The Power of the Internet

Not many people pay attention the NHL (National Hockey League), or its All Star Game. However, it's garnering more attention this year because an internet campaign is about to land a virtual nobody in the starting lineup:

Much like Sylvester Stallone has done with Rocky, Rory Fitzpatrick campaigners have taken a charming story and launched it into the realm of the ridiculous -- and the NHL couldn't be happier.

The league is embracing the 'Vote for Rory' efforts which now seem poised to elect to the all-star game a bottom-roster Canucks defenceman who has as many points as the fans voting for him (zero).

"I hope that from a human standpoint, for once, we can all just have a moment of fun with something without sentencing ourselves to paralysis by analysis," said NHL spokesman Frank Brown. "I have a pretty strong feeling that everyone who has played this year at an all-star calibre will end up on the ice in Dallas.

Fitzpatrick is an unlikely champion, which is what makes this great. He has played for 5 teams in a 10 year career, and he's currently 12th on his team in playing time.

It started on a chat board, expanded to a website (voteforrory.com), and now includes 'ads' for Fitzpatrick's bid on Youtube. Here are two very funny political style attack ads:





With Major League Baseball also allowing fan voting for the All Star Game (I don't know about the other major sports), look for copycat efforts.

Back to the top.

Picture of the Day

Someday I need to see the Northern Lights in person...

Back to the top.

Weird Story of the Day

Murder suspect apparently survives being shot in forehead, and fights court order to have the slug removed.

Hat Tip: Volokh

Back to the top.

So Much for Earmark Reform...

And so the hope that the incoming Democratic majority would be 'better' than the Republican majority on earmark reform goes up in smoke. The New York Times reports that the House Democratic Leadership is helping the vulnerable incoming Freshman Democratic class with key committee assigments:

The 110th Congress has not even been sworn into office. But in a measure of the determination not to surrender the majority in two years, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive speaker, has instructed aides to begin acting immediately to help Democrats who won by small margins in districts where President Bush did well in 2004 or who coasted in because their opponents were mired by controversy. Those new members are methodically being given coveted spots on high-profile committees, in particular the Financial Services Committee, a magnet for campaign contributions, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a platform from which to send money for projects back home.

Apart from generally putting the lie to Democratic promises to change the culture in Washington, it demonstrates that Democrats are perfectly happy to accept earmarks for political gain. And if vulnerable Freshmen are going to be the beneficiaries of earmarks, you can bet they won't be the only ones. Veteran Democrats will insist on equal treatment.

And for those not familiar with Congressional rules, transportation earmarks are generally not subject to the appropriations process. That is, while almost all Congressional authorizations for spending must subsequently be approved in an appropriations bill, most transportation spending is done in the form of direct obligation, meaning that it only needs to be in the transportation bill for the money to be spent. As a result, reform of earmarks in appropriations bills has no effect on transportation earmarks.

Back to the top.

Why Rudy Can Win

American Spectator notes a wealth of speculation recently that just maybe, Giuliani can win the Republican nomination with at least some support from social conservatives.

Derbyshire says that everyone hates Giuliani for something; I suppose there's some truth to that. Since I am a practicing Catholic, I will state for my part that while Derbyshire says that Catholics hate Giuliani because of his divorces, it's no deal-breaker with me. And of the Catholics I know, no one regards it is a serious obstacle. In fact, I know many Catholics - primarily from New York - who accept his personal failings, but marvel at the job he did as Mayor. His leadership counts for a lot.

Plus, no one really loves any of the leading contenders. And if your choices boil down to Rudy Giuliani, the volatile John McCain, and the uncertain Mitt Romney, Giuliani seems a pretty good option.

Read in particular Michael Barone, who's probably forgotten more about right-center voters than I will ever know. He finds that Giuliani scores very wellamong conservatives, specifically because of 9/11. Giuilani may wither, as opponents air commercials about his personal history and his views on social issues, but I bet it won't be that easy.

Further and importantly, if the first rule of politics today is to get all the negative stuff out in the open first - so it's 'neutralized' as an issue - then Giuliani is well-served by the attention he's getting in the blogoshpere. His views on abortion, gun control, and gay rights are all getting aired now, and the audience in the blogosphere probably approximates the core primary voters. Come January 2007, when the commercials are aired, many may respond by saying 'yes, we know all that.' If so, Giuliani may be the front-runner.

Back to the top.

More Details on Sandy Burglar

What could motivate someone to risk a security clearance, a reputation, and jail time? Mr. Berger must have thought there was something extremely damaging in the documents he sought to hide (or did hide) from the 9/11 Commission.

Back to the top.

In Fact, They Don't Know It's Christmas

Nearly fifteen years after the fiasco of the U.S. withdrawal in the aftermath of the Battle of Bakara Market, events in Somalia give us a low-budget model of what the world could expect from a similar no-fault withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Ethiopia and Eritrea (as well as other, Islamic, states) back opposing factions which have for the last 3 days been shelling each other around the town of Baidoa in the country's interior. Ethiopia's support of the putative national unity government has escalated over the past year to officially-denied division-level military engagement in support of their proxies, and the situation may now have passed the point of no return, as the Islamists declare a state of war.

The prospects of parallel developments in Iraq, should the Blame-America-First Left succeed in a near-term withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, cannot be ignored. Iran has already made its support of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army an open secret, and the prospect of direct Iranian military backing of his forces in the event of U.S. withdrawal can be regarded as a practical certainty. The recently expressed Saudi intent to prevent further erosion of Sunni influence in the country could be expected swiftly to assume military form as well.

The one certainty is that the key distinction between Somalia and Iraq is the poverty of Somalia compared to Iraq's oil wealth: the slow-haemorrhaging, low-level, lone-technical-machine-gunning-through-a-village carnage of Somalia's last decade is certainly a pale shadow of the swift and industrial-strength destruction two proxy armies backed by Saudi Arabia and Iran could wreak in Iraq.

In the Holiday Mood

I offer one of my Christmastime guilty pleasures:



It's worth a look just to see the '80's hair, and to see how much Sting looked like Francis from Malcolm in the Middle.

And obviously, Band Aid begat USA for Africa:



Watch it just to see if you can identify everyone in it.

And because I know the audience here includes masochists, a link to Allah's take on the Star Wars Christmas special.

But you know what, if it's Christmas, I always think about Groundhog Day:



Umm... I have no reason why.

Back to the top.

Defending Bush on Trade

I have commented in the past that the Bush administration doesn't seem all that dedicated to free trade. The Economist offers a strong and surprising defense of the President, and a gloomy look at the incoming Democrats.

Back to the top.

Ethnic Relations in UK - Redux

Drudge features an eye-catching headline:

MOHAMMED OVERTAKES GEORGE IN LIST OF UK'S MOST POPULAR NAMES...

This reminds us of how the western world is changing. But if you look at the data, it appears that it does not represent a dramatic change from the last few years.

While 'Mohammed' is more popular than 'George' or 'Joseph,' it is less popular than 21 other names, including 'Alfie' and 'Callum.' Further, it comes in at 22nd place - a fall of 2 spots from 2004 (although 'Muhammad' climbed from 54 to 44 in that time). So while the UK has clearly changed, it may not have changed so much in the last few years.

What's shocking is the paucity of the numbers - at least for us Americans. The most popular boy's name in the UK is 'Jack,' which is the given name for just 6,928 British children in 2006 (so far). Mohammed and Muhammad by contrast, combined for a total of 4,255 children.

Back to the top.

Goode Needs to Revise and Extend

Republican Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) needs to clear up his views on Muslims in America. It's reported that he sent the following letter to a constituent:

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.”

Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Predictably, CAIR has picked up on this faster than anyone. They can probably be counted on to go overboard.

Nevertheless, I don't think it ought to be the explicit policy of this country to prevent an increase in the Muslim population. I hope that Goode doesn't either, and states it.

Hat Tip: TPMMuckraker.

Update: In the comment section, Philo questions whether Mr. Goode might merely be a victim of sloppy staff work. I thought that might be the case, but this would seem to answer that question: Lawmaker won't apologize for 'Islamophobic' letter.

Back to the top.

Neophytes Handed Congress to Democrats

Charlie Cook posts a note from an interesting political conference - one where representatives of the House Democratic and Republican Campaign Committees talked about why the election turned out the way it did. Apparently there was agreement that for this year at least, conventional wisdom was wrong; first-time candidates were an asset to the Democrats:

History tells us that the best congressional challengers have already won elective office. Experienced candidates are more likely than the uninitiated to understand the fundamentals of a strong campaign, especially organization, strategy, and fundraising. Experienced candidates tend to have a better grasp of the issues, and to know how to effectively articulate their message and stay on it. This doesn't mean that first-time candidates can't do these things and can't win, just that experienced candidates usually do them better.

In 2006, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and his team moved heaven and earth to get experienced candidates to run. But many of the blue-chippers, the experienced would-be candidates, were not convinced that it would be a good Democratic year. As a result, Democrats ended up with many more first-time congressional candidates -- or people who had run before but had never won, or people who had never won a tough race -- than they would have liked. To be sure, some first-timers, such as Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, turned out to be surprisingly good candidates.

At the conference, Jonathan Poe, the National Republican Congressional Committee's deputy political director, argued that the Democrats' large number of novices was precisely the problem for the GOP in many races. Unlike experienced candidates, the first-timers had scant voting records or other experiences that their opponents could use as fodder for negative ads. Republican incumbents and the NRCC thus had to resort to far less effective and convincing attacks. In many cases, the attacks simply didn't work. Either by design or by luck, the Democrats' presumed liability of lacking experienced candidates turned into an asset this year. Poe's counterpart on the panel, DCCC Executive Director Karin Johanson, wore a smile that couldn't be missed.

A good point, but I'm not sure how useful it is. The preference for an experienced candidate is likely to hold in all but big anti-incumbent elections. In rare cases like 2008, when voters are so heavily predisposed to support a challenger, it might be better to have no record to attack. But it's hard to predict during which elections those will be one year out - when much of the 'recruiting' is done.

Back to the top.

Labor Disrupts Democratic Convention Plan

The DNC had hoped to announce before January 1, the location for the 2008 Democratic Convention. The RNC has already announced Minneapolis-St. Paul for the location of the Republican Convention, and a convention in Denver would have the DNC also holding its get-together in a swing region that leans to the other party.

However, the DNC can't get a commitment from the local stagehands union to not call a strike that affects the convo:

Denver's bid to host the 2008 Democratic National Convention hit a serious snag Monday after a union leader refused to sign a no-strike pledge, with a decision due anytime.

City and union officials confirmed Monday that Jim Taylor, head of the local stagehands union, is refusing to sign a mandatory agreement with national Democrats pledging not to strike if the convention comes to Denver.

Debbie Willhite, executive director of the host committee, said not having full union support is "probably a deal breaker" for the DNC.

But Denver's director of theaters and arenas, Jack Finlaw, said he was "optimistic" that Taylor and the stagehands would sign on.

"There is still time," Finlaw said.

The alternative site is New York. And while I am a New Yorker and love the City, it's not likely to offer the Democrats any political gain. After all, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are all 'safe' Democratic states - so the (arguable) political benefit of holding the event in that region is small. I suppose the only way that region is winnable is if Rudy Giuliani is on the GOP ticket - in which case holding a convention in New York is unlikely to help much.

On the other hand, the Democrats are two-for-three in recent Presidential elections where they met in New York City. Bill Clinton was nominated at the 1992 convention in New York, and the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter there in 1976 and 1980 - with mixed results.

Hat Tip: CQ Political Wire

Back to the top.

Ari Fleischer for Congress

Human Events reports that New York politicos are talking about the possibility of Ari Fleischer running for Congress in 2008:

Will Ari Run?

The Westchester-county-based 24th District could be a focus of national attention if one Republican in particular makes the race: Ari Fleischer, one-time press secretary to George W. Bush, left the White House in 2003 and returned to his home county to do communications consulting (at one point, he advised major league baseball teams on public relations matters), write his memoir of the Bush White House and take on speaking engagements and TV commentary.

Friends of Fleischer note that the Westchester native has done just about everything congressional—managed campaigns, worked as a press secretary in both houses of Congress and served as a field operative for the National Republican Congressional Committee—except run for Congress himself. Kelly’s defeat at the hands of Hall now opens up that opportunity for him.

Fleischer isn’t saying anything about any political plans, but fellow New Yorkers who know him well bet that he will make the House race in ’08. As Larry Casey, onetime top aide to former New York Republican Rep. George Wortley and a canny political operative, told me: “Ari is the natural and best candidate for Congress from Westchester and, if he chooses to run, the obvious Republican candidate.”

Would this be unprecendented? I can't think of any former White House Press Secretaries who went on to run for Congress.

Fleischer is comfortable in front of the cameras and his name and connections guarantee that he would have all the money he needed to run. At the same time, the district only has the slightest Republican edge ('+1 Republican,' according to Charlie Cook). If Bush is as unpopular in November 2008 as he is today, Fleischer could have a hard time shaking the association of him with an unpopular President.

Further, if Hillary or Giuliani lead the ticket (or both do), it could have a significant effect on coattails in New York State.

Back to the top.

Rights for Robots? Never!

Amusing piece over at Garfield Ridge about Brits looking into the future.

Back to the top.

Steel Rises at Freedom Tower

Too late for my tastes, but it's good to see progress at the site of the World Trade Center.

The uncertainty, delays and revisions that have plagued the rebuilding process means we are no longer sending the message I would have wanted: that there is nothing the terrorists can do that we will not undo quickly; that attacks will only strengthen our resolve and move us to work faster and with greater determination than before.

Now it's left to see if the project can be completed without more revisions, and if the offices of the new World Trade Center can be filled promptly by the businesses of New York and the world.

If you want to get a better look at what the Freedom Tower and the updated WTC site will look like, check out the site of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill - the firm that did the design. There are some cool videos at the first link to give you a better idea of what Manhattan will look like once the tower is complete.

Back to the top.

Unintended Consequences of Organic Farming

A very interesting piece from the Economist. The main point is, if you think that organic farming is good for the earth or the environment, you better think again:

Yet even an apparently obvious claim—that organic food is better for the environment than the conventionally farmed kind—turns out to be controversial. There are many different definitions of the term “organic”, but it generally involves severe restrictions on the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and a ban on genetically modified organisms. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, Britain’s leading organic lobby group, says that environmental concerns, rather than health benefits, are now cited by British consumers as their main justification for buying organic food. (There is no clear evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organic food is nutritionally superior.)

But not everyone agrees that organic farming is better for the environment. Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the “green revolution”, winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is “ridiculous” because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

What of the claim that organic farming is more energy-efficient? Lord Melchett points out for example that the artificial fertiliser used in conventional farming is made using natural gas, which is “completely unsustainable”. But Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist at the University of Edinburgh, counters that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing. And Mr Pollan notes that only one-fifth of the energy associated with food production across the whole food chain is consumed on the farm: the rest goes on transport and processing.

The most environmentally benign form of agriculture appears to be “no till” farming, which involves little or no ploughing and relies on cover crops and carefully applied herbicides to control weeds. This makes it hard to combine with organic methods (though some researchers are trying). Too rigid an insistence on organic farming’s somewhat arbitrary rules, then-copper, a heavy metal, can be used as an organic fungicide because it is traditional-can actually hinder the adoption of greener agricultural techniques. Alas, shoppers look in vain for “no till” labels on their food-at least so far.

Take that, you crunchy cons!

Back to the top.

Favorite Christmas Thoughts

A few bloggers seem to have offered up amusing observations about Christmas. I'm speaking specifically about Captain Ed and Mary Katharine Ham. I'll offer two unrelated ones of my own:

1. Favorite Christmas gift exchange? The Christmas pants traded by two brothers in law; and,
2. My unique family tradition: we knew Santa didn't care for milk and cookies on Christmas night. We left him a cold beer. I imagine my house must have been near the end of his route.

Merry Christmas.

Back to the top.

Hillary Supports More Troops in Iraq

So points out Mickey.

Back to the top.

On Organizing the Senate

With respect to Senator Tim Johnson, Tim Chapman explains why the debate over organizing the Senate is not about him - but about Joe Lieberman. This is a great catch, and it could become really important very soon.

Back to the top.

Sen. Harkin (D-IA) Proud To Be CAGW's Porker of the Month

"I happen to be a supporter of earmarks, unabashedly. But I don’t call them earmarks. It is ‘Congressional directed spending.'"

Maybe it's because he's such a big advocate of bringing home the bacon that he is a particularly strong advocate for the illegal aliens working for Iowa's meat packers.

Democrats Still Like Earmarks & Favors

It looks like Harry Reid isn't totally on board with the new Democratic plan of opposing earmarks and dead-of-night favors for political supporters:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who has pledged to stop ``dead-of-night legislating,'' did a little of his own in the final hours of this year's congressional session.

Reid slipped two home state projects into the last major bill Congress passed last week: a transfer of federal land in Nevada to state and private control that's almost two-thirds the size of Rhode Island; and a $4 million grant for a hospice. Neither had been approved by any congressional committee.

Reid said the land measure will help Las Vegas and other cities in his state grow and the hospice money rights a flawed Medicare ruling. One senator and some government watchdog groups criticized the actions, pointing to promises by Reid and the new Democratic majority in Congress to change a lawmaking process known for targeted funding and secretive deals.

``Doing anything last minute shoved into an irrelevant measure -- that's exactly what Harry Reid said he was going to stop,'' said Steve Ellis, vice president of programs at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based nonprofit that monitors government spending. ``It goes against the grain of transparency and openness.''

Not all of Reid's Nevada constituents are happy with the results. Approval of the land measure surprised a major purported beneficiary, the government of White Pine County.

Actually, I suppose this came under the old, Republican Senate leadership - so it probably doesn't count. Next year, when Harry Reid is Majority Leader, Harry Reid won't get away with shenanigans like this.

Hat Tip: TPMMuckraker

Back to the top.

Democrats Already Fixing Iraq

Back when the Republicans ran Congress, you never read that the economy in Iraq was booming. What a difference a few weeks can make!

Back to the top.

Taxes Still Progressive

Jon Henke covers it. It's something to remember as you prepare for the inevitable tax increases (or the discontinuation of tax cuts) that Democrats must propose to fulfill their spending and deficit promises.

Back to the top.

Blogging the Bible

David Plotz over at Slate.Com is engaged in an interesting project that at times is a good read - particularly for those like me, who do not know the Bible particularly well. He is blogging the Bible.

Today he offers a question that does not appear to be ironic, prompted by his reading of Kings 2:

Now is as good a time as any to ask the obvious question about all these idol-worshipping Israelites: If God is so powerful and good, why does king after king abandon him? Why are the Israelites so incredibly faithless? According to the Bible, the Lord is constantly proving Himself, intervening in human affairs, demonstrating his potency and the impotence of rival gods. So why do the Chosen People so readily abandon Him?

That's a good question, isn't it? Why do people so readily ignore the good things that God does in their lives? One might even regard it as a timeless question.

Lots of religious posts lately; it must be the Christmas season.

Back to the top.

Episcopalians Reach Free Agency

Some Episcopalians have not cared for the direction their franchise was taking, and have opted to take free agency. Apparently they're now negotiating with teams that they think offer better chances for long-term success - and they're even considering getting together to start a new team to compete with the old one:

For about 30 years, the Episcopal Church has been one big unhappy family. Under one roof there were female bishops and male bishops who would not ordain women. There were parishes that celebrated gay weddings and parishes that denounced them; theologians sure that Jesus was the only route to salvation, and theologians who disagreed.

Now, after years of threats, the family is breaking up.

As many as eight conservative Episcopal churches in Virginia are expected to announce today that their parishioners have voted to cut their ties with the Episcopal Church. Two are large, historic congregations that minister to the Washington elite and occupy real estate worth a combined $27 million, which could result in a legal battle over who keeps the property.

In a twist, these wealthy American congregations are essentially putting themselves up for adoption by Anglican archbishops in poorer dioceses in Africa, Asia and Latin America who share conservative theological views about homosexuality and the interpretation of Scripture with the breakaway Americans.

“The Episcopalian ship is in trouble,” said the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, one of the two large Virginia congregations, where George Washington served on the vestry. “So we’re climbing over the rails down to various little lifeboats. There’s a lifeboat from Bolivia, one from Rwanda, another from Nigeria. Their desire is to help us build a new ship in North America, and design it and get it sailing.”

I will need MikeD and Philo to tell me what it means. And I'll be looking to the Anchoress as well. Plus, MKH promises more news.

Back to the top.

TV Getting Better?

Umm... that's the optimistic assessment of the finding that as leisure time has increased over the last 40 years, people are watching lots more TV.

Back to the top.

Many Good Targets for House GOP in '08

Congressional Quarterly notes that there are now 68 Congressional Districts that 'split their votes' in the 2004 Presidential race and the 2006 House races. (That is, who backed Kerry for President but elected a Republican to the House, or who backed Bush and a Democrat). Of those 68 seats, 60 are districts that backed Bush but are now represented by a Democrat in the House. This includes 21 seats that flipped from Republican to Democrat this year, meaning the House Member is a Freshman.

This represents a huge opportunity for the House GOP in 2006. The GOP will only need to gain 16 seats or so to retake the House, and that list of 21 new Members in 'GOP seats' could wind up representing all the targets they need to regain the majority. Remember too, that several of those are basically accidental Representatives, with poor re-election prospects in 2008 - Members like Nick Lampson (DeLay seat), Nancy Boyda (Jim Ryun), Zack Space (Bob Ney), and Tim Mahoney (Mark Foley).

On the flip side, if Democrats run a strong Presidential race, the 8 seats that backed Kerry but are now represented by Republicans will be heavily targeted.

Back to the top.

Third World Getting Richer

Check out Barone.

Back to the top.

Two Christmas Movies

The Anchoress has a great post on Will Smith's Pursuit of Happyness, and how it relates to It's a Wonderful Life. Sounds like a good one to see.

Back to the top.

Bayh Won't Seek the Presidency

The Washington Post has the story.

And Philip Klein at the American Spectator gives an excellent thumbnail of what it means: Hillary and Obama are crowding out the competition, and candidates have concluded that you can't win by running to the right of Hillary.

Back to the top.

Hillary vs. Giuliani

It's starting early. And the current fight is over nuclear power. Giuliani is on the pro-side and Clinton the anti. I suspect that in 2008, the environment for nuclear power will be friendlier than at any time in decades. And pro-nuclear candidates may be more warmly received by the anti-global warming crowd.

Back to the top.

Keating for President

Former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating is reportedly considering a Presidential run. (Hat Tip: Glenn and Mortman) This isn't completely new; Novak wrote about it recently.

Keating is apparently motivated (at least partly) by the lack of a prominent 'Reagan-like conservative.'

So that makes Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, and Frank Keating (at least) exploring Presidential bids because of the lack of a viable 'Reagan-style' conservative.

This prompts two thoughts:

1. How long before the Republican party stops trying to nominate Reagan; and,
2. What are the chances that any of these candidates breaks into the top tier?

I love Ronald Reagan. Like many, I consider myself a 'Reagan Republican.' He still defines today's Republican party, and will probably continue to for many years. However, the Democrats spent decades trying to renominate FDR and it seems to me that it became a handicap for their candidates into the 1980s. In 2008, the GOP will have been looking for 'the next Reagan' for 20 years. When will we accept that the world looks dramatically different than it did in 1980, and even Ronald Reagan would not be Reagan if he ran today?

And with regard to the 'Reagan conservatives' in the 2008 field, I doubt that any has the name ID and the clout to contend at all. It seems the front-loading of the Presidential race continues, and it feels later in the race than it did at this time in 2002. It 'feels' late. And it seems unlikely that McCain, Giuliani, and Romney will all stumble - as would be necessary for one of these lesser-knowns to move up. I suspect that if any one of these candidates wants to take a step up, he will need to coalesce conservative backing behind him, as Novak reports McCain is doing.

Update: If you're looking for more on Tommy Thompson, who has created a Presidential exploratory committee, check here.

Back to the top.

Christmas Travel Tips

Here are a few sites to help you with your Christmas flights.

Seatguru helps identify the best and worst seats on a given plane. And check out the food possibilities here.

Back to the top.

Friday Night Videos

How about a cool song I heard this weekend:



Anticipating your question...

Am I the only fan of Fatboy Slim?



Or Billy Joel?



And maybe we'll go real Old School:



Back to the top.

Chappy Chanukah 5767!

"Baruch atah [adonai] eloheinu melech ha'olam asher kid'shanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu l'hadlik neir shel Chanukah."

"Blessed are You, our God, Lord of time and space, Who enriches our lives with holiness, commanding us to kindle the Chanukah lights."

Encouraging News on Tim Johnson

The Senator is reaching out to his wife, and is 'appropriately responsive' to word and touch.

Our prayers remain with him and his loved ones.

Back to the top.

War of the Worlds Redux

There's quite a kerfuffle in Belgium over a fake newscast regarding the country's split in two, and the flight of the royal family:

Suddenly and shockingly, Belgium came to an end. State television broke into regular programming late Wednesday with an urgent bulletin: The Dutch-speaking half of the country had declared independence and the king and queen had fled. Grainy pictures from the military airport showed dark silhouettes of a royal entourage boarding a plane.

Only after a half hour did the station flash the message: "This is fiction."

It was too late. Many Belgians had already fallen for the hoax.

Frantic viewers flooded the call center of the RTBF broadcaster that aired the stunt. Embassies called Belgian authorities to find out what was going on, while foreign journalists scrambled to get confirmation.

"Ambassadors who were worried asked what they had to tell their capitals," said Senate Chair Anne-Marie Lizin. "This fiction was seen as a reality and it created a catastrophic image of the country."

Obviously, this story cannot pass without a reference to the War of the Worlds scare of 1938.

On the brighter side, this is bound to make people more aware of Belgium. And how often is Belgium in the news?

Back to the top.

Dem Rules & the Pelosi Rebound

Tom Maguire covers the announcement of the creation of a House Select Committee on Intelligence. The Hill covers the new Democratic rules package (which I also posted on below), and clarifies that this select panel is intended to satisfy the promise to implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

The Hill also explains more about the House rules and I must say, they look pretty good:

The rules would ban lobbyists "or organizations that employ them from planning, organizing, requesting, arranging or participating in travel for members or staff," according to the document. The new rules do make an allowance for a one-day trip to attend a forum, participate in a panel or give a speech.

Members would also be prohibited from using official or campaign funds to pay for non-commercial, corporate jets. But the provision does not apply to charter plane services, the document adds.

In addition, Democrats would prohibit holding open votes for the purpose of "affecting the outcome." Republican leaders famously kept open a vote on including drug coverage for Medicare for two hours and 15 minutes until they finally convinced enough members to vote for the package.

Budget reforms stipulated in the new rules include mandatory disclosure of all earmarks and the requirement that members certify that spouses do not directly benefit from the added project. Budget Reconciliations will not be considered if they reduce the budget surplus or increase the deficit.

Also included in the planned rules package is implementation of pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new tax cuts or entitlement spending be offset with corresponding spending cuts.

I've argued that in the event earmarks are not banned, Members of Congress should be required to disclose whom they know who would benefit from the earmark. But that notwithstanding, this is pretty good.

The New York Times reports that the Democrats also plan to 'integrate war spending into the federal budget.' This has major ramifications and will make things much tougher on the Democrats:

In interviews, the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees said they would demand a better accounting of the war’s cost and move toward integrating the spending into the regular federal budget, a signal of their intention to use the Congressional power of the purse more assertively to influence the White House’s management of the war.

The lawmakers, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, said the administration’s approach of paying for extended military operations and related activities through a series of emergency requests had inhibited Congressional scrutiny of the spending and obscured the true price of the war.

“They have been playing hide-the-ball,” Mr. Conrad said, “and that does not serve the Congress well nor the country well, and we are not going to continue that practice.”

Mr. Spratt, who along with Mr. Conrad is examining how the Democratic Congress should funnel the war spending requests through the House and Senate, said, “We need to have a better breakout of the costs — period.” He is planning hearings for early next year on the subject even as the White House readies a new request for $120 billion or more to pay for the war through Sept. 30, in addition to the more than $70 billion in emergency appropriations already spent this year.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, spending on the military outside of the regular budget process, primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has totaled more than $400 billion. For the 12 months ended Sept. 30, spending on the Iraq war alone ran at an average rate of $8 billion a month, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.

The adoption of 'Pay-Go' will make it much harder to lower taxes or raise spending - since anything that increases the deficit must be offset elsewhere. Returning to a system where war spending is counted as part of the regular budget process means that Congress must automatically come up with $100-$200 billion in offsets, before any other new spending is considered. Even assuming that Democrats allow some tax cuts to expire after 2010, they will still need to find more revenues to allow any expansion of spending on their priorities.

And I would also add that Ms. Pelosi has had a good week or two: Democrats are suspending new earmarks for FY07, considering an independent ethics process, and creating a new House Intelligence panel that will allow them to claim victory on implementing the 9/11 recommendations. Those are all positive developments, and she has to receive some of the credit.

Back to the top.

House Dem Ethics Package Looking Good

I have to give credit where it's due. I've criticized Nancy Pelosi for her missteps since the election, but if the House Democratic rule package ends up being as the New York Times describes, I will have to eat my words and offer congratulations:

Besides the bipartisan group, Democrats are expected to propose a ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists and organizations that employ them; a prohibition on lobbyists and their employers from planning, organizing, requesting, financing, arranging or participating in travel for members or staff; and a bar to the use of official or campaign money to pay for using corporate jets.

The emerging rules would also require the disclosure of earmarks, the special provisions in bills that lawmakers use to direct dollars to specific projects or favored causes. Lawmakers would also have to certify that any request for such spending is not in their personal financial interest.

I think some of these are little more than public relations measures, but there's no need to quibble. Some of these moves are good; others sound good. I think the House may be going too far in limiting privately-funded travel, but I doubt it will damage the polity.

The encouraging sign for me is that Ms. Pelosi is considering the establishment of an outside ethics body to handle complaints about Members of Congress. She has reportedly discussed this with Minority Leader Boehner. It is something that the House has resisted vociferously, but they've shown little reason to have confidence that they can police their own. I think it would be a very smart move.

From the Times:

House Democrats are seriously exploring the creation of an independent ethics arm to enforce new rules on travel, lobbying, gifts and other issues that Democrats intend to put in place on taking power next month...

An independent Congressional watchdog, if approved, would be a major break with tradition. Some lawmakers say House and Senate members have sole responsibility for policing themselves when it comes to internal rules.

Some lawmakers have said an independent entity could be unconstitutional...

Yes - some lawmakers have said it could be unconstitutional, and some would have stood with Dennis Hastert defending crimes hidden in Congressional offices. Neither position is particularly wise.

My only admonition based on what's discussed here is that the American people won't have much more trust in former Members of Congress than in current Members of Congress. Ms. Pelosi might need to consider a different approach - perhaps one involving former judges, for example.

Back to the top.

Dems on Earmarks: Less than Meets the Eye?

The Hill reports that Republicans and activists are minimizing the significance of the move by Democrats to eliminate earmarks for the remaining fiscal year 2007 bills.

I think any progress is worth noting, and the Democrats certainly could have continued to use earmarks. However, I noted a few weeks ago that the idea of using a continuing resolution to fund all remaining government programs through the end of 2007 would be very tempting for Democrats. A major motivation is that there is not enough money in the remaining bills to satisfy all spending requests; that's why the GOP did not finish them. Adopting continuing resolutions allows Democrats to save a few billion, and simultaneously denying any earmark requests - which are very rarely (perhaps never) included in continuing resolutions.

Anyway, the Hill explains why this may be less than meets the eye:

David Williams, vice president for policy at the Citizens Against Government Waste, praised the yearlong continuing resolution that was passed last week. However, he too was hesitant to lavish too much praise on the move by Democrats.

"I think this is a great move, a yearlong CR … I hope it shows people that we don’t need a Teapot Museum," he said, referring to some of the pet projects that lawmakers commonly slip into large spending bills for their districts.

He expressed concern that the yearlong CR could result in members of Congress doubling up on projects in the next fiscal year and noted that he was aware the move was not made in the interest of fiscal responsibility.

"They have an agenda that they want to get to immediately when Congress comes back into session," Williams said. "Whatever the cynical reasons … it’s a positive step as long as they don’t double up in 2008.

Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense’s vice president for programs, was also skeptical.

"February is a long way away," he said. "We will see what happens at the end of the day."

Hopefully this is is a sign of things to come, rather than a set-up for disappointment.

Back to the top.

Rangel: Democrats Wash Hands of Iraq

I'm trying to think of a better way to characterize Rangel's remarks. How does one capture his apparent belief that they have no responsibility whatsoever to address Iraq in any way:

So now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, what should they do about the war in Iraq?

“I never understand that question,” answered Charlie Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “You have a President that’s in deep shit. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?’”

Am I being too harsh? I suppose a defender of Rangel would argue that since there's no solution to it, there's no reason to address it.

I imagine that the logical extension of this is that the Democrats should offer no criticism of the President regarding Iraq, nor attempt to interfere in any way with his prosecution of the remainder of the conflict.

Does Mr. Rangel not believe that the American people selected the Democrats to lead in Washington? If not, he better be prepared to surrender his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship.

Back to the top.

Why Was US Surveilling Princess Diana?

Of course; it's so clear now.

Back to the top.

Re: Tim Johnson & Senate Control

Our first reaction to news of Senator Tim Johnson being in critical condition is to hold him and his family in our prayers. We wish him a speedy recovery.

However, because people have asked, I provide a link to CQ's explanation of what happens in the Senate in different circumstances:

Johnson’s condition immediately raised questions about control of the Senate in the 110th Congress, which convenes Jan. 4. Democrats won a 51-49 edge in the November elections, but the Senate cannot function without the adoption of an organizing resolution.

That resolution is subject to filibuster, and if Republicans refused to adopt it on grounds that Johnson is incapacitated and incompetent to fulfill his duties, the chamber would be at a standstill. At the same time, only Johnson himself — or his family, acting under a power of attorney — could resign his seat, creating a vacancy that South Dakota’s Republican governor would fill. A Republican successor would create a 50-50 tie, giving the GOP operational control as a result of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

If Johnson survives, the Democrats would still be in control by 50-49 until and unless he resigned...

Johnson does not need to be sworn in at the beginning of the 110th Congress because he is in the middle of his term.

Even if Johnson remains unable to attend to his regular Senate duties for a long period, he can still remain in office, according to Senate historian Richard Baker. There is no constitutional provision for the removal of incapacitated senators.

On the contrary, there is ample precedent for senators being absent for long periods due to health issues, including a former senator from South Dakota, who suffered a stroke in 1969. Republican Sen. Karl Earl Mundt (1948-1973) remained technically in office through the final years of his last term because he refused to resign.

In 1964, California Democrat Clair Engle (1959-1964), who had been absent from the Senate for months due to a brain tumor that had paralyzed him, was wheeled into the Senate on a gurney during the roll call vote on the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unable to speak, when his name was called, he lifted his arm and pointed to his eye, indicating an “aye” vote. He died in office.

More recently, in 1988, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., took a seven-month leave of absence to recover from brain surgery.

Baker said, given the history and tradition of the Senate, a senator remains a senator “as long as he’s alive and breathing.”

Back to the top.

Pelosi Takes Corruption Seriously

Nancy Pelosi has appointed the recently re-elected Bill Jefferson to the Small Business Committee. I love small business, but the Committee is somewhat less important than the Shower-Curtain Ring subcommittee of the Bathroom Accessories panel.

Jefferson clearly has no clout left - or Ms. Pelosi thinks that he won't be around long to complain.

Back to the top.

Peter Boyle (1935-2006)

Peter Boyle has passed.

Enjoy one of many funny scenes from Young Frankenstein.



And more:



Although young people will know him primarily as Frank from Everybody Loves Raymond, he's been doing great stuff for more than 30 years.

Back to the top.

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) Hospitalised for Apparent Stroke

Early reports were that he was conscious when taken away to hospital, but Rep. Herseth's demeanour at a hasty press availability suggests that there's cause for concern. Gov. Rounds (R) would appoint a successor, presumably tipping the balance in the Senate back to a Cheney-enabling 50-50 tie, should Sen. Johnson choose to retire or otherwise prove unable to serve, so everyone will be watching and many otherwise secular Democrats will be lighting candles tonight...

UPDATE:

CNN now reports the successful conclusion of the surgery to arrest the haemorrhage, caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation. The risk of death in cases of AVM haemorrhages is stated generally at about 10%, and the possibility of neurological damage from the haemorrhage or consequent clotting exists, but it would seem that the Senator has successfully passed the worst part of the crisis.

John Podhoretz Embraces the Rorschach Metaphor

Sen. Rorschach gets further analysis by the columnist from the NY Post.

Swift Raids Demonstrate Failure of Current Migrant Policy

The big news throughout the upper Midwest yesterday was the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on 6 Swift & Company meat processing plants.

In Marshalltown, IA, dozens of migrant workers were detained for documentation violations.

In Grand Island, NE, local law enforcement authorities were ordered not to cooperate in the interest of maintaining good relations with the immigrant community.

In Worthington, MN, as many as 400 people were detained.

In Greeley, CO, the Latino community began to attempt to organise a blockade of the facility, but were unable to block all gates to prevent the loaded buses from taking undocumented workers into custody.

In Cactus, TX, the long-winked at illegal population has so come to dominate the town that the raids had the effect of essentially shutting down the town.

This parallelled, only on a national level, the recent ICE raid of a Crider chicken processing plant back in September, and highlighted again the extent to which non-enforcement of immigration law has led to major demographic shifts affecting entire industries and communities.

Lussekattor for Everyone

A NOCTURNAL UPON ST. LUCY'S DAY,
BEING THE SHORTEST DAY.
by John Donne

'TIS the year's midnight, and it is the day's,
Lucy's, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks ;
The sun is spent, and now his flasks
Send forth light squibs, no constant rays ;
The world's whole sap is sunk ;
The general balm th' hydroptic earth hath drunk,
Whither, as to the bed's-feet, life is shrunk,
Dead and interr'd ; yet all these seem to laugh,
Compared with me, who am their epitaph.

Study me then, you who shall lovers be
At the next world, that is, at the next spring ;
For I am every dead thing,
In whom Love wrought new alchemy.
For his art did express
A quintessence even from nothingness,
From dull privations, and lean emptiness ;
He ruin'd me, and I am re-begot
Of absence, darkness, death—things which are not.

All others, from all things, draw all that's good,
Life, soul, form, spirit, whence they being have ;
I, by Love's limbec, am the grave
Of all, that's nothing. Oft a flood
Have we two wept, and so
Drown'd the whole world, us two ; oft did we grow,
To be two chaoses, when we did show
Care to aught else ; and often absences
Withdrew our souls, and made us carcasses.

But I am by her death—which word wrongs her—
Of the first nothing the elixir grown ;
Were I a man, that I were one
I needs must know ; I should prefer,
If I were any beast,
Some ends, some means ; yea plants, yea stones detest,
And love ; all, all some properties invest.
If I an ordinary nothing were,
As shadow, a light, and body must be here.

But I am none ; nor will my sun renew.
You lovers, for whose sake the lesser sun
At this time to the Goat is run
To fetch new lust, and give it you,
Enjoy your summer all,
Since she enjoys her long night's festival.
Let me prepare towards her, and let me call
This hour her vigil, and her eve, since this
Both the year's and the day's deep midnight is.

NOTE: In the years immediately prior to the correction of the English calendar to incorporate the Gregorian reforms, Dec. 13 was the date of winter solstice. St. Lucy, patron of the blind, was an appropriate patron for such a dark day, and her association with light is still observed in the Scandinavian celebrations of Lucy's day.

Bonilla Goes Down, Rodriguez Up

Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX-23) was defeated in the court-ordered runoff yesterday by Democratic Congressman quondam/Congressman futuris Ciro Rodriguez.

While the defeat must partly be ascribed to Bonilla's inability to improve upon or even maintain his share of the vote from the Nov. 7 primary, the predominant reason for Bonilla's loss was the court-ordered redrawing of his district to increase Hispanic representation. Abigail Thernstrom at the time reviewed the incoherence of the Supreme Court's reasoning (or lack thereof) on the matter of minority civil rights expressed in terms of a court-guaranteed right to have the "correct" party represent them, even when, as in Bonilla's case the "wrong" party's standard bearer is a member of the putatively unrepresented minority.

Have to Share the Pain

Overheard by Mike D. while Christmas shopping in a Pentagon City bookstore: "I don't have time for books on tape because I listen to so many talk shows on public radio."

It's not the most pathetic thing I've ever heard, but it's close.

CAIR: We do more than just shake down airlines.

They also shill for the Syrians and advocate retreat in the Middle East.

I stumbled across tonight's C-Span broadcast of CAIR's panel discussion of Arab and Muslim reactions to the Iraq Survey Group Report. I missed the first half but my masochist side manifested itself and I forced myself to watch it through to the end, approximately forty minutes. It wasn't very impressive. The "panel" consisted of the CAIR Board Chairman, a University of Maryland Professor, Senator Larry Shaw of the North Carolina General Assembly, and the Syrian Ambassador. It was all fairly predictable. Shaw came across as an amatuerish lefty, criticizing the United States for thinking it "knows everything" and recommending we look to all of Iraq's neighbors for help. I think Shaw must be looking for some free publicity. According to Wikipedia, he was the highest-ranking Muslim elected official in the U.S. until Ellison was elected to Congress last month. The U of M professor wasn't too painful to listen to, but his points during the Q&A session were academic to the point of irrelevance. In any case, those two were just windowdressing for the Syrian Ambassador. He was nice enough to point out that Syria had been offering to help the US during the early days of the war. Unfortunately, they just had to give up because of the ideology of the Bush administration. Thankfully, they are still willing to help bring stability to Iraq if the United States engages them in a "sophisticated discussion." If we're just going to dictate to them, then there's no point in even talking. I wonder if holding them accountable for political assasinations in Lebanon counts as talking down to them?

In short, they hit all the mantras: the war is inciting terrorism, the U.S. mislead the world in its reasons for going to war, the U.S. can't win, etc. The CAIR folks even found time to squeeze in their standard rebuke on describing our enemies in terms of Islam.

All the while, the CAIR reps and the Syrian Ambassador sang the praises of the ISG report, explaining how it had opened debate and brought forth a discussion that, in our new political environment, could lead to change in Iraq policy. Unfortunately, nothing's perfect. During the Q&A, the CAIR Board Chairman made it clear that their one point of disagreement with the ISG was its recommendation to increase the number of personnel dedicated to training Iraqi forces. They don't think training the Iraqi military is going to help. Instead, CAIR wants to see an immediate withdrawal of American forces. At least they are honest.

Kucinich Launches Campaign Sequel

The candidacy-as-publicity-stunt camp gets another tent pitched.

The malicious part of my nature wonders if Dennis doesn't do this just to meet other girls besides Margaret.

Five Macroeconomic Myths

Intersting piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by Nobel Prize winning economist Ed Prescott. It's excerpted here. Prescott tackles 5 popular macroeconomic myths, one of which is the notion that our debt creates a burden on our grandchildren. First, the myths:

• Monetary policy causes booms and busts;
• GDP growth was extraordinary in the 1990s;
• Americans don't save;
• The U.S. government debt is big; and,
• Government debt is a burden on our grandchildren.

The last two points are the most interesting to me, so I will excerpt the explanations:

Myth No. 4: The U.S. government debt is big. The key measure here is privately held interest-bearing federal government debt, which includes debt held by foreign central banks, and does not include debt held by the Fed or government debt held by the government. So let's turn to the historical data once again.

Privately held interest-bearing debt relative to income peaked during World War II, fell through the early 1970s, rose again through the early 1990s, and then fell again until 2003. Even though that number has been rising in recent years (except for the most recent one), it is still at levels similar to the early 1960s, and lower than levels in most of the 1980s and 1990s. This debt level was not alarming then, and it is not alarming now. From a historical perspective, the current U.S. government debt is not large.

Myth No. 5: Government debt is a burden on our grandchildren. There's no better way to get people worked up about something than to call on their sympathies for their beloved grandkids. The last thing that I want to do is to burden my own grandchildren with the sins of profligacy. But we should stop feeling guilty -- at least about government debt -- because we are in better shape than conventional wisdom suggests.

Theory and practice tell us that the optimal amount of public debt that maximizes the welfare of new generations of entrants into the workforce is two times gross national income, or GDP. This assumes 1% population growth, 2% productivity growth, 4% real after-tax return on investments, and that people work to age 63 and live to age 85. Currently, privately held public debt is about 0.3 times GDP, and if we include our Social Security obligations, it is 1.6 times GDP. In either case, we could argue that we have too little debt.

What's going on here? There are not enough productive assets -- tangible and intangible assets alike -- to meet the investment needs of our forthcoming retirees. The problem is that the rate of return on investment -- creating more productive assets -- decreases as the stock of these assets increases. An excessive stock of these productive assets leads to inefficiencies.

Total savings by everyone is equal to the sum of productive assets and government debt, and if there is an imbalance in this equation it does not mean we have too little or too many productive assets. The fix comes from getting the proper amount of government debt. When people did not enjoy long retirements and population growth was rapid, the optimal amount of government debt was zero. However, the world has changed, and we in fact require some government debt if we care about our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

If we should worry about our grandchildren, we shouldn't about the amount of debt we are leaving them. We may even have to increase that debt a bit to ensure that we are adequately prepared for our own retirements.

I think that there are political arguments for budget balancing, and there are prudential arguments - primarily that government budgets ought to operate like family budgets. But there are many economists who agree with Prescott's central point: that the debt (at least at current levels) does not constitute a burden on future generations.

Back to the top.

Barone on Federal Dairy Programs

After the Washington Post wrote the other day on the success of the dairy lobby in squelching competition in milk productions, Michael Barone provides a good history on how we arrived at the current system.

Back to the top.

Senator Rorschach Hits the Hustings

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Concord Monitor (among others) cover Barack Obama's first trip to New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Mark Blumenthal looks at a poll that shows why we call him Senator Rorschach:

When asked about Barack Obama, more than a third of Americans (38%) and more than a quarter of Democrats (28%) are unable to offer anything specific that comes to mind.

People like Barack Obama without regard to his positions, not because of his positions. Once they get to know what he stands for, his numbers will drop.

This isn't a knock on Obama, he has ridden his personal story and his engaging personality pretty successfully so far. But he will have to define himself before others do.

If you read the Post, it's clear how vague he is:

To the question everyone wanted answered -- Is he going to run? -- Obama was noncommittal. "I haven't made that determination. I'm still running things through the traps," he said. He added, "I want to take my time on it, not only to make sure the politics makes sense but that I feel I have something unique to offer that would help move the country forward."

But he closed his speech here early Sunday night with words that seemed to signal growing interest in a campaign. "America is ready to turn the page," he said. "America is ready for a new set of challenges. This is our time. A new generation is prepared to lead."

Aides said a final decision will come in January, while in the meantime the Obama team continues to prepare the machinery for a campaign if the senator concludes that the time is right. Pronouncing himself "suspicious of hype," Obama said he would not be driven into the race "simply because of the opportunity but because I think I will serve the country well by that..."

Obama's day in New Hampshire was remarkable as much for the scene and speculation he generated than for anything specific he had to say. Wearing a black jacket, gray slacks and an open-collar white shirt, Obama delivered low-key remarks, speaking personally about his background and the origins of his belief in a more hopeful politics, as well as giving general views on issues such as energy, health care and Iraq.

He promised a new politics, to replace the "24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative-ad bickering, small-minded politics that doesn't move us forward."

Asked what he believes is different about his politics than those of other candidates, he said, "I think what's worked for me has been the capacity to stay true to a set of progressive values but to be eclectic in terms of the tools to achieve those progressive values. To not be orthodox. To be willing to get good ideas from all quarters."

A guy who's suspicious of hype, and will only run if he has something unique to offer to move the country forward; who wants to end the era of negative 'slash & burn politics,' while taking good ideas from all quarters, and with orthodox thinking to temper progressive goals?

Now that's my kind of candidate!

Today's pleasant new face is tomorrow's empty suit. That's Obama's challenge right now.

Back to the top.

Treasuring the Myth of the Lost Cause

Ridicule of American southerners for the tendency to construct fantasy alternate histories in which their treasured social institutions somehow emerge intact from the contrary forces of natural law and human nature is both general and well-earned.

These Lost Cause fantasies, however pathetic, are at least grounded in some historical reality of the former existence of these institutions, however much they may have been idealised over time by their defenders and the distortions of third- and now fourth-hand recollections. How, then, are we to view the continuing alternative histories of the Left, both in the U.S. and around the world, of the socialist Brave New World which never was, both in the U.S. and around the world, but seemed so inevitable to them in years before the collapse of the Soviet Union?

A woman of my acquaintance has, for her entire adult life, been active in the formerly fashionable cause of the Spanish Refugee Aid Society (since absorbed into the International Rescue Committee), which has, since the end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939, been dedicated to the psychological and material support of the leftist and anarchist refugees fleeing Franco's victory. For the intervening 67 years, the society, under various names and sponsors, has supported these refugees without stint or reservation.

When I first learned of this activism in the early 1990's, I assumed that the society, must, by this point in history, be some sort of archival historical organisation, maintaining the records and the documents from that time; but in fact I was astonished to learn that the society still supported a significant number of now-senescent people who had been persistently unwilling or unable to integrate themselves not only into post-Franco Spain, but even into the various countries into which they had been settled in the 1940's. Sixty years after the end of the Spanish Civil War, the cumulative power of the 1930's Leftist fantasy, propaganda both earnest and cynical, and outright wishful thinking on partisans of that conflict was so great that they, virtually without question, maintained the total support of virtually anyone who had a bad word to say about Franco and claimed to have been in Spain between 1936 and 1939.

It is with this understanding of the power of myth that we must view the media treatment of the death of Augusto Pinochet yesterday. The ugly facts of the disintegration of Chilean society under Leftist agitation in the early 1970's barely enters into public consciousness in the considerations of his life. Allende's connivance with Leftist militias and disregard for the Chilean courts is carefully screened from recall in any discussion of Pinochet's career and motivations.

The empirical collapse of the leftist utopian project embodied in the fall of Allende did not in any way diminish the psychological commitment of most leftists to their presumption of the inevitable success of any experiment to remanufacture humanity and society into a form more amenable to Leftist programmes resulting in the eventual implementation of the Leftist utopia. As the fading pathos of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Spanish Refugee Aid Society and the dogged defenders of the Allende legend all demonstrate, good ideas do not triumph over such bad ideas, they merely survive them.

Among such bad ideas entangled with the historical legacy of Pinochet we must include the notion that the CIA, fantastically incompetent in all its interactions with Castro, somehow masterminded the coup against the collapsing Allende government which brought Pinochet to power. The Leftist imagination, like that of many Confederate sympathisers, cannot comprehend the historical failure of their project without resort to ever-increasingly complex and ridiculous conspiracy theories in which the U.S. or U.S. corporations are necessarily the prime mover. The self-contradiction of a nearly omnipotent American military-industrial-soft-drink-manufacturing complex effortlessly orchestrating the overthrow of Allende while simultaneously stumbling about blindly in Cuba and Vietnam is never examined.

Let us also make note of the non-judgmental or even apologetic editorial slant offered by most media outlets to the celebrations of Pinochet's death now underway in Leftist circles for later comparison with the treatment of the celebrations in Miami of Fidel Castro's death which must soon follow.

I am willing to wager that most media outlets will not have a similarly insouciant cast to their coverage of any celebration of the Leftist dictator's death.

Money Edge Didn't Help GOP

During the campaign, I posted frequently on the question of whether the GOP's money edge would help it in a 'wave' election. I was rather skeptical of a prediction from Barron's that the GOP would hold both the House and Senate because of that money edge.

Well, Roll Call reports ($) that in the 29 House races where Democrats took over Republican seats, the GOP candidate outspent the Democratic candidate in 21:

According to newly released campaign finance reports, the victorious Democratic candidates were outspent by their Republican opponents in 21 of the 29 House districts where Democrats grabbed control on Election Day. In six of those districts, Republican incumbents spent more than double what their challengers did but still lost.

Twelve-term Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) was the vanquished Republican who spent the most on her losing effort this year, according to the reports filed late last week with the Federal Election Commission. Through Nov. 27, her campaign reported spending a little more than $5 million for the 2006 election cycle. Her challenger, Rep.-elect Chris Murphy (D), a 32-year-old state Senator, spent $2.4 million.

Next on the list of free-spending Republican losers: Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), who spent more than $4.6 million in his race with Rep.-elect Heath Shuler (D), and outgoing House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), who spent more than $4.5 million against Rep.-elect Jerry McNerney (D). Taylor spent about $3 million of his own money on his loss...

The victorious Democrats in previously held Republican districts who outspent their GOP opponents were: Rep.-elect Ron Klein, who spent an eye-popping $4 million to oust veteran Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.); Rep.-elect Steve Kagen, who spent $3.1 million — $2.5 million from his own pocket — to win the vacant 8th district seat in Wisconsin; Rep.-elect Ed Perlmutter, who spent more than $2.7 million to win Colorado’s open 7th district seat; Rep.-elect Gabrielle Giffords, who spent more than $2.2 million to win Arizona’s open 8th district; Rep.-elect Bruce Braley, who spent $2.2 million to win the vacant seat in Iowa’s 1st district; Rep.-elect Michael Arcuri, who spent $2.1 million to win the open seat in New York’s 24th district; Rep.-elect Brad Ellsworth, who spent almost $1.7 million to oust Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.); and Rep.-elect Paul Hodes, who spent $1.5 million to upset Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.).

The figures for Kagen, Perlmutter, Giffords and Braley include the money they spent to win competitive Democratic primaries this year.

The most expensive House race in the country appears to be the one that hasn’t been resolved yet — in Florida’s 13th district. Auto dealer Vern Buchanan (R), who is clinging to about a 300-vote lead over banker Christine Jennings (D), spent close to $8 million — including $5.4 million of his own money in loans and contributions. Jennings spent more than $2.6 million.

An edge in money is great, but when the tide is against you it doesn't do much good.

Back to the top.

Arcane Senate Tradition

While Mitch McConnell may have gained the title of Republican Leader, it comes at a cost. He has lost the desk of Henry Clay:

Bunning Inherits Clay’s Desk as McConnell Moves
December 11, 2006
By Bree Hocking,
Roll Call Staff

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) promotion to the top Republican post in January will not be without its trade-offs.

He’ll be relinquishing his current Senate desk, once held by legendary 19th-century statesman and Sen. Henry Clay (Ky.), to move into the one traditionally used by the Republican leader.

The Clay Senate desk is one of three desks — the others being those once used by Sens. Daniel Webster (Mass.) and Jefferson Davis (Miss.) — that have been reserved by Senate resolutions for specific Members: the senior Senators from Kentucky, Mississippi and New Hampshire. (This is done even though Webster, a former New Hampshire Congressman, represented Massachusetts in the Senate.)

On Friday, however, McConnell and fellow Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R) introduced a resolution, which the Senate quickly approved, allowing for the Clay desk to be reassigned to the junior Senator from Kentucky if the Bluegrass State’s senior Senator becomes party leader.

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell said he “would have been honored” to use the Clay desk for the remainder of his career but that the Republican leader’s desk was “equally steeped in tradition.” He said he had decided to “follow the custom” set by then-Republican leader Charles McNary (Ore.), who first began using the desk (located in the front center row) in 1937. It has been held by such prominent former leaders as Sens. Robert Taft (Ohio) and Everett Dirksen (Ill.).

McConnell authored the initial resolution in 1999 designating the Clay desk to the senior Senator from Kentucky (himself) and has occupied it since then.

Since the early 20th century, most Senators have signed their names in the desks they have used. The Clay desk bears his name, although the signature is not authentic.

During his time in Congress, Clay, who also served as Speaker, earned the moniker “The Great Compromiser” for his legislative acumen and for his ability to forge agreements between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, said Associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie. Ritchie said Clay, who served as de facto leader of the Whigs, “sat way in the back next to the door” so he could “put his hand over his mouth” and whisper to entering Senators “which way they should vote.”

Back to the top.

Protectionism at Home

The Washington Post carries a useful reminder of just how socialized the US economy can be at times: particularly for dairy products.

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.

That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga's experiment -- all without a single congressional hearing...

Read the whole thing. And note that the 'pro-market' guy in the fight is Congressman Jerry Lewis - whom many conservatives criticize for the way he headed the Appropriations Committee. The anti-market forces include Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.

Sometimes where you stand depends on where you sit.

Back to the top.

USSR is Back with Fun for Masochists

Spend a night in a former Soviet prison in Latvia. Twenty-thousand others have already done it.

Back to the top.