Defense Authorization gets 'the Coburn Treatment'

Read it at the Standard.

Economist: Europe's Demographics Not as Bad as You Think

But still pretty bad. Check out the Standard.

Fighting IEDs

A look at the challenge from Government Executive:

Believing that it takes a nimble network to fight one, the U.S. military services have created a number of ad hoc groups like Meigs' to operate outside the lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy. His outfit exists to rush promising technologies to the battlefield without having to go through the Byzantine weapons acquisition process. "Microsoft pumps out software enhancements about every nine months. You get a new generation of cell phone [every] year to 18 months. That's the rhythm we're on, and it's a completely different way of doing business in Defense," Meigs says. Despite the $70 billion the Pentagon spends annually on research and development, he says, a technological silver bullet for IEDs is unlikely...

rmy Capt. Aaron Duncan, who spent 2005 and early 2006 in southern Baghdad as an intelligence officer, says the fragmented nature of the insurgency makes it nearly impossible to penetrate. A bomber cell might operate for a few weeks and then disband. Its members then join other cells or start their own or find jobs and leave the insurgency. On a piece of paper, Duncan draws a triangular diagram of the cell structure. At the top is the money man, the planner, typically a former Iraqi military or intelligence officer under the Saddam Hussein regime. "You are not going to persuade this guy to stop; you either have to kill him or capture him," Duncan says.

If U.S. forces take out the base of the triangle, the workers, then the cell leader must recruit new ones, which takes time. That can deactivate a cell for a week or two. If soldiers capture a mid-level leader, that link of the chain is broken and the cell might become inactive. The leaderless members might start their own cell or get rolled into another, says Duncan. But "If you cut the head off the beast, you've still got these guys down here, and you have another splinter cell develop. By just cutting off the head, you don't fix the problem because other heads will emerge. If you cut off the tails, other tails will grow. So how do you fix it? You have to target the whole group together, and put something in its place to deny them the ability to conduct operations."

U.S. military officers say the answer is better intelligence and money. Funding for reconstructing the country will provide potential insurgents with a source of income other than fighting, they say. Whether America can produce either remains questionable.

It's an interesting and depressing piece. Taken together, it seems merely to emphasize the importance of a political solution to the challenge in Iraq.

Is the End Near for McCain

Bob Novak seems to think so, and it's hard to find reason for optimism. In particular, I suspect that the prevalence of the immigration debate right now is reminding primary voters that was one of the lead Republican backers of what they see as an amnesty. The President's prominent insults to conservative opponents of the deal earns him resentment, which probably transfers to McCain as well.

I'm not sure where he goes from here:

GOP Field: While Sen. John McCain claims that everything is "fine" in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, events strongly suggest otherwise. The former frontrunner is now in deep trouble. With respect to the positive signs a presidential campaign can point to at this early stage -- fundraising, national polls, state polls, endorsements -- McCain finds himself almost empty-handed.

For this and other reasons, the nascent campaign of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson poses a challenge for McCain in particular. Thompson has reportedly raised millions in just days after filing an exploratory committee, and a new national Bloomberg poll puts him at 21 percent, in a strong second place against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain has plunged to 12 percent, just ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but at least Romney has some bright points in his favor: his lead in fundraising and his lead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

McCain has no such good news. If Thompson is the charging bear, McCain is the slowest of the three campers fleeing him -- the most likely to be devoured.

Read the whole article for Novak's dissection of McCain's multiple problems.

Will Green Aviation Kneecap Boeing

The green movement and the related effort to reduce carbon emissions continues to transform our world. It's prompting Airbus to consider a zero-emissions passenger aircraft in our lifetimes. And with that as a backdrop, Airbus wants to work with Boeing on transforming the aviation sector:

Boeing and Airbus should overcome their deep-rooted rivalry to develop together clean technology for the aviation industry, according to Louis Gallois, the European aircraft maker’s chief executive.

Mr Gallois, echoing the industry’s concern as governments seek to crack down on aviation’s environmental impact, invited his US rival and other engine and aircraft makers to pool research on technology to cut carbon emissions...

On Thursday EasyJet, the UK low-cost carrier and one of Airbus’s most important customers, set out its environmental requirements for the next generation of short-haul “super-clean” aircraft. It said the technology existed for the aircraft to be operational by 2015.

It unveiled a design for what it dubbed the “EcoJet”, which would need to be 25 per cent quieter and emit 50 per cent less carbon dioxide and 75 per cent less oxides of nitrogen than the A320 and 737 families.

The EasyJet design includes two rear-mounted “open rotor” engines placed between twin tailfins, lightweight carbon fibre fuselage, and wings designed for lower speed and shorter range than the A320 and 737 families.

On the one hand, Boeing and Airbus serve the same customer base, so it's not as if Boeing can ignore the demand of customers for 'greener' planes. At the same time, Airbus probably faces higher operating costs because of its extensive operations in heavily-regulated Europe, as opposed to more business-friendly climates in the US and elsewhere. Further, investments in new technology for 'green' aviation will likely cost Airbus quite a lot; it makes sense to encourage Boeing to make similar expenditures.

One potential wildcard: what if Boeing and Airbus do cooperate, and Boeing stands to gain from Airbus's investments? Will that make Boeing more forgiving of the subsidies Airbus has received from its government parents?

Can 'Vote Pummeling' Get Movement on Earmark Reform?

Erick and the team at Red State are doing a great job of chronicling the ongoing fight in the House over earmark reform. Confirming that optimistic Republicans were premature when they thought they had convinced Democrats to stick with their promise to reform earmarking, Democrats are preventing Members from offering amendments to a regular appropriations bill.

House rules expert Don Wolfensberger recently explained in Roll Call ($) that while there may be no filibuster in the House, the minority can still engage in some 'vote pummeling:'

The minority party in the House of Representatives cannot use the Senate’s filibuster or “hold” to block or protest majority power plays. Instead, the minority has what I call the “procedural vote pummeling ploy,” in which it forces a series of recorded votes on various procedural motions.

The votes can tie up House floor business for hours on end since each recorded vote takes at least 15 minutes. The ploy focuses media and public attention on perceived abuses of power. More importantly, the minority’s threat to “shut down the House” can force the majority to reconsider its heavy-handed tactics.

That’s exactly what happened on May 16 when Republicans caught wind of a rumor that the majority was about to spring a House rules change either to curtail the minority’s right to recommit legislation with instructions (offer a final amendment to a bill) or to change the germaneness standard for such amendments. The rumor was enough to trigger a rolling pummel of 12 votes on adjournment, quorum calls and demands that the Committee of the Whole rise on the Defense authorization bill.

That's what the Republicans are trying to do right now.

It's making for a slow day on the House floor:

Congress Doesn't Understand Trade, Business

Bottom headline of the day. Dog bites man.

CongressNow reports on a hearing before the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, regarding the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement:

Sherman also directed his attention to Bhatia, asking whether there were any studies that showed the U.S.-Korea deal would reduce the trade deficit between the two countries.

When Bhatia said that it was impossible to assess the impact before a trade agreement goes into effect, Sherman responded, "I can't imagine coming into a business boardroom and saying, 'This is the deal. We don't know whether it's going to cost us money or make us money, but sign on the dotted line because it's a good process.'"

Congressman Sherman doesn't seem understand either trade or business, apparently. When a business signs a deal to exchange goods and services -- the appropriate parallel here -- the goal is to make sure that the terms are right, and that they fit into the firm's overall strategy for earning money.

To draw an analogy, when Avis purchases a fleet of cars, they want to make sure they're not paying more than they need to. When Sony supplies CDs to Target, they want to make sure that the markup is not so high that it reduces overall sales. That's how they determine if it's a good deal. Avis does not ask 'how much are we selling to Chrysler?' before making a deal. Target doesn't hold up a deal because Sony is getting its paper products at WalMart.

Companies don't consider the balance of trade when they sign deals. They decide whether the deal gives them the best prices on what they need to buy, and the best chance to earn profit on what they sell. That's the test for agreements such as the US-Korea deal.

Murtha Tries to Take Pork-Barrelling to a New Level

Read it at the Standard.

On Energy

I've noted recently that Congressional energy policy is aimless. It reflects a laundry list of short term policy responses, rather than a coherent strategy to address serious long-term problems. I pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce has launched a new effort to promote a long-term response.

Now the Hill reports that the Chamber of Commerce is not the only group pushing for forward-thinking energy policy:

The other group is the Business Roundtable, a collection of CEOs from large American companies. It released a policy report last week detailing a series of energy-efficiency efforts it supports and highlighting the need to increase domestic energy supplies.

Both the Chamber and the Roundtable have lobbied energy policy debates before. But representatives describe the new efforts as a stepped-up campaign driven by new factors. Those include the growing support for national greenhouse gas limits, which would affect a variety of businesses; rising costs for fuels like natural gas and other energy sources; and nervousness among businesses about the future availability of foreign oil.

It's clear that long-term energy supply is becoming a more and more serious problem. Consider the nations from which we import the vast majority of our oil (Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq) and only Canada seems a secure long-term supplier. It's clear that we must tackle these challenges in a bipartisan fashion.

Norm Dicks=Walter Sobchak?

This post is completely trivial and unimportant, but any time a Member of Congress is compared to a character from the Big Lebowski, it has to be noted:

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) certainly fared better on the football field at the University of Washington when he played pigskin for the college team than he did when he gave the school’s graduation speech last weekend — to rousing boos from clearly unimpressed students.

And the Washington Democrat no doubt got tackled a few times in his gridiron days.

Now, to add insult to, well, insult, some disgruntled very recent UW grads have started a group on Facebook (that’s the online community for college kids, you oldsters) to further dis their commencement speaker. The group, “Norm Dicks is a douche bag,” was started by a former student identified on the group’s page as “Jon Brooks” and includes 15 members. The group’s mini-manifesto blasts Dicks’ “piss poor commencement ‘speech’ (AKA autobiography/political speech)” and compares it to the rants of Walter Sobchak, the character that John Goodman played in the cult flick “The Big Lebowski.”

“Basically, Norm Dicks and his speech is to UW graduation as Walter and his speeches about Vietnam is to the Big Lebowski,” the Facebook page opines. Walter, fans of the movie might recall, was the boorish vet who relates everything that happens to his time in the trenches in Nam...

The Seattle Times covers the address as well, and Dicks definitely comes across pretty well. But this whole post is really just a pretext for posting this. Strong language warning:

Added to the Christmas Playlist

How did this never make it onto the list of traditional Christmas anthems?



Remember it when the holiday season rolls around.

Cooks: Dems' Iraq Plays Cost Now; Pay Off Later

Political analyst extraordinaire Charlie Cook says that while Democratic poll numbers are plummeting right now -- because they backed down to President Bush on the question of Iraq funding -- their stance will pay dividends in 2008.

Did congressional Democrats make a mistake by switching to a more cautious approach, passing a war funding bill with no strings rather than one with a timetable that would be vetoed -- a veto they could not override? Clearly, this move has antagonized many voters with strong anti-war feelings. But with no hope of overriding presidential vetoes anytime soon, Democrats would have run the risk of being portrayed as leaving U.S. troops in the field without adequate resources once the current spending bill expired.

Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans appear to be nearing the end of their rope on Iraq. Democrats will continue applying pressure to Bush and his fellow Republicans until someone breaks. When that happens, the balance may tip in Democrats' favor on this issue.

In short, Democratic leaders have opted for short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Anti-war forces are upset that the Democratic Party is not storming the ramparts every week. However, in November 2008, anti-war voters are very unlikely to defect to the GOP, stay home, or participate in another narcissistic exercise like backing Ralph Nader. That didn't work so well for them in 2000.

I've argued before that Democrats are likely to do well in 2008 if the major issue that voters are considering is Iraq. If however, the US has significantly stepped down its presence in Iraq, voters are unlikely to attach much significance to the issue. (Consider how quickly Winston Churchill and George Bush 41 were dumped by the voters after WWII and the first Gulf War.)

Rather, the lasting effect of this debate is likely to be the same as was the effect of the fight over Vietnam: Democrats will have lost credibility on national security and military issues, and their presidential nominee will suffer significantly as a result. It's interesting that the persistent frontrunner on the Democratic side has prominently separated herself from the other contenders, with her continued efforts to seem like her party's 'hawk.' It is because she realizes that as the frontrunner, there is no reason to handicap herself in a general election.

Fred Thompson on the Tonight Show

Link: sevenload.com

Roundup

Patrick Ruffini looks at Jon Bruning's primary challenge to Chuck Hagel, and suggests that the NRSC tell Hagel that he's on his own in any re-election bid. (As you may recall, he hasn't yet stated whether he intends to seek re-election, run for President, or retire.) While it's rare for the party committee not to support the re-election bid of an incumbent, such a statement at this time might have the salutary effect of discouraging Senator Hagel from forcing a primary against the popular AG.

Jane Galt speculates on the question of whether the albedo effect is an effective way to combat global warming. Not sure where she saw this cited, but I know that a letter writer to her magazine suggested it a few months ago. (I can't find it online, however.)

Check out the farm subsidy database.

The other day I commented that the economy appears to be doing better than some are saying right now. Kudlow offers further proof.

The Iranian economy is going to pot.

Congratulations to Justin Verlander.

Scottie Pippen (yes, that Scottie Pippen) got $300K in farm subsidies; David Letterman got $8K.

Rome Reborn

The University of Virginia has created a digital reconstruction of ancient Rome at the height of its power -- circa 320 AD. Check it out at Rome Reborn:

Guided by laser scans of modern-day Rome and advice from archaeologists, experts have rebuilt almost the entire city within its original 13-mile-long wall using the same computer programs architects use to plan new constructions, he said.

It even includes the interiors of about 30 buildings _ among them the Senate, the Colosseum and the basilica built by the emperor Maxentius _ complete with frescoes and decorations.

That's a picture of the Flavian Amphitheater (or 'colosseum') to the right. If you're like me, you've noticed that it appears to have been inspired by a visit to Yankee Stadium.

Me vs. jebus

I don't think he'll mind; this is pulled out of the comment thread for the post below on demagoguery. The quick and dirty: I am defending myself and the GOP on our motives in criticizing Democrats for failing to make good on process promises:

i would have to agree with the previous sentiment. the repubs had 12 years if they wished to deal with this issue.
# posted by jebus4me : 7:24 AM

Scroll back on this site and you will find more than a few posts claiming various unethical dem actions, dems thwarting process, and various other low-politic claims that are, and always will be, a minority complaint. I call it low-politic because both sides do it to push an agenda or stay in power. Any hypocrisy argument is silly because the complaint is as hypocritical as the action. No it is not right, and if you can show me a political party who upon becoming the majority limit their own power in this way, I will vote for them in a minute, because it clearly would be best for America. Until then, I have to support a candidate and a party who make me feel slightly less ill compared to the alternative.
# posted by jebus4me : 4:01 PM

Jebus - Don't think your posts make a lot of sense. You say that the GOP had 12 years to fix a problem and did not -- so they can't complain.

Democrats had years to fix entitlements and didn't. They had a chance to nab Osama bin Laden and didn't. George Bush has been President for 7 years and education still isn't fixed. Does any of those facts invalidate criticism from anybody? Of course not.

With regard to earmarks and open debate, the Democrats have failed to carry through on their promises to enact reforms, and in some cases have been worse than the Republicans.

So your conclusion is that Republicans need to quit crying about it? That's simply silly.

The job of the party out of power is to criticize the defects of the majority and propose alternatives. Whether Republicans are better or worse than the Democrats who replaced them, it does the public a disservice to say that they ought not criticize. When the Democrats criticize Bush over his handling of Al Qaeda, do you say 'now, now, you had your shot.' Of course not.

And did you last year regard all the promises of Democrats to change how Washington does business as irrelevant and vacuous? If you did not, then you can't now say that criticisms of their failure to fulfill said promises are invalid. That is, either the promises and the criticisms were both worth taking seriously, or they were not.

If instead, you feel that all that matters is the substance of the policies pursued - rather than the process considerations - so be it. I submit that you can't be all that happy on that score either, since by any measure the Democratic majority has failed to produce.
# posted by The Editor at IP : 4:45 PM

I'd also note that if you disregard process considerations -- the promise to change how things are done in Washington -- then you are...

OUT OF STEP WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

According to the LATimes, a majority of Americans are disappointed with Democrats' doing business the same old way:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,0,7184922.story
# posted by The Editor at IP : 4:50 PM

You are right, the job of the weak party is to complain about the job of the more powerful one. This is because it, and blocking legislation, is really all you can do when you are not in power. What both sides know, and what I think repubs have been better at for the last decade, is that it is more important to have power than do what is right all the time. If you are not in control, you get nothing you want done, if you are, then maybe 30-40%.

My conclusion is not to stop complaining, I would have a better shot to ask that the world stop rotating. But rather, you only really need to listen to those who criticize consistently, for example, those who call a spade a spade regardless of who controls government. If you only complain about something when you are not in a position to exploit it, well, as the first posted said, "sour grapes".
# posted by jebus4me : 8:57 PM

And if the motivation of the critic is just 'sour grapes,' then the criticism is less legitimate?

It's worth remembering that the last time the GOP was out of power in Congress and took control, they adhered to the promises they made while they were in the wilderness. They shut the House bank, cut back significantly on Member and staff perks, as well as passed the policy initiatives they promised.

So in that instance at least, the party coming into power DID curb their own power and perks, as they had promised to do. And the system that you disdain -- with partisans promising change for 'disingenuous' or 'self-serving' reasons, DID produce the change that the public supported.

How are the Democrats doing in similar circumstance? So far they've already gone back on a number of such promises.

Why have they done so? Probably because as a party, they are more loving of the state, and the authority of the state. It is why (for example) significantly more Democrats chose to serve 12 years in the Minority, waiting for a return to power, than Republicans chose to stay in the majority, exercising power.

It is those 85 House Democrats -- who waited 12 years to have their chairmanships returned to them -- that are still running the show, and preventing the Democrats from delivering on their promises.
# posted by The Editor at IP : 9:52 PM

Roundup

The guys at RedState commemorate the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall' speech.



Galley Slaves has a number of thoughts on the end of the Sopranos. Scroll down.

My take? Stories have endings. I don't gain anything by not having David Chase select one. People will still debate for themselves whether it was the 'right' one. It would have improved the series to see Tony killed, or tried, or reformed -- to find out how Chase views the results of the choices these characters have made. As things stand now, we're left the rumors that Chase filmed three endings, and that they might include a Soprano family member dieing in a car bomb, or Tony being killed, or another family member taking a bullet intended for Tony. Presumably any such alternate endings will be included on a DVD, and people will debate for themselves which is the 'real' one. This will all be seen as an attempt to sell more DVDs. And what if Chase ultimately makes a movie, or adds additional episodes? This will all be seen as contrived.

If you're interested in more on the Sopranos, Chase does an interview here with NJ.com.

Need Your Sopranos Fix?

Perhaps you'd be interested in this Paulie spinoff? Looks better than 'Joey.'

Let's Root for Demagoguery

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey says that although Members of Congress will have little opportunity to review earmarks, and no opportunity to fight them, they ought not 'demagogue' the issue. And if they do? Well, he might just decide that no one gets any candy:

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., today outlined how earmarks will be disclosed before conference, and warned that if Republicans “demagogue” the issue there might be no earmarks in the fiscal 2008 bills.

And why are Democrats unable to carry through on their promise to open up the process? They've been too busy 'trying to end' the Iraq war:

“There have been 30,000 requests for projects,” a spokeswoman for Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said, adding that with the debate over the Iraq war and new ethics requirements, staff simply has been backed up.

In the first 6 months of this year, Congressional Democrats engaged in an extended effort to browbeat the President into withdrawing from Iraq; they claimed it was an effort to end the war. Never mind that an actual effort to end the war would have involved de-funding it; the Democrats were unwilling to take the political risk of doing that. No, they engaged in a seemingly endless amount of political theater, which apparently consumed a tremendous amount of staff time and resources, all of which ended with Democrats giving the President the clean bill he asked for -- after more than three months of demagoguery.

Republican critics of this retreat from campaign promises note (implicitly) that under their watch, these bills were porked up from the start of the process. Since the Democrats are waiting until the last minute to add thousands of pork-barrel projects, these bills now contain 'slush funds,' whose content will be spelled out later:

Republicans have accused Democrats of making the earmark process secret, calling the money reserved for earmarks in appropriations bills a “slush fund” and plan to use aggressive floor tactics this week to highlight what they perceive as a fundamental rule change...

“This bill provides $4.3 billion for unspecified projects,” Lewis said. “What that really means is that the bill before us recommends a $4.3 billion pot of money with zero direction from Congress on how the Corps [of Engineers] should allocate this money.”

If the GOP had been this vigilant about earmarks last year, they might not be on the outside looking in. It's nice at least, to see them starting to demonstrate the zeal of the convert.

Russian Roulette

I cast a backward glance at the G-8 summit to review Putin's dramatic volte-face on the issue of missile defence. In view of Aeroflot's order of 22 Boeing 787's today, it seems unlikely that the Russian heavy-breathing about missile defence was anything but a face-saving means of entering into participation in the U.S. programme.

The more interesting question is the degree to which the U.S., other G-8 powers and the international media had some sense that this was merely kabuki theatre. Bush's nonchalance prior to the summit makes much more sense under this interpretation.

Redshirted Kindergartners

Interesting piece from last week's NYT magazine, on the push by parents and educators to make sure that their children are older than their classmates at any given grade level. Why? Because the older kids do dramatically better than the younger ones in early levels -- particularly kindergarten -- and continue to do measurably better even in much higher levels:

...And in contemporary America, children are deemed eligible to enter kindergarten according to an arbitrary date on the calendar known as the birthday cutoff — that is, when the state, or in some instances the school district, determines they are old enough. The birthday cutoffs span six months, from Indiana, where a child must turn 5 by July 1 of the year he enters kindergarten, to Connecticut, where he must turn 5 by Jan. 1 of his kindergarten year. Children can start school a year late, but in general they cannot start a year early...

Redshirting is not a new phenomenon — in fact, the percentage of redshirted children has held relatively steady since education scholars started tracking the practice in the 1980s. Studies by the National Center for Education Statistics in the 1990s show that delayed-entry children made up somewhere between 6 and 9 percent of all kindergartners; a new study is due out in six months. As states roll back birthday cutoffs, there are more older kindergartners in general — and more redshirted kindergartners who are even older than the oldest kindergartners in previous years. Recently, redshirting has become a particular concern, because in certain affluent communities the numbers of kindergartners coming to school a year later are three or four times the national average. “Do you know what the number is in my district?” Representative Folwell, from a middle-class part of Winston-Salem, N.C., asked me. “Twenty-six percent.” In one kindergarten I visited in Los Altos, Calif. — average home price, $1 million — about one-quarter of the kids had been electively held back as well. Fred Morrison, a developmental psychologist at the University of Michigan who has studied the impact of falling on one side or the other of the birthday cutoff, sees the endless “graying of kindergarten,” as it’s sometimes called, as coming from a parental obsession not with their children’s academic accomplishment but with their social maturity. “You couldn’t find a kid who skips a grade these days,” Morrison told me. “We used to revere individual accomplishment. Now we revere self-esteem, and the reverence has snowballed in unconscious ways — into parents always wanting their children to feel good, wanting everything to be pleasant...”

Long excerpt, but it's a very interesting piece. Take a read, particularly if you have kids.

Update: 'Jebus' offers the following comment below:

One of the more interesting parts of the article, besides the term 'redshirting', is the economic component. As it turns out, in urban areas, it costs more for a year of preschool than a year of public college (you just try and find a preschool in the NYC area for under 15G, seriously, if you do let me know.) Therefore, pushing the public school cutoff dates back places a huge financial burden on families. All in the name of higher test scores.

Thompson's Missteps; McCain's Final Days?

I think McCain's campaign will be in serious trouble if they can't meet the fundraising goal they set after 're-launching' the campaign some weeks ago. Combined with the stink of the immigration mess, it sounds like he's in real trouble:

George W. Bush's 2004 campaign fund-raisers and contributors are being bombarded with appeals for money by Sen. John McCain's heavy-spending, money-short 2008 campaign.

McCain is concentrating heavily on the rich target of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They have been invited to multiple McCain fund-raising events held in the nation's capital, currently a $1,000-a-ticket reception June 26 at the Capitol Hill Club with a potential "event co-chair" asked to raise $50,000. A large percentage of the Bush fund-raising team remains uncommitted, a signal that the Republican establishment is not satisfied with the present field seeking the party's nomination.

McCain's money-raisers are hard put to reach the $10 million goal set for the second quarter of 2008 by the June 30 deadline, after collecting $12 million in the first quarter. McCain raised $2 million in April and $3 million in May, and is expected to reach $2-3 million in June -- falling short of the $10 million goal and of what his opponents have raised.

Read the rest of Novak's piece for info on the nascent Thompson campaign.

Liquid Water Discovered on Mars

How cool would this be?

A new analysis of pictures taken by the exploration rover Opportunity reveals what appear to be small ponds of liquid water on the surface of Mars.

The report identifies specific spots that appear to have contained liquid water two years ago, when Opportunity was exploring a crater called Endurance. It is a highly controversial claim, as many scientists believe that liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars today because of the planet’s thin atmosphere.

Looks rather a lot like water to me.

Economy on the Rebound?

It's strange that on a day when the White House is officially lowering its estimate for economic growth this year, new trade figures show growth to be more robust than previously thought. First the slowdown:

The White House on Wednesday lowered its forecast for economic growth this year even as it slightly upgraded its outlook for unemployment.

Under the administration's new forecast, gross domestic product, or GDP, will grow by 2.3 percent as measured from the fourth quarter of last year to the fourth quarter of this year. That's down from a previous projection of 2.9 percent.

The main reason for the downgrade: The first three months of 2007 got off to an extremely weak start. Economic growth at that time had skidded to nearly a halt, increasing at a rate of just 0.6 percent, the worst showing in more than four years.

The news of the rebound is from the Financial Times, and it's directly linked to strong export growth :

Global demand for US exports helped shrink the country’s trade gap in April in a strong sign that the American economy is picking up speed.

The trade deficit fell by more than even the most optimistic Wall Street economists were expecting and prompted many to upgrade their forecasts for economic growth in the second quarter...

Bruce C. Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan, said he was raising his forecast for growth in the second quarter to 4 per cent from 2.5 per cent after an expansion of only 0.6 per cent last quarter.

The Economist -- in an article dated yesterday -- speaks about 2.5 percent growth in the second quarter, and notes that exports may be expected to rebound quickly (as they apparently have done), even as the housing market remains disappointing.

It sounds as if the remainder of 2007 may see relatively strong growth. Of course, with the unemployment rate currently around 4.5 percent, there's not much room for it to get better.

Ham Nation: Sopranos Tribute

Very funny. It took me a little while to realize I wasn't actually watching the opening:

Politico Interview with David Zucker

This is a little old, apparently, but I'm just coming to it now.

The Politico has an interesting interview with David Zucker -- one of the creative minds behind 'Airplane,' 'Top Secret,' 'Kentucky Fried Movie,' and other funny films. In the last few election cycles, Zucker has created several memorable commercials that poke fun at Democrats. Most memorable is this one featuring Madeline Albright:



Another good one is the 'Taxman' ad:



And here is one he apparently made on the ISG recommendations:



The Zucker interview is interesting for several items -- notably his kind words for High Hewitt, his description of himself as a JFK Democrat, and his observation that 'Republicans think Democrats are just wrong; but Democrats think Republicans are bad'

Politico doesn't seem to allow embedding, so here's the link.

Roundup

How do businesses make money in New York - and how much do they make? New York magazine explains profits and costs for a range of different types of business.

(Hat Tip: Mary)

Giuliani plans to debut a plan to significantly reform health insurance in the US. Good for him. I'm unsure whether he'll be able to sell a system where many people see fewer things covered than they do today, but providing a tax incentive to purchase insurance on the private market seems a valuable idea. Ending the preference for employer-provided health insurance and allowing consumers more choice can only be to the good.

Michael Barone has nice things to say about his reception on the Daily Show, and regarding Jon Stewart personally. Here's the interview.



Danny Glover of Beltway Blogroll writes on the Gartner Group's finding that government agencies will shy away from alternate worlds like 'Second Life.'

Spoiling the Sopranos

Don't worry; I'm not about to do it. (In fact, I can't do it).

But Gawker is suggesting that someone has ruined the surprise ending of the series with a sloppy E-mail subject line:

Dear Leslie Taylor of Big Machine Media,

We're so happy for your client that he has managed to snag an appearance on the finale of the Sopranos. And how helpful to know that he is "A SAG, AFTRA and AEA member!" But what the HOLY HECK were you thinking sending out a mass email describing the role he'll play in the SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL? Are you the worst person alive? Do you eat puppies? We'd wish a horrible fate on you, but you already rep Janice Dickinson so that seems to be covered.

GRR!,

The Universe

If I get the E-mail from Ms. Taylor, I'll let you know.

Obey: You Can Review Earmarks, But Can't Do Anything About Them

Over at the Standard.

Hillary vs. Obama

Hang around until the end; it's kind of funny.

Mild content warning:



Hat Tip: Red State

House Votes for the 'H' Prize

Congressional Quarterly reports that the House did something sensible yesterday, passing legislation to create the hydrogen energy version of the 'X Prize:'

The government would offer a series of cash prizes for innovations in hydrogen energy under a bill the House passed Wednesday.

The bill (HR 632), by Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., would be intended to bring clean-burning hydrogen-powered vehicles closer to reality. It passed by a 408-8 vote. “The future possibilities of this energy source are enormous,” Lipinski said...

Every two years, H-Prizes worth $1 million would be given in four categories: production, storage, distribution and utilization. One $4 million prize would be awarded for hydrogen vehicles. At the end of 10 years, a $10 million grand prize would be given for a “transformational advance in hydrogen energy technology.”

FuturePundit offered thoughts on the value of prizes a little while ago.

Aimlessness on Energy

I commented over at the Standard yesterday that Democrats seem not to know where they want to go on energy legislation. Their overall goals appear to include lower production of petroleum and gasoline (seen in opposition to drilling in ANWR and opposition to coal liquification), increased use of more expensive and less efficient alternate fuels, and lower prices.

See anything amiss there?

The Hill looks today at both the House and Senate energy bills, and notes fights over coal liquification and CAFE standards.

And don't underestimate the importance of the fight over renewable fuel goals. As Foreign Affairs has noted, a lot of corn is going into ethanol production, dramatically raising prices for corn-based foods. One commodity affected? Chicken feed:

Meanwhile, efforts by interest groups could further open regional divides. Livestock producers are pushing for an amendment that would waive implementation of the renewable fuels standard if corn prices grew too high. They say that increased demand for ethanol — a high priority for agriculture-state lawmakers — is driving up the prices for livestock feed to record levels.

The price of chicken feed, for instance, has increased 60 percent over the last several months.

“We’re hoping for some relief,” said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a trade group.

According to Dr. Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University, the average American grocery bill will rise by $50 in the next two years alone, simply because of the increased use of corn for ethanol:

Hart says that'll mean a hike of about 5% in the price of milk, beef, pork and chicken. "The producer will see it, but not enough to change consumption patterns," Hart said.

And, Ag Secretary Mike Johanns says livestock producers-- and their consumers-- may not get a break for two years. But, ethanol producers call this a "short term situation." "We don't like high corn prices either," said Don Endres, VeraSun CEO. "But, we're convinced that the "long-term" is very good."

Ethanol and other alternative fuels have ramifications and costs that are not generally discussed. We ought to discuss them.

Roundup

The very talented Jon Henke has joined the campaign of Fred Thompson, and will be returning to the QandO blog. Given the failure of the Republican candidates to take internet organizing seriously, I suspect that Jon and the Thompson campaign will seize the initiative. The question is whether the other candidates can follow.

The T-Rex did not move fast.

The Edwards campaign is not ready for prime time. (Hat Tip: Insty).

Barone has thoughts on the Republican numbers. They show Giuliani with a slight lead over Thompson, Romney and McCain. He does not assert -- but I will -- that Thompson's numbers are likely to improve once he actually, really announces.

See Fred on Hannity:



Novak writes about the significant problems with the Edwards campaign - even if he wins the nomination.

David All explains how the Thompson online team is far better than any of his GOP opponents.

The Fleeting Nature of the Forever Door

This is just a personal observation. The Forever Door is actually as fleeting as many other things in life. You may think you've got a door that'll be working superbly long after you're gone, only to find that it lasts only a few years.

Or put another way, it might last forever -- but if it doesn't, you're the one who has to pay for it.

Roundup

Is Al Gore running? Who cares. He would not be an especially strong candidate in the general election, anyway.

Fred Barnes says there's a lot to like in the immigration bill.

Why did Berger give up his license so easily?

John Podhoretz is not a fan of 'Knocked Up.'

Bill O'Reilly opposes the immigration bill, because it seeks to upset the white, male, Christian power structure of the country. There are those who believe this would be a great reason to support it.

Bill Jefferson will be indicted.

Fred Thompson's campaign will depend heavily on internet organizing and fundraising. This is a welcome development, and one that's likely to push Giuliani, McCain, Romney and others to try to catch up.

Check out the latest culinary triumph from Brooklyn: deep fried pizza. Is there anything that can't be deep-fried?

AP Discovers Democratic Hypocrisy

They're not following the rules they instituted at the start of the Congress. Who knew?

The Pendulum Swings Back

I heard this advertised on the radio yesterday:

Terror Plot Busted at JFK

Allah has the story.

Red Sox Fans... Stink

OK. If David Ortiz were in the same position, and these were the fans at Yankee Stadium, I would think this was pretty funny.

At least the Yankees won one.

Environmentalists Exposed

I've long felt that many in the environmental movement are motivated not so much by a desire for a clean environment, as a desire to control the lives of others. There's nothing novel in the theory; I'm sure there must be a good book by some free-market proponent somewhere. (suggestions?)

Anyway, it seems to me that many environmentalists are guilty that humans are the dominant species on the planet, and are determined to do everything in their power to ensure that we have as small a 'footprint' on the globe as possible. How else to interpret the opposition of some environmentalists to the move by a region of 600,000 people to establish the first large community whose sole sources of power are renewable and non-polluting?

There are 1,100 windmills in this region of just over 10,000sq km (6,000sq miles). More than 55 per cent of the region’s electricity comes from wind power alone.

Navarre is also developing other technologies. It has built several photovoltaic solar farms, which turn sunlight into electricity, has a biomass plant that generates power from straw, and has “solar thermal” plants that use the sun to heat water and to drive a generator.

The region has mini hydro-electric plants that make use of rivers, and “co-generation” plants to recover energy from industrial sites that would otherwise be wasted. And it has a biofuels plant that transforms vegetable oils into diesel, with motorway service stations being built to sell it.

Some environmentalists worry that the presence of so many windmills is spoiling the landscape and killing birds. “What they are doing is absolutely unsustainable and completely illegal,” says Antonio Munilla, of Gurelur, an environmental group. “We have taken this matter before the Congress and European Union.” Other environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, strongly support the experiment.

The first thing that you think of is the hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy at the proposed windmills off Cape Cod.

There is nothing that humanity can do to stop affecting the rest of the global ecosystem in some way. We consume energy; we require nourishment; we take up space. So do all other species. When environmentalists make demands that are ether mutually exclusive or flat out impossible, they reveal that their goal is not to minimize human interference with the natural world, it's something greater than that. Too many would prefer that man take his place alongside the other primates, and exist as if we weren't cursed with big brains and opposable thumbs. Those of that value those things shouldn't fall for it.

Giuliani v. Thompson?

With the anticipated entry of Fred Thompson into the presidential race quite soon, it looks like it ought to become a very interesting race. As I've said before, I suspect that Thompson will crowd out much of the field on the right -- reducing it to largely a two-man race with the Mayor. In his typically interesting Saturday column, Novak notes that Giuliani is getting important help from the New Jersey GOP:

WASHINGTON -- Supporters of Rudy Giuliani for president are changing New Jersey's longtime proportional representation rules for allocating national convention delegates to winner-take-all, seeking a coup to give the former New York City mayor the lion's share of the state's 52 votes.

A June 14 meeting of New Jersey's Republican State Central Committee is expected to adopt a Feb. 5 presidential primary procedure giving the first-place finisher all three delegates in each of the state's 13 House districts, and the statewide leader all 13 at-large delegates. In the past, delegates were divided among candidates according to their share of the vote (as in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush split New Jersey).

Giuliani's Jersey coup is engineered by his liberal supporters in the state allied with David Von Savage, conservative Republican chairman of Cape May County (also backing him for president).

Thompson meanwhile, is bringing on board Larry Lindsey -- who engineered George Bush's economic platform in the year 2000 -- which earned high praise from supply-siders and fiscal conservatives:

Lawrence Lindsey, George W. Bush's issues adviser in the 1999-2000 run-up to his presidential candidacy, is poised to play a similar role in Fred Thompson's imminent campaign.

A former Harvard economics professor and Federal Reserve governor, Lindsey was National Economics Council director in the Bush administration's first two years. He was fired following the 2002 elections after accurately predicting the cost of the Iraq war.

A footnote: Longtime Washington power broker Tom Korologos, who completed his service as U.S. ambassador to Belgium in February, is also expected to join Thompson's campaign.

Read the rest of the column for Democratic delays on Bush's nominations, and possible retirements in the House GOP.

Time for a New Cold War?

Read it at the Standard.

Ham Nation: Britney Spears Talks Immigration

Mary Katharine does great work.

GOP Looking to More Black Candidates

The Politico reports that the Republicans are looking to build on recent efforts under President Bush to expand outreach to African Americans. Notably, they will try to run more black candidates in 2008:

The two new GOP candidates reflect the grass-roots level of experience and activism Steele is talking about. Kentucky lawyer Erwin Roberts worked his way up through state government, serving in Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration. In South Florida, Army Lt. Col. Allen West has spent his career in the military, serving in Iraq and now as an independent contractor to Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

Their candidacies come under the backdrop of a 2006 cycle where former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman made a concerted but unsuccessful effort to recruit black candidates to federal and state offices. Steele lost his bid for the Senate in Maryland, and Ohio’s Ken Blackwell and Pennsylvania’s Lynn Swann lost their gubernatorial bids by double-digits...

Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, also is considering a comeback against Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.).

This comes at an interesting time (for me anyway), since I've been talking to Dr. Tasha Philpot about her recent book "Race, Republicans and the Return of the Party of Lincoln." I expect to write more on the topic (probably over at the Standard), but Dr. Philpot's work has some interesting implications for the GOP and Republican candidates in general. In particular, it suggests that the party pursue more candidates like Lt. Col. West.

Tracking Earmarks is Nice -- But What About Phonemarks?

Read it at the Standard.

Roundup

Check out the photos of ManhattanHenge. (Hat Tip: Shawn Macomber)

Rich Galen writes that Democrats must realize that by virtue of being President, Bush remains in a strong position.

Jane Galt notes that contrary to the perceptions of some liberal commentators, the long-term prospects for Social Security are not getting any better. The system will go bankrupt around 2040. Far more importantly, revenues will begin flowing out of the Trust Fund around 2017.

Why is this more important? Because federal spending has long been boosted by the availability of surplus Social Security revenues. In about a decade, the flow of revenues will need to go the other way. Our income taxes will begin to supplement Social Security benefits. Before long, the US will be transferring hundreds of billions of dollars annually from general revenue to pay Social Security benefits. This will force us to address a very difficult political question: is that a wise policy?

Amusing Google street view sightings.

Mary Katharine Ham transcribes a solicitation call from the RNC. The result is not a happy one.

Is it war on the Bush Administration?

Nancy Pelosi stands firmly against cooperation with our European allies. Why? Because allowing people to purchase what they want to at market prices isn't fair, apparently.

Senator DeMint on the problems with amnesty.

Noted With Interest

Disappointment over on the Left at the poor recruitment of the DSCC for targeted Senate races in 2008. Read it particularly for commentary like this:

Al Franken's entry into the race, along with his strong fundraising, appears to have scared off other Democrats from challenging highly vulnerable Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as much as many of us might like Al, there are reasons to be worried about this. Polling has consistently shown Coleman hovering either just above or just below 50%. At the same time, it has also shown a fairly name recognition for Al Franken, who trails Coleman by 10-20%, depending on the poll. More worrisome are Franken's favorable numbers, which are actually slightly negative according to both Rasmussen and the Mason-Dixon. That is not a formula for making up ground on a right-wing Senator in a bluish state would is very beatable. If Franken's favorables remain in negative territory, there is no way he can win this race.

Hee, hee!

CNN: "The Democrats Promised Reform, and It's Not Happening"

Read it at the Standard.

Wow

Just wow.


Hat Tip: Allah

Want Successful Kids? Stay Married.

The Economist has a fascinating story on the economic and cultural gaps between those we might call the 'life-long married' and the rest of America. Based on research from a number of different organizations, it seems that the best educated and most prosperous Americans tend to marry for life, and are better at passing on the tools for success to their children. Single parents, separated parents, and those who move from one relationship to another are at a great disadvantage in trying to pass on to their kids the values and habits that will help them succeed:

There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into “a nation of separate and unequal families”.

The Economist piece further notes that according to the National Marriage Project, marriage itself is a 'wealth-generating institution.' That is, those who marry wind up -- on the average -- four times wealthier than those who do not. It also addresses the seemingly counter-intuitive finding that couples who live together before marriage tend to divorce at a higher rate than those who do not.

I find this piece fascinating, and encourage you to take 10-15 minutes to read the whole thing. It's very reminiscent of the late Pat Moynihan's report on illegitimacy in the African American community, in its linkage between a strong two-parent family and ultimate economic success.

For those of us in Washington, the possible policy responses to the problems of broken marriages seem limited. The Economist makes clear that this is not due to the tax code, but is traced to broad changes in American culture -- ultimately finding its roots in the sexual revolution. The piece suggests that there may be one program created by President Bush that represents a step in the right direction:

Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: “If you're being abused, you should get out.” Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex.

Her budget for boosting marriage is tiny: $100m a year, or about what the Defence Department spends every two hours. Some of it funds research into what makes a relationship work well and whether outsiders can help. Most of the rest goes to groups that try to help couples get along better, some of which are religiously-inspired. The first 124 grants were disbursed only last September, so it is too early to say whether any of this will work. But certain approaches look hopeful.

Given the evident link between strong marriages and future prosperity, perhaps this is the sort of issue worthy of a national debate -- particularly as we head into a presidential election year. In 1992 Bill Clinton implicitly embraced the findings of the Moynihan report when he called for an end to welfare as we know it. Is there a candidate in the current field who's willing to tackle the larger but related problem of the devaluation of marriage?

Kerry's Doubts About Edwards

This was previewed some days ago:

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Certainly Edwards would dispute this, and even according to this excerpt from Shrum's book, Kerry and Edwards no longer speak. In case of 'he said/she said' such as this, who knows the truth?

The piece also leaves us with a weird 'he said/she said' on the question of whether John McCain wanted to serve as Kerry's running mate:

One option, the one that would have sealed the election, was off the table. John McCain's political strategist John Weaver had talked earlier with Cahill and said he needed to see Kerry about McCain. According to Kerry, when he met with Weaver and Cahill, Weaver said McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him. Kerry had then sounded out McCain, who rejected the idea.

This is consistent with the account that Kerry offered two months ago: that he was approached by Weaver. Was Weaver acting on McCain's behalf? Was he acting as a free agent, and McCain reined him in? All we know is that this version is very different from the account around the time that Edwards was selected -- which had Kerry repeatedly asking McCain to take the spot.

If nothing else, McCain seems to have moved past the controversy.

Roundup

Cynthia McKinney is considering a run for President. If a demagoguing clown like Al Sharpton can run, why not McKinney?

Phil Klein has a good post on the political ramifications of an economic slowdown. There is a bright side for Republicans, though. A slow economy would make the enormous tax increases proposed by Democrats less salable.

Barone comments on the anticipated candidacy of Fred Thompson. He makes a good point: Thompson does not have the security/defense credentials of a Giuliani or McCain. He remarks that Thompson's demeanor and style might be of value in shoring up that weakness; he might also be helped by picking one of those men as his vice presidential nominee. How does Thompson-Giuliani grab you?

Rob Bluey - who's covering the immigration debate exhaustively - notes the invite to what looks like a good debate: a steel-cage death match between the Wall Street Journal and National Review.

My governor -- Democrat Tim Kaine -- does the right thing, and suggests that the US wins from free trade.

Hillary gets busy undermining US foreign policy.

Novak says that Thompson's campaign will be different.

Daniel Drezner picks on Lou Dobbs.

Did you know that in Coney Island you can still shoot freaks?

Senators seek clarification from Valerie Plame.

Pinkerton on the GOP's win in 2008. The key: rejecting the President's position on immigration.

Sister Toldjah carries this first ad for Gore's 2008 campaign. He's... changed:



According to Peruvian news, a bunch of white points overflew the capital recently for more than a half hour, and were witnessed by many locals. The figures formed a variety of shapes before disappearing. How appropriate that I had an X-Files clip in this space yesterday:

Tracking Agents of Influence

Read it at the Standard.

Democrat Reform Backtracking Continues

Read it at the Standard.

Leftosphere Rages at Democratic Party

I touched on this yesterday at the Standard. The Hill covers it with some additional detail:

Readers at the DailyKos website were furious about the letter, while other readers were angry that the DCCC used James Carville, a Democratic political consultant, in a separate fundraising pitch. Many said they would not donate to DCCC any more.

“You insult me, sir. And I will not be insulted. Go to hell,” wrote Bill from Portland, Maine.

“PIGS will fly before I will contribute a penny to this s—- ... where is our spine, backbone, morals and ethics,” wrote Left My Heart.

“Unlike our Democratic leaders, I am a Democrat who has backbone and conviction. I am hereby defunding YOU!” wrote Jayden.

Reactions like this will ensure that Democrats return even more quickly to attempts to end the Iraq war without withdrawing funds. You have to wonder if they will ever acknowledge that that's impossible, or whether they will eventually be called on their rope-a-dope strategy of seeming anti-war without actually having to act on it.

Parliamentary Maneuver Adds a Hurdle for Immigration Bill

Read it at the Standard.

Fred Thompson's Getting In

Fred Thompson will announce over the July 4th holiday. I'll be curious to see how he moves in the polls now that he has shifted from likely candidate to real candidate. (But Geraghty hears from a Thompson source who says it won't be over July 4).

Craig Crawford by the way, says that this is great news for Giuliani - since the addition of social conservatives splits that group further. I usually disagree with Crawford, and this time is no exception. While what he suggests is possible, it seems more likely to me that Thompson will consolidate the conservative vote and crowd out the others - Gilmore, Hunter, Tancredo and Thompson for sure, and to at least some degree, Romney.

Think of it this way: which field is better for Giuliani - the one we have today, with McCain and Romney 10-15 points behind, and several others in the 5-10 percent range, or one where Fred Thompson is within a few points, and McCain and Romney are closer to the third tier than the second? I suspect the latter is the more likely scenario.

Chris Cillizza is closer to the Crawford position.

Roundup

Who's to blame for high gas prices?

Representative Chris Murphy says that Members of Congress cannot be expected to police one another. Then why did he vote with the Democratic leadership to block debate on a proposed independent ethics body?

Nick Lampson won't run for Senate. He's probably the only candidate with a prayer in both the Senate race and his own House race. The more likely outcome is that Republicans win both of those.

As always, Republicans are happier than Democrats.

Maguire and Crittenden with thoughts on the latest Plame revelation.

Romney and consistency.

The Anchoress offers tough words for Cindy Sheehan:

Madam, your gracious and courageous son - whose death is tragic and for whom your mourning is nothing less than appropriate - will only have died “for nothing” if his mission is left dangling and unfinished by the very people - and their minions - who exploited you, and who help to make the job of every soldier in Iraq more difficult...

The truth is, Mrs. Sheehan, President Bush is not the one trying to cheapen your son’s sacrifice. I certainly am not, either. Your son’s honorable death is being cheapened by the people who would say, “I support the troops, so I want them to be pulled out of a the place where they can make a difference, and have them stop acting like the warriors they are, so we can all sing Kumbaya and pretend to be friends with the whole world…

She's right, of course.

Google Maps now offers 'street views.' Yet another step in their ultimate plan to take over the world.



Jonathan Last notes the passing of Charles Nelson Reilly. I offer this clip from the X-Files:

Today in History: Constantinople Becomes Istanbul

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks:

Ukraine

While you're remembering the fallen and enjoying time with friends and family this weeked, you might want to keep an eye on events in the Ukraine. I'm not sure if this will end up in an Orange Thermidor, but whenever somebody in a former Soviet "republic" lays claim to interior ministry forces it's probably best to pay attention.

Edwards Memorial Day Posturing

Unerringly attracted to the political uses of death, Sen. John Edwards will attempt this weekend to transform the Memorial Day holiday into a soapbox for his campaign to raise the hopes of Islamist brigands for an American humiliation and to erode American political and military credibility around the world . While Sen. Edwards trial experience has indeed taught him the value of dead men in cash terms, it seems he, like his philosophical comrade, Rosie O'Donnell, has misconstrued the identity of those killing American soldiers and marines. Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shi'ites, not the Republican Party, are the agents of death in Iraq, both of U.S. military personnel and of the great majority of Iraqi casualties as well.

Those of you who happen to visit the resting places of loved ones this weekend might profitably reflect on the nature of a politician so willing to harness his own political ambitions to the suffering and sacrifices so many have made to protect both the liberties we all enjoy as Americans and the safety of their brothers in arms, whose safety in combat both then and today springs not only from the valour of those sacrifices, but also the enemy's knowledge of the grim resolve of Americans as a whole to see those sacrifices through to their vindication in defeat of the enemy.

Pulling American warriors out of combat in the midst of engagement does not "support the troops." Instead, it makes each subsequent engagement of U.S. forces more dangerous to those deployed because of the support such withdrawal gives to the assessment of American resolve as ephemeral and easily overcome by a determined foe with adequate understanding of American media and politics. Senator Kerrey and Lieberman seem to be among the few Democrats to understand that every action taken to attempt to withdraw American forces unilaterally from Iraq now will only give hope to those foreign enemies who find themselves opposing the U.S. under a Democratic administration at some later point in time--an administration which, thank God, Sen. Edwards is unlikely ever to lead.

Ethics Proposals the Democrats Rejected

Congressional Democrats are getting good press today for passage of an ethics reform bill in the House. But while I provided a partial list yesterday, I thought it might be useful to list all the ethics proposals the Democratic leadership refused to allow to come before the House for debate.

Courtesy of the House Rules Committee, the House Democratic leadership refused to allow debate on the following measures:

• Require the House Inspector General to conduct random audits of lobbying disclosures, and refer improper filings to the DoJ;
• Close the gift-rule loophole for governments and public agencies;
• Make it a federal offense for convicted felons to register as lobbyists;
• Block Congressmen from converting funds in their leadership PACs to personal use;
• Require lobbyists to report the earmarks for which they lobby;
• Prohibiting lobbyists from lobbying for earmarks with federal funds;
• Require registered lobbyists who work for an entity created by an earmark to report the total amount of federal dollars received by the entity;
• Extend the lobbying ban for former Members of Congress, senior staff, and executive branch officials;
• Require registered lobbyists to take an 8-hour ethics class;
• Prohibit a Member convicted of bribery from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits;
• Prohibit former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from lobbying for the nation where they were assigned for five years after their service;
• Strip pensions for Members of Congress convicted of current federal "white-collar" crimes; and,
• Create an outside ethics review board to investigate allegations against Members of Congress (Democrats complained mightily last year when the GOP blocked such a proposal).
  

A lot of these seem like commonsense ideas. Why did the Democratic leadership refuse to allow them even to be debated? You have to hope that when they head home for the Memorial Day break, the Democratic members of the Rules Committee--who voted against these proposals--hear from their constituents about it.

Roundup

Moqtada Al Sadr shows up.

PowerLine recounts a rather creepy John Edwards story.

Silence on Al Qaeda torture.

The GOP is no longer trusted on taxes. Groan.

Jane Galt goes to war on Smores.

A very funny 'interview'of Dana Carvey by Dennis Miller. By the way, if you've not listened to the Dennis Miller show on radio yet, you ought to tune in. Find a station here.

Bring your towel today.

Hillary comes across as almost human in this:



Seeming human is probably a good move for her, too.

Fred Thompson speaks on the immigration bill:

Meet the Millenium Falcon

Really:

Scientists with the Fisher Ornithological Observation Laboratory have discovered that a falcon common to Mauritius and previously believed to be a Madigascar Kestrel (falco newtoni) is in fact an entirely new species of bird.

“Actually, it’s a very old species of bird,” said the Laboratory’s lead scientist Dr. Hanz Ohlo. “We just didn’t know about it before now.”

DNA tests conducted at the Laboratory’s offices in Madagascar confirmed that the bird, while resembling the Madagascar Kestrel, is in fact a previously unknown species. Further genetic exanimations of preserved falcon nests, egg shells, and droppings from East Africa, Madagascar, and Mauritius suggest that the new Falcon migrated to Mauritius from East Africa approximately 1000 years ago and hasn’t left since. So scientists at the Laboratory have named the new species falco milleannus which means “the thousand-year falcon” and gave rise to the species’ common name, the Millennium Falcon.

OK, so it's just a late April Fool's joke. What are you paying to view this site, anyway?

Roundup

Republican plans against Senator Tim Johnson are starting to take shape.

It had been hoped that a more pro-market leader in France might give reason to hope for a breakthrough in trade talks. That idea seems to be wrong.

A new Star Wars movie?

A new cut-rate airline offers tickets for $10.

Rob Bluey has tons on the immigration debate.

Just because Norman Greenbaum was such a handsome devil:

Something Light

Back with more legitimate content later today. In the meantime, something amusing.

Globalization means that China now gets to see the Larry Bird-Michael Jordan McDonald's commercial from about 20 years ago - with a twist:



Here's the original: