I found this item.

The NC GOP's Obama ad. . .

2008-04-25T13:29:00.000-05:00

. . .and John McCain's condemnation of it have created a stir, to be sure. Everybody seems to know what's going on, except for some disgruntled grassroots activists, who are behaving like a bunch of scorned teenage girls.

Here's some advice for all the folks out there who are so hurt by what McCain has had to say about it: Butch it up, you Marys! The more whining and keening you do about this stuff, the sillier you look. When did the GOP become the party of the fainting couch?

My rebellious streak. . .

2008-04-25T12:47:00.000-05:00

. . .kicked into high gear today. In spite of dire warnings and against the advice of the federal government, I didn't call in a HazMat team when I knocked over a lamp with one of those twisty bulbs broke it. Yep. I just swept it up, put the bulb in the trash and threw the glass shards into my cat's food bowl.

He loved it!

A great cartoon. . .

2008-04-25T12:25:00.000-05:00

. . .by Nate Beeler has been posted by someone over at The Corner. Do check it out.

Blogging will be light. . .

2008-04-24T16:47:00.000-05:00

. . .today. I have to go and hang out with some working class white people who drink beer. I'd do a shot in Hillary's honor, but they don't serve liquor in this establishment. But, they do serve one fine rack of ribs.

I don't know why they don't have a web sitet. Perhaps I'll make that a project of mine. I'll have to talk to the owners about it.

Anyway, I'm thirsty. So long!

Bill Ayers' office. . .

2008-04-24T16:29:00.000-05:00

. . .is described as a "Where's Waldo of lefty radicalism" by Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot. I think that's a pretty apt description. I couldn't help noticing the text in the image of Malcolm X in the center of the shot: "Allah's Angry Man" and "A Thousand More Shall Rise".

If this guy lived in my neighborhood, I think I'd know enough about him to know not to call upon him for fundraising purposes. I might even move, depending on the proximity of his home. Never know when that baby's going to blow, after all.

Obama's Ayers connection. . .

2008-04-24T15:07:00.000-05:00

. . .is proving to get a little more troubling all the time. Samantha Sault has a great round-up post on the work going on in the blogosphere to uncover easily foreseen, yet, previously unknown details in Ayers's and Dohrn's very recent past. As expected, it turns out their days of rage still haven't ended.

There's just something about. . .

2008-04-23T23:39:00.001-05:00

. . .an armed woman that stokes the fires of the conservative man. Well, at least this conservative man, anyway. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in my admiration for a woman who takes it upon herself to ensure the safety of her life, liberty and property. It also doesn't hurt that so many of them are drop-dead gorgeous.

Some songs never age. . .

2008-04-23T21:52:00.000-05:00

. . .for me. A few weeks ago, I went on and on about a couple of songs off of the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album, and how listening to them again after a certain length of time brought about a new appreciation for them. In a similar vein, there are songs that you've heard a thousand times and still hear them frequently, but that, for some inexplicable reason, just strike you out of nowhere with how great they are.

This happened to me the other night as I was listening to the Foo Fighters' song, "D.O.A." (on the ear buds for which I'm currently seeking a replacement set). To my mind, it's four minutes of rock music heaven, even though it may have been overplayed on rock radio when it first came out. It's near the top of the list in my music player over there in my sidebar. Just scroll up almost to the top of the list and look for it. Then, crank up your computer speakers and just listen. I mean, that is one rockin' song, I don't care who you are.

Shirley Temple Black's 80th. . .

2008-04-23T20:56:00.000-05:00

. . .birthday was spoiled when she took a very nasty spill last week, resulting in a compound fracture of her arm. By all accounts, Shirley has always been the very picture of class, which sadly makes her a relic in the Hollywood we know today.

Apparently, she's been working on the second volume of her autobiography and has yet to sign with a publisher. From Army Archerd's blog at Variety:

Until now, Shirley had been busy finalizing the second book of her autobiography -- the first is "Child Star" -- but had not yet signed with a publisher. She can add this chapter to her incredible story. And I have been lucky enough to have been present at some of her accomplishments, history and honors.

Having suffered a pretty severe fracture in my left arm some years ago, I know how painful the recovery can be. The fracture Shirley suffered was even more severe than mine, and happened just as she was turning 80, whereas mine happened when I was still in my late twenties. But, if the tone of the article is any indication as to how she's handling it, I'd say she's a far bigger trooper than I was.

Let's all hope for a very speedy and full recovery for America's real sweetheart.

The turd in The Corner punchbowl. . .

2008-04-23T17:18:00.000-05:00

. . .otherwise known as amnesty recipient John Derbyshire, seems to be delighting in jerking the chains of the faithful these days. Ramesh Ponnuru has the proper attitude in dealing with petulant provocateurs like Derb, which is to simply ignore him while he amuses himself and Andrew Sullivan with the cool trick he learned from the big boys at summer camp. I never had the opportunity to attend summer camp, but from what I gather, it is a place where some pubescent boys learn about the physical counterpart to the cerebral act that Derbyshire is engaging in these days. After all, if you're overcome by the urge to jerk something, and there are chains all around you. . .

I'm bleggin' ya. . .

2008-04-23T14:42:00.002-05:00

. . .could someone please give me a brand of decent, cheap ear buds with sturdy insulation? In spite of my careful efforts to prevent it, the ones I have now have developed a short. And, for me, there are very few phenomena that send me into a blind rage like having the right channel cut in and out while I'm trying to listen to some tunes. The ones I have came with my Crackberry, which I got at Christmas, so I guess I ought to be grateful that they've lasted as long as they have. But, dammit, I have rigorous expectations for audio components of any sort -- the top three criteria being (1) great sound, (2) incredible durability, and (3) stunning cheapness.

So, if any reader happens to know of a set of ear buds that fit these criteria, or if they fit the top two criteria, but happen to be sold at a place with extremely lax theft prevention (in which case I'll pay my niece five bucks to get them for me), please leave a comment. I need to replace them quickly as my neighbors won't even make eye contact with me right now. Apparently, they find it alarming to see a man screaming obscenities, jumping up and down and stomping on an object they can't see in his front yard.

Thanks to Gayle. . .

2008-04-23T14:20:00.000-05:00

. . .over at And You Thought You were Cranky for the link, and to all the visitors coming by via her fine blog. She's one of the finest, most insightful writers in all of Blogistan, and I consider it an honor to count her as a friend. Be sure to bookmark her blog, if you haven't already. She seems to be updating it more frequently lately, which is great. I'm not the person to lecture anyone on posting frequency, but maybe if some of her readers stayed on her case about it. . .

Armed, superstitious xenophobes. . .

2008-04-22T20:21:00.000-05:00

. . .appear to have ridden to Hillary's rescue in Pennsylvania. As they say, the only question right now is how big the margin is going to be. Mark Levin predicted a 13-point win, earlier -- and that's right about what I was thinking. Actually, I figured it would be somewhere between 10-15 points -- that covers plenty of ground, I know. But I'm not too good at predicting numbers, so I tend to hedge. The important thing is that Hillary will have achieved the needed double-digit victory in order to move her campaign forward while reasonably claiming that she still belongs in the race.

If it turns out that she wins by less than double-digits, I will have been wrong, but Clinton will still claim legitimacy. And, the fact of the matter is that, until one candidate has the number of delegates required to capture the nomination, she has a point. As they say, it ain't over 'til it's over.

McCain's disability pension. . .

2008-04-22T17:09:00.000-05:00

. . .has come up as an issue in a Los Angeles Times article I linked in my previous post. The fact that a paid professional journalist believes this is an avenue worthy of inquiry is, to me, indicative of just how desperate Obama's backers in the press are to shepherd their charge into the White House.

It's also a sign of the sickening depths to which purportedly objective reporters will sink in order to undermine their golden child's opposition. The way this particular item is constructed, there are only two conclusions the reader can come to: either John McCain is unfit for office due to the injuries he suffered in service to his country, or he is unfit for office for accepting the pension to begin with, since he is capable of hiking in the Grand Canyon.

As much as I hate to harp on one subject over a series of posts, I can't help but wonder if, in asking Barack Obama to explain his relationships with an unrepentant terrorist and a radical black liberation theologian, and the rationale behind his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin, journalists do a shoddy, despicable disservice to the political process, just what in the hell would you call the LA Times piece?

In a world of my creation (and let's all thank God this one isn't), Ralph Vartabedian would be answering a few questions while hanging from broken and re-broken arms. And I doubt seriously that he'd give me very many unsatisfactory answers.

Hillary's big day. . .

2008-04-22T16:11:00.000-05:00

. . .begins with coverage of her husband's little spat with a reporter, which will likely stir up the hornet's nest that is her base, causing them to turn out in overwhelming droves. Meanwhile, Barack Obama uses the opportunity to flop the race card, which is likely going to further alienate the already weak and dwindling support he has among working class whites.

On the same day, both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times decide to run pieces on John McCain that, should the Democrats decide to run with them as talking points, will backfire badly.

One wonders if Tom Shales can bestir himself to decry this journalistic malpractice in even the mildest of terms. I understand that he can't be expected to open a vein over the repeated underhanded depredations of the media on a Republican presidential candidate, but you'd think he might be able to wag a finger of admonishment at his fellow belligerents for their utter lack of honor. After all, the man unleashed a screed on his compatriots for asking questions of Barack Obama that were based in readily discernible fact. It seems only reasonable that he, or maybe even someone more qualified to comment on political coverage than a style columnist, take the time to assess the treatment given to someone other than Obama once in a while. Reasonable, perhaps. Conceivable, no.

As a conservative, I learned long ago that to hope for even-handed coverage of my preferred candidate at the hands of the left-dominated Washington press corps was an exercise in futility and disappointment. Consequently, I've come to rely on the fact that, by and large, the public understands just how blatant the bias is. Now, it appears that the Clinton campaign is getting a taste of life as the redheaded stepchild of the liberal media establishment. Of course, it took the arrival of the new leftwing messiah to relegate her to the status of gum on the sole of the media shoe, but at least it's now so glaringly obvious that half of all Democrat voters are now getting to see it in all its sycophantic glory.

One good thing that will come out of this election is the fact that many Democrats will have cause to consider the fact that the same folks who so cavalierly doled out derision on Barack Obama's primary opponent are the same folks doing it to John McCain. They've now witnessed how the game works once the media have their man. And they've witnessed how Obama's media allies will respond when one of their own strays from the pack the way George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson did. The reaction is, well. . .

With Tancredo unshackled. . .

2008-04-21T14:48:00.001-05:00

. . .from the bonds of public approbation, we're starting to get a glimpse behind the Halcion-induced smiling visage that the anti-immigration movement has used to conceal the contorted snarls at its lunatic core. The first hint came back in late February, when Mark Krikorian went after Catholic Bishops, accusing them of having nefarious motives for their support of immigrants, both legal and illegal, rather than any altruistic sense of compassion.

To this day, I have trouble understanding how so many conservatives didn't see this coming. The signs were clearly there all along. All one had to do was to look at the origins of the groups most responsible for the ratcheting up of anti-immigrant sentiment and the histories of some of their more prominent members and boosters.

Throughout all the rancor of the past few years, Kathryn Jean Lopez has been exceedingly tolerant of the rhetorical excesses of Tancredo, Krikorian and others, but it seems she has finally had it up to here. Ramesh Ponnuru was pretty charitable in his assessment of Tancredo when he originally pointed out the idiocy he's currently foisting on the public. I suspect he'll be less so in days ahead, though I've never been very good at predicting which side he's going to come down on with regard to any given issue. Nevertheless, unless something as changed in recent months, he has taken a tack on illegal immigration that is pretty similar to my own: that following the monomaniacs on the matter would be absolutely disastrous.

(Oddly enough, one of those monomaniacs surfaced in the Washington Post's page-1 hit piece on McCain, yesterday. These people are frighteningly angry, and the fact that McCain is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party -- which they feel they own lock, stock and barrel -- is absolutely maddening to them.)

But, what's more frightening than these people's ideas is the fact that they so recently held such sway over mainstream politicians. You couldn't hear the Washington D.C. traffic over the sound of the knocking knees in the Senate when they organized their blast-fax campaign to kill immigration reform.

It ought to be clear now to every senator on Capitol Hill that these people were punching way over their weight class, given the fact that enough Republican primary voters saw through the disguise to hold Tom Tancredo to a pathetic one percent of popular support. And, thanks to Tancredo's recent antics, this passel of eccentrics is going to cast a much smaller shadow from now on.

When polticians live in fear. . .

2008-04-20T21:15:00.000-05:00

. . .of the little guy, then you're doing something right. And, sometimes, it takes an outside perspective to remind you when you're doing something right. For me, that perspective came in the form of a column in the London Daily Telegraph, by Janet Daley. She says it just about as well as it can be said here:

Unlike in Britain, where the opinions of ordinary people are held in pretty much open contempt, at least insofar as they do not conform to the acceptable limits of what might be called BBC received orthodoxy, in the US (which takes mass democracy very seriously indeed) they are treated with immense, electorally significant respect.

That is why Mr Obama's remarks were jaw-dropping stuff in the course of a presidential election: no politician with serious ambitions ever, ever insults the great mass of small-town, working-class America.

That's the reason the American left is sputtering with rage right now. That's why Tom Shales is suffering from severe testicular torsion in the aftermath of the Democrats' debate on ABC. They know that the hoi-polloi was watching and the really didn't want to have this discussion in front of us. For them, it was as if they were parents forced to discuss the details of their open marriage in front of the kids. The kids are never supposed to know.

Q: What's the difference. . .

2008-04-20T20:09:00.002-05:00

. . .between Charles Manson and William Ayers?

A: The Exclusionary Rule.

Mike Leahy plays "Kristen". . .

2008-04-20T18:15:00.001-05:00

. . .to Obama's Eliot Spitzer in today's Washington Post, dredging up complaints from the distant past by avowed McCain enemies alongside resolved differences he once had with his current allies. It's a pure hit piece, to put it charitably. What it really amounts to is showin' some love to the Obama camp, helping to knock the dirt off the suddenly beleaguered candidate's shoulder.

Mark Salter wrote in to Ramesh Ponnuru after having seen the piece linked at The Corner and gave the McCain campaign's account of just how this story came to be, and it doesn't reflect well on Mr. Leahy. Apparently, Obama's duplicity is a trait shared by his benefactors. Whether or not they developed the trait as a result of exposure to the crepe paper messiah, or if it's just the regular old run-of-the-mill sort of duplicity normally attributable to the Beltway press corps, I don't know. But, unless Mark Salter is an outright liar, in which case it seems incumbent upon Leahy to forthrightly state so, the very genesis of this story is enough to cast doubt upon it. The fact that it appeared on Page 1 in the Sunday edition should be a source of shame, even for a publication as shamelessly biased as the Washington Post.

What this all amounts to is a several-thousand-word collection of ancient complaints by embittered sworn McCainemies interlaced with long-forgotten differences between erstwhile foes, fishwrapped and delivered to the front door of Obama '08 headquarters. Obama's greatest asset is the fact that when he needs something to take his latest gaffe out of the headlines, he has friends who can make it so by hook or by crook.

I've added new tracks. . .

2008-04-19T17:48:00.000-05:00

. . .to the playlist at your right. Sorry rock n' roll haters, there's nothing there for you. But, rest assured that I'm working on other playlists filled with different types of music. The problem is that you have to fill one playlist before you can create another. And, for some reason, I just couldn't bring myself to put Dwight Yoakam on the same list as Iron Maiden. It just didn't seem right to me.

So, I'm working on playlists that don't have a musical whiplash effect. The next one will be more of a mishmash. A little something for everybody.

However, if you're a rocker, there should be something in the current one that'll strike your fancy. And, since I set the player up to shuffle the song order, you can always open up my blog, hit the the Play button, and listen to it in the background while you're doing all that productive crap you're supposed to be doing on computers.

O'Rourke on the Big Stick. . .

2008-04-19T01:04:00.001-05:00

. . .gives us a glimpse into life on an aircraft carrier, and the under-appreciated aspects of conservatism that John McCain embodies.

Some people say John McCain isn't conservative enough. But there's more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?

This is why P.J. O'Rourke is one of my favorite writers, and always will be. Great column that ought to be a must-read within the conservative blogosphere.

These things are tasty. . .

2008-04-18T14:41:00.000-05:00

. . .but, I caution against sitting down with a bag, eating a whole bunch of them, then forgetting that you ate them not long before you decide to rub your eye.

I was stirred from sleep. . .

2008-04-18T13:00:00.001-05:00

. . .around 4:37 this morning, according to the news, by a 5.2 magnitude earthquake. I had no idea what it was at the time. I just remember the shaking, which wasn't violent by any means. A 5.2 is either pretty small potatoes, or I live far enough from the epicenter that much of the energy had dissipated by the time the seismic waves reached me. Whatever the case, what I felt was not much more than someone nudging you to wake up.

Of course, our local news is all over this like Michael Moore on a baker's dozen of Krispy Kremes. No tsunami warnings. . .yet. We'll have to keep an eye on the eastern seaboard and make sure it doesn't collapse into the Atlantic before we make any hasty predictions. But, for now, all is quiet and still in western Kentucky.

Q: What's the difference. . .

2008-04-17T18:03:00.000-05:00

. . .between Barack Obama and Eliot Spitzer?

A: Eliot Spitzer's whores get paid by the night. Obama's whores get paid by the word.

McCain's flag pin. . .

2008-04-17T17:20:00.000-05:00

. . .is the very life he's led. But, for some reason, Mark Nickolas doesn't seem to get that. Here's a hint, Mark: If you spend nearly six years in a POW camp, sacrificing your freedom for your country, that's a bit of a lapel pin in itself.

If you take off your lapel pin with a flourish and declare that your reasons for doing so are because you see it as somehow beneath you to put one on when you can demonstrate your patriotism through your words in ways that no lapel pin could ever express, then you damned well ought to be able to express that patriotism when you're asked about a silly little lapel pin like the ones so many Americans wear every day.

Where's McCain's flag pin? It's stuck in many a liberal craw right now.

Obama's feet of clay. . .

2008-04-17T14:20:00.000-05:00

. . .crumbled a bit in last night's debate. That's why we're reading reviews like this from Tom Shales:

"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."

Far be it from me to tell a news guy what the news is. But, since when did a Style columnist get to make the determination? (On an unrelated note, how many chins are you allowed to have while still claiming the mantle of style columnist?)

In any event, how predictable is it that the most venomous review of Obama's inquisitors should come from a style columnist?

Look, Tommy Boy. Stick with reviewing will.i.am's Obama videos. The only thing we learned from this particular column is that it's possible to get an entire pair of big-girl panties wedged into a man's gluteal cleavage. If you truly care about this nation's welfare, you won't conjure up that noxious image again by waxing dyspeptic on the state of the nation's politics.

Just words. . .

2008-04-16T17:11:00.000-05:00

. . .to be sure, but "cannon fodder" doesn't seem like the best way to describe our troops, even if you're in front of an east coast elite crowd, in Manhattan. But, that's precisely how Sen. Obama described them.

Between this kind of nastiness, his casual dismissal of small-town America's values, and belittlement of everyday gestures of sincere support for our troops, Barack Obama has really put himself in a tight spot with unaffiliated and socially conservative Democrat voters.

The fact is, what Obama sought to do in that statement was to demonize President Bush as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The idea that he would use our troops as "cannon fodder" is deeply offensive. The fact that he would do so while, at the same time, professing to be the herald of a "New Kind of Politics" is breathtakingly hypocritical.

If he is willing to characterize our troops and their commander in chief in such a way, what must he think of the families who express such pride in those men and women serving our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would he describe the disabled veteran who gave him the flag pin as mere "cannon fodder"?

How would he describe Sen. McCain? "Vietcong Whipping Boy?"

H/T -- Rich Lowry at The Corner.

Whether you're an elitist. . .

2008-04-16T15:57:00.000-05:00

. . .or not can be determined by answering a simple question.

Most people living in the so-called "red states" that elected George W. Bush as president are:

(a) patriotic.

(b) jingoistic.

Obama's flag pin. . .

2008-04-16T14:32:00.002-05:00

. . .problem is the anchor of his snobbery difficulties, which have grown into a full-fledged crisis over the past week. The problem was never that he simply didn't wear one. The problem has always been his stated reason for not wearing one -- that they are mere trinkets signifying a false patriotism.

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest; instead I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

But, what does that reveal about the way he views people who do choose to wear these lapel pins? The answer was made plain in his speech to big-time donors in San Francisco. It's not too big a stretch to come to the conclusion that a man who sees a simple gesture like wearing a lapel pin to demonstrate one's pride and love for America as nothing more than pretense might also see the act of voting in defense of their belief in God, or their rights to protect themselves by owning firearms as the actions of a trapped animal lashing out at its rescuer -- the rescuer in this case being the Messiah of a New Kind of Politics.

However, now that Obama has been confronted with a situation wherein a flag pin takes on a meaning he hadn't considered prior to his arrogant dismissal of the sentiments of those who choose to wear them, he seems to have found the Lord. Should he be ridiculed for this minor about-face? I don't think so. I think that anytime a person makes a decision to bring himself a little closer to those who have legitimate reasons to be critical of him, he should be commended for doing so.

But, Obama shouldn't be allowed to evade answering questions about his previous stance. He ought to be asked just why it is that it took a disabled veteran offering an object he once derided as mere window dressing to bring him around to the idea that there are real, honest-to-God sentiments behind the act of displaying a flag pin on one's lapel. Why was he originally so quick to see it as somehow beneath him to do what so many Americans do every day in order to remind themselves just how much we have been given by our forefathers? Did it not occur to him that, in placing that small pin on themselves every day, many people use it as a moment of reflection to fully grasp the greatness of America and its people, and of the men and women serving our interests abroad at such great sacrifice?

The truth of the matter is that ever since 9/11, the American left has portrayed overt displays of patriotism -- particularly among its own tribe -- as capitulation to the right. Displaying the flag, whether outside one's home or on one's person, is an act of either jingoism, in the case of conservatives, or outright cravenness, in the case of liberals. It is as though liberals view any act that could possibly be construed as having been inspired by conservative leanings in any way is tantamount to a "sell-out".

There's a streak of childishness among the cultural left that equates embracing America in a time when she is being led by conservatives with ideological treason. It's not enough to simply criticize the leaders with whom you have a beef. You must decry the people who put them there. After all, in the liberal mind, there is absolutely no possible way that George W. Bush could have been elected to office unless a dangerously large portion of our population were afflicted with either extreme stupidity, or supreme gullibility.

So, it should come as no surprise when Barack Obama, in speaking to the most left-leaning elements of his constituency, speaks to them in the terms that make them feel vindicated in their disdain for the people who thrust two terms of a Bush presidency on them. He simply speaks to people in the language they understand. His problem is that his most ardent supporters speak a language that is entirely alien to the people he needs most. Those ardent supporters look down their noses with a certain condescending tolerance of the barbarian hordes, never fully comprehending what they're all about, and cling to the idea that Barack Obama is the man who can save them from their own barbarity.

In effect, what Obama said in San Francisco that evening was, "Look, I'm going to have to go through some rather unseemly and distasteful motions if I'm to have a hope in hell of bringing your ideas to fruition, and it's going to require a lot of patience from you good folks. But, don't worry. While it may seem that I've wandered off the reservation from time to time in my attempt to ingratiate myself to these folks who are, by nature, resistant to my gestures, keep in mind that I'm doing it with our shared vision in mind. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but that's politics. If I could win this election on the strength of you folks alone, you know where I'd be spending my days."

Many Democrats will have no problem with that. They harbor similar sentiments, no matter where they live or how much they make. As far as they're concerned, the only reason they weren't able to come up with the thousand bucks it took to get into that fundraiser is that George W. Bush has been their president for almost eight years. They're more than happy to endure their present circumstances until November, if only Obama can sooth the savage beasts in whose midst they find themselves.

But, the unaffiliated voters, and the Democrats who don't feel any particular ideological allegiance to a party that views them as people with nowhere else to go are going to find someplace else to go. And John McCain is the perfect excuse for them to go there.

There will be lightness. . .

2008-04-15T17:27:00.000-05:00

. . .in blogging tonight. I have a social engagement which calls me away from my beloved daily ritual, but only for the night. Of course, I could return for some late night blogging, but that depends on how the evening progresses.

If you get bored while I'm away, feel free to listen to some music. The stereo is right over there at the top of my sidebar, at the right. There's a small collection of hard rockin' tunes with some slightly lighter fare sprinkled in for no good reason.

Good night, and good. . .lord! I almost sounded like Keith Olbermann there!

Maybe Obama is bitter. . .

2008-04-15T16:54:00.000-05:00

. . .and is projecting his psyche onto small-town America. It's not often that I nod my head in agreement while reading a Dana Milbank piece, but this one had me doing it as he recounted some of the less attractive Obama moments during yesterday's editors luncheon hosted by the Associated Press.

It seems that while John McCain has proven himself to be an open book to the press, Obama has been decidedly less so. And, it's fairly obvious that a little bit of resentment is starting to bubble up within Obama. For instance, this particularly nasty shot at both McCain and President Bush:

"If I had to carry the banner for eight years of George Bush's failures, I'd be looking for something else to talk about, too."

Is that the "New Kind of Politics" Obama has been promising his worshipful minions throughout his campaign? If so, the Old Kind of Politics is starting to look pretty high-minded and nearly as lofty as the Chicago Democrat's rhetorical flourishes.

But, he reserved his most scornful words for a fellow Democrat, despite professing that he's doing his best to exercise restraint:

"Senator Clinton may not feel that she can afford to be as constrained. But I'm sure that Senator Clinton feels like she's doing me a great favor, because she's been deploying most of the arguments that the Republican Party will be using against me in November."

I guess the opposite of bitter in this instance would be "vindication". Rush Limbaugh has to be feeling a good bit of that right about now, what with the smashing success of his Operation Chaos.

The McCain family recipe. . .

2008-04-15T15:16:00.000-05:00

. . .flap has clearly touched a nerve among the brie-nibbling, chardonnay-swilling set over at the Huffington Post. I'm not sure if it was the fact that none of the recipes called for arugula or hundred-dollar ham, but something clearly has them gnashing their veneers today.

The Red State Rubes. . .

2008-04-14T20:35:00.001-05:00

. . .performing a local favorite, "Let's Go a-Huntin' After Church, Amigo!"

Hillary's "Cling" ad. . .

2008-04-14T19:15:00.001-05:00

. . .is pretty weak. As a totally non-professional non-ad guy, I think I could have done better than this:

Frankly, I think using the audio from the speech with subtitles overlaying images of Americana -- small-town churches as people stream in on Sunday morning, Ducks Unlimited-like sunrise hunting scenes, and multi-ethnic groups of blue collar workers enjoying one another's company would have been much more effective. This "man on the street" ad just doesn't really get to the point. Plus, how often does it seem that someone unearths the identity of one of the people who appear in these types of ads and it turns out to be an embarrassing selection?

This ad has absolutely no emotional appeal. It's really just a few people saying the standard fare of political campaign ads. The Clinton campaign missed a great opportunity. But, at least there weren't any phones in view.

Sen. McConnell said Hooters. . .

2008-04-14T17:21:00.000-05:00

. . .was a major source of worry for Hillary at the same Kentucky GOP event where Rep. Geoff Davis's colloquialism (see my previous post, just below) provided fodder for the folks at Politico. A pretty good zinger, I thought.

"I hear she hasn't been this worried since a new Hooters opened" near her home with former President Bill Clinton, McConnell said, prompting laughs from the 400 Northern Kentucky Republicans.

Yes, Washington elitists. We gun-totin', other-hatin', Bible-thumpin' galoots in small-town America are known to enjoy the odd ribald, bawdy quip. It's a rural thing. You wouldn't understand.

The U.S. of KKK-A. . .

2008-04-14T16:46:00.001-05:00

. . .is apparently the home of some very racially sensitive folks. ~~Last~~ Saturday night, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) spoke at a GOP dinner on Saturday night wherein he uttered the following words about Sen. Obama:

"That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

He has since apologized in a hand-delivered letter to Obama's senate office, according to the folks over at Politico.

This is the first I've heard of this, so it's difficult to know what kind of furor it's going to generate. But, if anyone decides that this is something to use as a cudgel against conservatives, you might want to stop and consider that, at present, the Democrats are locked into a fight over who's an elitist who doesn't have a clue as to what life is like in small-town America. And, Kentucky being the very portrait of small-town America, you might want to understand that the word "boy" is used in everyday speech in a completely benign fashion. For instance, when you're sitting at the bar drinking beer with your buddies, and one of them says something funny, you're very likely to hear one of the guys at the bar say, "That boy ain't right," or "Dammit, boy!"

Now, given the fact that both Obama and Clinton are going to great pains to make sure that the average rural voter doesn't see them as out of touch, condescending, or of an otherwise insolent mindset, it would serve them well to accept Davis's apology with a good measure of magnanimity. Stirring up further racial disharmony at this point would be the biggest mistake the Democrats could possibly make if they hope to stand a chance in November.

It remains to be seen, however, if the Democrats are smart enough to see that. They've come by their elitist image without any outside help thus far.

UPDATE: Corrected the chronology of Rep. Davis's comment.

Small-town America speaks. . .

2008-04-14T15:51:00.000-05:00

"I swear, Mister Obommer, I ain't bitter. I ain't ne'er bit nobody, 'ceptin' my ol' dawg Hank. An' that wuz 'cause he stolded mah favorite possum!"

It's not Obama's fault. . .

2008-04-14T14:43:00.002-05:00

. . .that small-town America has taken umbrage at his unintentional(ly publicized) slight. It's clearly the fact that our nation's interior is populated by dullards, rednecks, and backward palookas who lack the ken to sift through his words for their true meaning. And, I suppose I can sympathize. I've been in that situation before myself.

Once, I was talking to a female friend of mine about another mutual female friend. We were going on about how she was having trouble finding a decent guy when I said, "You know, I look at her and I see the bitterness oozing from her pores. She's hooked up with loser after loser until she has finally come to the conclusion that every man she meets is a loser. So, rather than set her sights any higher, she turns to booze, and gets liquored up, then the next thing you know, her underwear is hanging from some guy's ceiling fan -- a guy whose name she doesn't know and who will never call her again, which she's just fine with because he's just another loser as far as she's concerned."

Well, the next thing I know, the two of them had apparently spoken, and the girl in question is calling me to give me a piece of her mind. It was all so completely crazy. The way she saw it, I was calling her an embittered, drunken strumpet!

Go figure!

Hoity-toity polyglot Obama. . .

2008-04-14T12:54:00.001-05:00

. . .after backing himself into a corner, decided to lash out at his opponents in an attempt to yank the focus from his latest gaffe by feigning incredulity at the very idea that others would dare portray him as being out of touch.

“Here’s what’s rich,” he said. “Senator Clinton says, ‘well, I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter. He’s obviously out of touch with people.’”

Mark Salter, McCain's senior adviser, responded:

“It’s hard to keep a straight face when you’re accused of being out of touch by a guy who thinks the whole country is worried about the high price of arugula or that you hunt ducks with a six shooter.”

H/T - Patrick Hynes

If you're a veteran. . .

2008-04-14T02:04:00.000-05:00

. . .or active duty, this strikes me as a great tool for keeping up with buddies, old and new. It's called Military Planet, and it appears to be a social networking site specifically targeted to the armed services and the unique circumstances our military personnel often find themselves in.

Obama's elitism battle. . .

2008-04-13T23:35:00.000-05:00

. . .is going to plague him for some time to come. It's one of those problems that sink into the American consciousness and stay there like an earwig. There's very little he can do to rid himself of the image. He could try eating potted meat sandwiches at a Saturday night dirt track race, but that carries the risk of looking like the Democrat counterpart to M.C. Rove.

The one thing I would avoid if I were in his shoes would be to have Katrina vanden Heuvel ride to my rescue. I'm sure she means well, but she's got to understand that, of all the things people are going to say in his defense, none of them are going to begin with the words, "As Katrina vanden Heuvel points out. . ." That would be akin to having Barry Bonds write a blurb for your book on sportsmanship.

But, please, Katrina. Do go on.

The Moderate Voice. . .

2008-04-13T21:10:00.000-05:00

. . .has a brief round-up of daily tracking poll data that seems to indicate that Obama's recent disquisition on the terribly unsophisticated predilections of the hoi-polloi haven't hurt him all that badly among Democrat voters. But, as McCain has opened up a lead among unaffiliated voters, it strikes me as having happened at perhaps the worst possible time for his campaign. Zogby apparently agrees, which makes me a little nervous.

With his arrogance. . .

2008-04-13T17:13:00.000-05:00

. . .on full display this week, Obama's going to have to deal with his duplicity next. The folks over at NewsBusters have provided a wonderful example of just how oily the Illinois Senator can be. They point out that in one of the ads he has in heavy rotation at the moment, he claims, "I don't take money from oil companies."

While it is quite commendable that Barack Obama doesn't "take money from oil companies," since it's been illegal for any campaign to do so for over a century, it really evades a very important truth; a truth that shows how adept Obama can be in his use of language when he needs to. NewsBusters explains in the following paragraph:

. . .FactCheck.org reveals the reality that two of Obama's biggest "bundler" donors are executives at oil companies. "Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies," FactCheck.org says, "and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."

For now, at least, the establishment media outlets seem content to let him slide on this rather unctuous teaspoon of irrelevant truth diffused in a barrel of oleaginous flim-flam. But, eventually, he will be asked about it. And, more than likely, his answer will serve to further confirm the inadvertent bit of candor he displayed in San Francisco when he spoke of small-town America as though it were little more than a vast collective of easily hoodwinked chumps.

Never mind NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms. This year's electoral powerhouse is going to be Zeke from the Creek.

Imagine Hillary drinking beer. . .

2008-04-13T16:19:00.002-05:00

. . .like one of us regular folk!

Well, she did it last night in Crown Point, Indiana at a place called Bronko's restaurant. Not only did she drink a beer, she downed a shot of Crown Royal and ate a slice of pizza. I wonder if she asked for the Crown Royal bag to hang over her rear view mirror. That would have picked up some authenticity points. It's always the little things, Hillary.

Her transformation from empowered, cosmopolitan woman on the world stage to Good Time Charlene at your local saloon has been nothing short of miraculous in the wake of Obama's patronizing remarks about the great unwashed to his Marin County meal tickets. At the rate she's morphing, all Obama would have to do is be seen driving past an art gallery and Clinton will be trading in her black pants suit for a pair of Carhartt coveralls and a can of Copenhagen.

All you mouth-breathing yokels. . .

2008-04-12T09:00:00.002-05:00

. . .out there in the hinterlands ought to be painfully aware of how Barack Obama feels about you now. He certainly made no bones about it when he was speaking to the "Marin County hot-tubbers" in San Francisco, recently:

"And it's not surprising then [you] get bitter, [you] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like [you] or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain [your] frustrations."

Anyone remember my post a while back that said Obama's undoing will be his arrogance and duplicity? Well, there it is on full display.

Last night, he tried a do-over in Terre Haute, but came up very short:

No amount of dissembling is going to undo the damage that Obama has done to himself with his condescending caricature of middle America as a repository of angry, bitter, reactionary xenophobes who reflexively seek refuge in God and guns when confronted with a world they're incapable of understanding. His attempt to repackage his original sentiment as an expression of solidarity simply fails to address the fact that its underlying premise was that middle America really doesn't get what it's all about; that it is a vast collection of Pavlovian dogs, conditioned to respond to change in a way that has no relation to reality.

His attempt to exploit anti-Washington sentiment as a means of minimizing the impact of his deeply elitist dismissal of middle American values is, at its core, a confirmation of the very premise he's seeking to evade. It's as if Obama were saying, "Oh, oh! They're lashing out again. Better wave a red flag and distract them. Blaming Washington politicians is always a crowd pleaser."

I have a little techie bleg. . .

2008-04-11T15:59:00.000-05:00

. . .for anyone out there who might be knowledgeable on blog feeds. I've been looking around the web for a way to get my posts from this blog to propagate over to my MySpace blog. This isn't of the utmost importance, or anything. It just seems like it would be a good idea. I'm not all that crazy about MySpace's blog setup, so I don't want to spend a whole lot of time working on it. But, having it sitting there doing nothing just seems like a waste of a decent resource, crappily set up as it may be.

Any ideas? I've seen a widget that you can use for it, but it just doesn't appear to be what I'm looking for. I would simply like to have my posts automatically appear over at the other blog, rather than have some widget sitting over at the side all by itself, serving no real function.

Many thanks to anyone who can help me.

One of the perks. . .

2008-04-11T14:25:00.002-05:00

. . .of blogging is that from time to time, some wonderful benefactor bestows upon you a wonderful gift. Well, one of those gifts arrived for me yesterday in a small box from Mystic Monk coffee. And, let me tell you, if you are at all a fan of the bean, this stuff is for you. I recommend it unreservedly.

I got both the Colombian medium roast and some of the chocolate mint flavored coffee. Both are absolutely delicious. They're perfectly roasted without the slightest hint of bitterness. Being a huge fan of Colombian coffee, I've tried several brands, and Mystic Monk beats them all. As for the chocolate mint, it's a very smooth coffee -- like the Colombian medium roast, it is utterly devoid of bitterness, and the mint is subtle. It's great with just a touch of creamer, but just between you and me, I can't wait to get some Bailey's Irish Cream to put in it.

The Anchoress has posted her raves about Mystic Monk a few times, so if you'd like a second opinion, you can check out her site. You'll find that we both have come to the same conclusion. I don't know what their secret is, but those monks know how to roast beans. I can't recommend it highly enough.

UPDATE: Welcome to all visitors from TheAnchoress, and many thanks to The Anchoress for the link! It's always nice to share a link over a nice cup of coffee.

If you look to your right. . .

2008-04-11T13:10:00.000-05:00

. . .over at the top of my sidebar, you'll see the new addition to my blog that I was up all night working on. Be aware that, if you're not a big fan of hard rock and/or heavy metal, you're not going to find much on there to like. But, at the same time, also be aware that I spent a good amount of time -- into the wee hours of the morning -- working on it in order to make it as unobtrusive as possible. That meant quite a bit of code tinkering for resizing and such. But, in the end, I think it was worth it.

It's the same player and playlist that I have on my MySpace and Facebook pages, so it's consistent throughout all my networking dealie-o's. I kind of like the uniformity. And, it's nice to have my own music to listen to while I'm blogging, even if no one else listens to it. I'll be changing up playlists from time to time, building different lists for the different types of music I enjoy. So, if you're not a metalhead, not to fear: it's not always going to be "that loud crap" you hate.

But, if you do like that kind of music, then by all means. . .enjoy!

The posting is light. . .

2008-04-10T15:12:00.000-05:00

. . .today because I'm still doing some tweaks on my MySpace page. I've added a music player and playlist, which is great. Unfortunately, it automatically plays when you open the page and I'm trying to figure out how to stop that from happening. You see, I have a taste for loud rock music, and some folks might be a tad jarred when they open my page only to be greeted by Pantera.

Yeah, they're pretty loud.

So, anyway, my apologies for the lack of blogging today. I'll be back in fighting trim when I have this thing worked out.

For an abject Clinton flak. . .

2008-04-09T14:58:00.003-05:00

. . .Lanny Davis can be a remarkably stand-up guy. I recall a point during the President's first White House run that he came to George W. Bush's defense when his integrity was called into question, though I can't remember precisely what the issue was. (Perhaps someone can refresh my memory?) Davis even defended Sen. McCain against the famously scurrilous charges raised in the New York Times not so long ago.

Today, he's doing everything he can to warn Democrats about what's to come should Barack Obama secure their nomination. He will be roundly criticized, as he has already been, for pointing it out. But, the fact remains that Jeremiah Wright is a problem for the Democrats that, despite their wishful thinking to the contrary, won't go away unless Obama makes a much more forceful denunciation of him, and addresses some very tough questions for which there are no good answers. Davis makes a very valid point in the following graph.

Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election.

There is apparently a congenital defect in the vision of some Dem-symp talking heads that precludes them from recognizing an albatross when it is dressed in a dashiki. Somehow, Lanny Davis has managed to overcome this disability. Perhaps he had corrective surgery at some point before Hillary quit paying her staff's health insurance bills.

Whatever the case, Davis knows what he's talking about here. Unfortunately for the Democrats, many who suffer the aforementioned visual disability also lack the ability to detect sounds that fall within the frequency range of common sense.