Liberal Talk Show Host: No One Listens to US!

He's someone named 'Ed Schultz' and he says he's popular.

Yeah, I've never heard of him either:



I'm extremely disappointed that conservatives like me don't dominate the Internet. I want Infinity Broadcasting to sponsor my website. There ought to be a law...

Hat Tip: Say Anything

Also check out McQ, who dissects the ratings and has bad news for Schultz:

Hardly a sterling record nor one which seems would be fixed if Schultz had his choice of 100 stations. While Schultz isn't represented in NY, the largest radio market, Air America is, and they get buried. The Limbaugh/Hannity station, WABC pulls a 3.7 while WWRL, the AA crew, pulls a .6.

But Schultz does show up in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th markets and gets buried in them. Number 2 is LA and even progressive LA isn't interested in progressive talk. KFI, which carries Limbaugh and mostly local hosts pulls a 4.2. KABC, which is all conservative talk and includes Hannity has a 1.8. KTLK which has the AA gang (Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Tom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, Mark Germain, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Alan Colmes) pulls a dismal 0.7.

In number 3 Chicago, it's about the same. The top rated talk show is WGN with all local talent (5.3). WLS which carries Limbaugh and Hannity comes in second at 3.4. Coming in at #6 in a six station race is progressive talk radio with the AA gang and Schultz. Rating? 0.5.

Detroit, another market in which you'd think progressive talk radio might do well. It's the #10 market in the US. Limbaugh/Hannity? A 5.9 on WJR. Schultz and the AA crowd? 0.6 on WDTW. 4th in a 5 talk radio market.

Probably most enlightening is the #4 market, San Francisco. If progressive talk can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere. And, as it turns out, progressive talk is tops in SF. It's just not the progressive talk with Schultz. Instead it is local progressive hosts along with a mix of medical and legal shows which leads the ratings. KGO pulls a 5.5 in the market. And how do Limbaugh/Hannity do? Well not bad considering. KFSO, where they are carried, comes in at 3.2. And Schultz and the AA gang? 1.1 on KQKE. That's number 4 in a 5 talk station market.

Math That's Far Above My Head

I don't get this at all, but who doesn't love a nice barbershop quartet?



Hat Tip: RedState

US Falling Far Behind in Energy Production

This falls in the good news/bad news department. Ob the bright side, the less-developed world has made some extraordinary strides in energy production in the last 15 years. That's great news, because a robust energy supply is essential for health and wealth. And it's in the US interest for the rest of the world to become wealthy like us.

The bad news is, the US is falling far behind. And that's bad because... well, because a robust energy supply is essential for health and wealth:

At the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, 55 percent of the 20 largest companies in the energy industry by market capitalization were American, and 45 percent were European, according to the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. study.

But in 2007, 35 percent of the 20 largest energy companies are from BRIC countries, about 35 percent are European, and about 30 percent are American, the study said.

"The U.S. is now lagging with the smallest percentage number of energy companies worldwide," Ling said.

"If you think about the global resource industry typically being a leader in terms of global trends, we're starting to see this replicated in the mining industry, where 20 percent of the top 20 companies are now from BRIC countries," he said. "We believe this sort of pattern will be repeated industry by industry."

It's increasingly clear that we as a nation are not devoting sufficient attention to the prism of national security as regards our future energy needs. As long as they key players in the energy sector were the US, Canada, UK, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that have generally been friendly to US interests, we could afford to ignore that dimension.

Now however, with nations such as Russia, Venezuela, China, India, Iran, and others playing a more important role -- both as producers and large consumers -- we must consider how their interests and actions affect ours. To date Congress has devoted scant attention to this issue.

House Republicans Oppose Senate Immigration Bill

By a vote of 114-23. It's not unusual for lots of Members to miss a conference meeting -- even one that's rather important. Still, only 137 Republicans voting (out of 201 total) is a little curious. Notwithstanding that, Patrick McHenry says "this shows that 85 to 90 percent of Republicans" are against the Senate bill.

Regarding support for the Senate bill, CQ reports:

But Boehner said no one in the meeting spoke out in favor of the Senate measure. Instead, Boehner said, “most of the 23 were those concerned with the process we were going through.”

I have a hard time seeing how this passes the House if fewer than 30 or so Republicans support it. It would go too far in allowing moderate Democrats to be targeted for their party's leadership on the initiative.

Roll Call meanwhile, quotes House Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren, who suggests that House Democrats intend to approach the issue de novo:

If the Senate is successful, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the goal is for the House to move on immigration when the House returns from the recess.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a key player on immigration, said the Conference resolution was not surprising but is unlikely to affect the game plan in the House.

“You’d be hard-pressed to find very many people in America who support the Senate bill, including House Republicans and House Democrats,” she said, adding that if the Senate can complete the bill this week the House will move quickly.

“Our mission is to have a bill that will be better” than the Senate version, she said.

Can we infer from Ms. Lofgren's comments that the House Democratic alternative will be significantly different?

Blue on Blue

Liberals attack John Dingell. Wait. I thought that was our job?

Congress Undercutting Missile Defense

Read it at the Standard.

Cohen: Perceived Weakness on National Security Could Hurt Dems

Read it at the Standard.

Dems: Can't Anyone Here Play this Game?

The Democrats may have won at the polls in 2006, but they still can't beat the Republicans on the diamond:

The GOP soundly defeated the Democrats 5-2, at RFK Stadium, home of the Washington Nationals.

Nine Democratic errors didn't help.

"That was a marked improvement over last year," said Mr. Doyle, referring to the 12-1 thrashing of 2006, his first year as coach. He wore a Pittsburgh Pirates uniform bearing No. 14, his Pennsylvania congressional district.

The Republicans have now won 32 of the last 46 games, according to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication.

November's electoral victory brought in 41 freshman Democrats, giving them control of both houses of Congress for the first time in more than a decade.

Mr. Doyle recruited nine of them for yesterday's game, including three Pennsylvanians: Chris Carney of the northeastern part of the state, Patrick Murphy of the Philadelphia suburbs and Jason Altmire of McCandless. But Mr. Altmire and Mr. Carney didn't play because of injuries.

And Jim Bunning didn't even pitch.

Republicans to Get Rid of Cheney

Sally Quinn makes the silly argument:

The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections...

The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008. It's unlikely that any of the top three Republican candidates -- former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- would want the job, for fear that association with Bush's war would be the kiss of death...

That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.

Captain Ed spends more ink debunking this argument than it's worth. But I'll add to the arguments he makes -- why would Thompson want the job? Democrats would clearly use the confirmation process to attempt to 'rough him up,' and would argue forcefully that by accepting Cheney's job -- a job that became open because of 'Cheney's unpopular war' -- that he was accepting responsibility for the war, as well.

Polls show that Thompson has a good chance at the nomination and the presidency without having the job of Vice President. And let's remember -- the Vice Presidency is the kiss of death for presidential aspirations. George HW Bush was one of the very few who have successfully made that jump. So why would Thompson choose to make it?

If anyone wants to take bets on the Quinn scenario, send an E-mail to influencepeddler@gmail.com. I'll give good odds.

Nearly 4,000 Security Badges Missing at O'Hare

Remind me not to connect in Chicago:

Officials at O'Hare International Airport are refusing to interview with CBS 2 about our latest findings. The 2 Investigators have found more security breaches and a failure by authorities to investigate.

O'Hare is one of the busiest airports in the nation, and may be one of the most vulnerable.

The 2 Investigators have learned that 47 more employee access badges are missing, bringing the total we've discovered to 3,807 – the biggest security failure involving access badges ever to be exposed.

"Doesn't surprise me,” said Marcia Pinkston [a former flight attendant]. “I am surprised you didn't find more."

So we should be reassured that it's 'just' 4,000 missing? I'm not sure that makes me feel any better.

Jack Murtha: Venture Capitalist

The Washington Times picks up on Roll Call's story about John Murth's earmarks:

With Murtha Inc. calling the shots on defense appropriations, some are chortling that he fancies himself a kind of taxpayer-backed venture capitalist operating in service to his job-hungry district. To judge by the fruits, though, the unindicted "Abscam" coconspirator could not be considered a very successful "venture capitalist." We'd stick with a more traditional label like pork-barreller.

The self-styled "most ethical and honest Congress in history" must get a grip on Mr. Murtha and friends if it is to make any headway whatsoever on ethics reforms. At this rate, Mr. Murtha just about torpedoes whatever chance House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to deliver on her campaign promises.

After much waiting, Congress is expected soon to consider legislation to reform lobbying and ethics laws. It is unlikely to make any difference in how the public perceives Washington, if it's enactment does not put an end to abuses like these.

Dole Continues to Dodge Stiff Challenges

Roll Call reports that Congressman Brad Miller has decided to stay in the House, rather than seek the Senate seat of Elizabeth Dole:

Rep. Brad Miller (D) said Monday that he will not challenge Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) in 2008, as Democrats go back to the drawing board to see if they can recruit a top-tier challenger in the Tar Heel State.

“Obviously, a big part of me wanted to run for the Senate ... but I like what I’m doing in the House right now,” Miller told The Associated Press.

Miller had been mentioned as a potential candidate and had confirmed earlier this year that he was contemplating a Senate bid. He met with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) earlier this month.

Democrats believe Dole is potentially vulnerable, however, they have not been able to find a top-flight candidate for the race. Several well-known statewide elected officials are passing on the race.

Miller was elected in 2002 to a Raleigh-based seat that he helped to draw as a member of the state Senate during the post-2000 reapportionment and redistricting.

While 2008 shapes up as a very challenging year for Senate Republicans because of the great number of seats they must defend, Democrats have a mixed record so far on recruiting strong challengers. In Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Texas, Democrats have either lost out on top-tier challengers, or failed (so far) to get their desired candidate into the race.

A Plan for Dealing with Cyber Attacks

The MSM might devote lots of space to Iraq and the threat of Islamic terrorism, but apart from Bruce Willis, who's guarding against cyber attacks? If you're as worried as I am, you'll be glad to know that President Bush has a plan. And it's the only plan that makes any sense -- a NATO center of excellence in Estonia:

We also talked about an interesting subject, and one that I can learn a lot about, and that is the cyber attack that makes us all vulnerable. Estonia recently went through a wave of cyber attacks. And this President, one, understands the issue well; two, has got some ideas, including a NATO center of excellence in Estonia to deal with this issue. And I really want to thank you for your leadership, and thank you for your clear understanding of the dangers that that imposes not only on your country, but mine and others, as well.

Obviously my first preference is for a UN Committee, but if I can't get that then an Estonian Center of Excellence is obviously the way to go.

Has Bush Squandered the Last of His Political Capital on Immigration

For some years, it's been difficult for conservatives to figure out when to stand with President Bush and when to draw distinctions. On judicial appointments, executive privilege, the War on Terror, and most social and 'values' issues, conservatives have seen Bush as an ally. On Iraq, entitlement programs, spending (until recently, at least) and immigration, they've at least sought to put some 'daylight' between themselves and the President.

But it's starting to look as if the immigration fight has become the straw that broke the camel's back. Conservatives oppose the White House on the substance and deeply resent the charges of nativism and ignorance coming from Bush's team. Now Mitt Romney has apparently decided that it's time to begin the process of disowning the President:

"We're going to change the course of America," Romney told about 800 donors gathered for a pep rally at the Boston Red Sox's Fenway Park.

"It's on a course right now that's just not quite right. We've got a lot of problems around the world that need our leadership as a nation.

"We're going to have to get ourselves back on track again so that we can remain the powerful nation we've always been -- powerful not just by our strength and our economic vitality, but powerful because of our goodness and the greatness of the American spirit. And that's what the campaign is about."

Romney, like the other top GOP contenders, has so far avoided direct criticism of the increasingly unpopular President Bush, choosing instead to focus specifically on issues like immigration or the conduct of the war.

But his language in Boston -- at a time when polls indicate the overwhelming majority of Americans feel as he does about the nation being on the wrong course -- signaled that he will take steps to move away from the president if necessary.

Up until now, prominent conservatives have mostly defended the President -- pointing out his strengths and downplaying his faults. But if Romney feels comfortable in affirmatively laying some blame at Bush's doorstep -- then it's only because he thinks primary voters are receptive to the message, and won't develop 'buyer's remorse' between now and the primaries. Will other GOP leaders and candidates follow suit?

There's not about to be a big press conference where a slew of GOP Senators wash their hands of President Bush, but it seems that this may be the tipping point. Republicans seem to have decided that Bush is unpopular and politically weak; he's not 'looking out' for their best political interests; and opposing him won't be punished by the base. There are probably more than a few who would call his fixation on immigration 'Ahabesque,' and wonder why they should take even one more political hit for the guy. Better to look to next year.

Can Bush reverse this? I'm not sure. He'll get conservative backing in vetoing a few spending bills, but can Congressional Republicans even be sure that he'll stick to fiscal discipline if Democrats offer a deal on defense spending? And if 'comprehensive immigration reform' somehow passes the Senate, then a vicious fight in the House is likely. It'll leave lots more time to build resentment on both sides, instead of turning to other issues.

The question could be moot of course. If Bush plans to 'play out the string' as a lame duck President, he doesn't need much help from Congressional Republicans. If he still hopes to accomplish anything, however -- most notably on Iraq -- he may find that he's lost all his formerly loyal troops in Congress. Come September, they could be busy echoing the statements of Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson.

The New Layout

Blogger has introduced a tool for updating your blog's layout and modifying it more easily. Let me know what you think of the new look.

Terrible Joke Watch

Fausta offers these. I'll add two more:

Aging relief pitcher Mel Famey hadn't been used in months and started drinking heavily in the bullpen. When he was finally called upon -- with the bases loaded in a tied game -- he walked in the winning run. Walking off the field victorious, the opposing team saw the empties littering the bullpen and commented 'that's the beer that made Mel Famey walk us.'

A robot went to live among a race of tiny people called the Trids. The Trids dreaded the day -- once a year -- when the giant in the castle on the hill would come down and kick them and their homes all over the place. When the day came, the robot hid in fear. When the giant discovered him cowering, he reassured the robot saying, 'silly robot; kicks are for Trids!'

Sorry.

Bluey: GOP Working to Reclaim the Brand

Check it out at Townhall:

House Republicans have coalesced around the issue of federal spending, handing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a stinging defeat on earmark reform and sending their liberal colleagues a unified message not to exceed the president’s budget requests.

For conservatives who stayed home last Election Day, it’s refreshing to see someone in Washington paying attention again.

Conservatives have Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, to thank for much of what’s happening. Hensarling’s unabashed devotion to fiscal restraint has helped GOP leaders John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) unify Republicans.

There's no question that some Republicans are only 'getting religion' because the voters gave them 'a thumpin.' Others were persona non grata under the old, majority leadership, and are suddenly back in vogue. Would it be better if they were all fiscal conservatives simply because they believed it was the right way to make public policy? Certainly. But either way, we again have at least one party motivated toward spending restraint and openness in how government does business.

Murtha's Earmarks Benefit Associates; Move Companies to PA

Roll Call ($) has an extensive report today on some of the earmarks obtained by John Murtha, and their beneficiaries:

INDIANA, Pa. — In April 2004, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) celebrated the groundbreaking for a gleaming new office building here, designed around its anchor tenant, a Rockville, Md.-based technology company called Aeptec Microsystems.

Murtha pursued millions of dollars worth of legislative earmarks for the company, and Aeptec’s federal contracts blossomed after it opened a branch in his district in 2001, rising from about $13 million in 2000 to $45.6 million in 2003 and $33 million in 2004, according to fedspending.org, a database of federal contracts. The company had been represented by two lobbying firms with close ties to Murtha: KSA Consulting and the PMA Group.

But Aeptec never moved into the Indiana building, which was built mostly with state and local development funds and remains mostly empty after opening last month. The company, also known as 3eTI, instead moved its staff of about 15 people into a nondescript office park across town, where its name is not even posted on the outside door. It has since been bought by Texas-based EFJ Inc...

A good guide to the patterns of Murtha’s largesse is the client list of KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm that employs a former Murtha staffer and used to employ Murtha’s brother, Kit Murtha.

News stories have highlighted KSA’s success in getting earmarks for its clients, but there is more to the story than that. KSA’s client list consists largely of small businesses that are either based in Johnstown, Pa., or have opened offices in Johnstown, plus a significant smattering of companies that no longer exist and may never have existed at all.

The pattern that appears dominant is that the companies’ federal contract dollars expand shortly after they open an office in the 12th Congressional district — though it is not entirely clear how much of their work is actually conducted in the district...

Roll Call provides examples of three other firms that opened offices in Mr. Murtha's district and reaped significant federal contracts immediately afterwards. At least two of them retained KSA as their DC lobbyists. According to the article:

• Applied Ordnance Technologies signed with KSA in 2001, opened an office in Johnstown, and doubled its government contracts in just two years;
• ChemImage signed KSA in 2001, opened an office in Johnstown (which now employs just 3 people), and secured its first ever federal contracts in 2003; and,
• KDH was created in 2003 to sew bulletproof vests and secured a Navy contract to do so in 2004 -- even though it had no facility in which to do so. KDH later opened two such locations in Murtha's district, and has seen significant increases in their federal sales.
  

It's also reported that KSA has filed disclosures of its clients past the legal deadline, and identified clients that seem not to exist, or that deny any association with KSA. The company's CEO acknowledges problems with the paperwork, saying 'that’s probably because we don’t know how to file them.'

It's unclear whether there's anything illegal in all this -- which is pretty depressing in itself. It's worth noting however, that the practice of giving special treatment to firms that locate in Johnstown, or Mr. Murtha's Congressional District more broadly, is reminiscent of something he told an undercover agent during Abscam:

I'll tell you exactly what I'd like. I'd like to be able to tell you that there's some places I'd like you to invest some money, in banks, on my district, uh and I'd say some, you know, some substantial deposits...

I think that in order to introduce legislation, you have to have a real tie to the district.

I'll give you maybe a list of businesses that I think would be the appropriate businesses that would be very helpful to me if you could see your way clear any one of those... you know, that you might -- this then would make a tie, which we'd have to make a little bit of a fuss about, maybe the guy doesn't wanna do this, but you have to remember this, you have to look down the road -- public relations.

More here. (Some obscenities)

Europe's New 'Reform Treaty'

Good editorial at the Wall Street Journal. They note that Gordon Brown has previously said that he will not submit the treaty for ratification by voters, but instead have it considered in Parliament only. It would be a great mistake to snub the voters on so important an issue, on what is essentially his first act as PM:

Europe is back, all right -- back to its old tricks and undemocratic sleights of hand. It's quite clear that the "reflection" the EU imposed on itself after French and Dutch voters rejected its Constitution two years ago amounted to nothing more than a long look in the mirror.

This resuscitated Constitution, albeit by a different name, negates the results of those free votes. Just as worrying -- and a dangerous portent for the Continent's future prosperity -- the price of the compromise in Brussels will erode the free-market principles on which the European Community was founded 50 years ago...

There will be enormous pressure on all EU leaders not to allow mere citizens to muck up the plan devised in Brussels. Mr. Sarkozy himself shows no inclination to hold a repeat referendum in France. He and others on the Continent will lobby Gordon Brown, who takes over as British Prime Minister this week, to follow suit and avoid putting the treaty to voters. Bowing to Brussels, Mr. Brown has indicated that he'll ask Parliament to ratify, not British voters.

It is hard to imagine a worse start to Mr. Brown's tenure at 10 Downing Street than to see him wave through the EU's "Reform Treaty" without popular support. The real lesson of the 2005 votes in France and the Netherlands is that citizens wouldn't sign off on an ambitious expansion of EU political prerogatives. They took full advantage of a rare opportunity to say so. Applying a few cosmetic changes and moving forward as if nothing happened makes a mockery of democracy.

The piece expands on some of the points I made the other day. Read the whole thing.

***FLASH: KOBAYASHI INJURED IN HOT DOG CONTEST?***

Can He Compete at Nathan's on July 4

Update At Bottom: Confirmed on Kobayashi's blog; he has gnathal arthropathy.

The Influence Peddler has faithfully chronicled the developments affecting the Nathan's Famous July Fourth Hot Dog Eating Contest. We were among the first to tell you about Joey Chestnut -- the American sensation who threatened Takeru Kobayashi's domination of the event. We previewed last year's competition, at which Kobayashi needed a world record to beat Chestnut. And more recently, we told you that Chestnut had shattered Kobayashi's record -- setting up a great rematch this year.

Now we can be the first to tell you that Kobayashi is reportedly suffering from 'jaw arthritis,' which may prevent him from competing this year. Worse still, it may stop him from winning one 'for his mom' who passed away earlier this year:

A JAPANESE man who set a world record by wolfing down 53 hot dogs in 12 minutes has suffered a severe jaw injury due to his rigorous training, making his next title uncertain.

Takeru 'Tsunami' said he can only open his mouth to make a gap the size of a fingertip after being diagnosed with jaw arthritis.

In an entry on his blog entitled Occupational Hazard, Kobayashi said: "My jaw refused to fight any more."

The injury occurred only a week after the slender 29-year-old started training to win his sixth straight title at the annual July 4 Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating contest on New York's Coney Island.

"I feel ashamed that I couldn't notice the alarm bells set off by my own body," he said. "But with the goal to win another title with a new record, I couldn't stop my training so close to the competition.

What to make of this? First off, is it accurate? (I can't find his blog.)

And if true, is it an attempt to lower expectations? Or is he so intimidated by Chestnut's recent performance that he's chickening out?

We can only hope that Kobayashi somehow recovers by July 4, so that we can see a fair rematch between two great competitors.

Here's a moving fan tribute to the champ. Have a tissue handy for the tears:




Update: Here's the blog (in Japanese, of course). Google gives me this translation for the most recent post:

Some days ago, my jaw seceded the front.

In the scream of the body, the ear you have been ashamed by your being able to tilt.

When training starting from there was a pain...

The jaw opens just a little only anymore.

Opening the mouth, as for there is no pain, to finger one amount.

Being painful, you do not open above that.

As for diagnosis gnathal arthropathy.

Gnathal arthopathy, huh? That's a tough row to hoe.

George Bush: Worse than Hitler

So argues a former Seinfeld writer and contributor to the Huffington Post:

You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of "I'm so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends' good?"

How can anyone not see it? It's not that their policies have been misguided or haven't played out right. They. Don't. Even. Mean. Well.

If a Democrat is elected President in 2008, don't be surprised to hear lamentations from the same Leftists about the poisonous atmosphere and the attempts on the right to demonize Democrats.

Jaws: With Lyrics

This is pretty funny. I believe it's from 'Jaws: The Musical:'

Middle Earth Located

About time:



Hhmm... my people are from the Grey Havens. That makes me like, royalty, right?

Obama Forgets What He Knew About Evangelicals

I have not yet seen a speech from Obama on violent Islamic extremism, but he is -- oh so bravely -- taking on violent Christians. And a bonus -- he says that their faith has been 'hijacked:"

Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.

I'm not sure what expertise Obama is relying on in suggesting that the priorities of evangelical Christians are not those relayed by their leaders. And if he doubts that Democrats have been hostile to people of faith, he ought to read his speech of a year ago to Call to Renewal:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats..."

Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths, and that is why "we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. ... In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway."

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps _ off rhythm _ to the gospel choir."

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy..."

Obama had a much better grasp of the issue before he started running for President.

You can see Obama's Call to Renewal speech on YouTube.

Update: Check out Erick as well.

Israel Preparing Strike on Iran

Things like this get reported all the time -- but for what it's worth:

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been training on long-range flights, including refueling in mid-flight, in preparation for potential strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The training program has been taking place for some time but has only been released for publication Friday, the Ma'ariv daily reported.

Intelligence assessments received by the defense establishment concur that once Iran passes the point of no return in its nuclear efforts, the entire Middle East will enter a frantic nuclear armament race. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are expected to take the lead should such a scenario become reality.

Remember the Americas Cup?

I didn't think it was possible for the defense of the Americas Cup to begin without me having heard even a mention of it. Remember when Dennis Conner was a celebrity?

How old am I?

Sarkozy Embraces Socialism; EU Constitution is Back

Reading this article in the Financial Times, you'd be forgiven for not having the vaguest clue what they're talking about. It seems almost designed to obfuscate the talks on replacing the defunct EU Constitution:

Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, claimed to have dealt a blow to the "dogma" of competition after European Union leaders struck a deal on a new "reform treaty" in marathon talks that ended in the early hours of Saturday.

Mr Sarkozy said the new treaty opened the door for the creation of "European champions", after he secured the deletion of the words "undistorted competition" from the EU's objectives.

"The word "protection" is no longer taboo," he said. "Competition as an ideology, as a dogma, what has it done for Europe?"

Yeah -- what has competition done for Europe -- or anyone? Oh sure, some argue that competition leads to technological advances, breakthroughs in science, medicine, food cultivation, political ideology, and anything else you can think of, but how important are those? For example, remember all those years when the US and NATO competed against the USSR and Warsaw Pact? What did Europe get out of that?

Not much, apparently, because competition has been kicked overboard in the effort to bring Europe together:

The Brussels summit agreed the outline of a treaty to replace the Union's failed constitution, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in referendums in 2005. Although stripped of its grand title and symbols of statehood like a flag and anthem, the new treaty contains many of the constitution's main ideas for making the enlarged EU more efficient and coherent on the world stage.

They include a full-time EU president, foreign minister and diplomatic service, a streamlined European Commission and more qualified majority voting. Angela Merkel, German chancellor and host of the summit, hopes the treaty will come into force by 2009...

But competition lawyers say the move will have legal effect, weakening the EU's ability to fight protectionism. Mr Sarkozy endorsed that view, saying it "might give a different jurisprudence to the Commission". He said a competition policy could emerge "that will favour the emergence of European champions".

Mr Sarkozy's previous incarnation as finance minister suggests he may have in mind state intervention to create Franco-French industrial mergers.

It wasn't all that long ago that conservatives and market advocates in the US were delighted with Sarkozy's election. How much things have changed in a few weeks. Now it seems that he wants to suppress competition in Europe, which is terrible news.

Fortunately for EU consumers at least, competition from the US, China, and other nations is much tougher to stifle. Thus the 'European Champions' ought to take a beating at the hands of more dynamic foreign firms. That won't help European workers of course, but the continued insistence of European governments on ignoring markets makes clear that that's not their goal, anyway.

Read McQ as well, who points out that the interested governments seem to have learned their lesson, and appear unwilling to submit this 'treaty' to popular votes. No use having the people ruin what their elites have decided is best for them. After all, we already know what they think.

Fred Thompson's Getting Closer...

He's in!

Err... OK - you already knew he was in. But now he's IN.

Unless he isn't quite yet -- but he will be and now he has to be -- unless he's willing to break a lease.

Oh -- and he's visiting South Carolina and New Hampshire.

What was it about those states again? I remember they had something in common...

Oh yeah -- presidential primaries.

Media Accuracy Watch

I've been picking on CNN lately. And why not?

Novak: Dems Helping Out Union Buddies

No surprise, really:

HELPING UNIONS

While increasing President Bush's overall request for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill by 8 percent, the House Democratic version cuts by 19.6 percent the Labor Department request for funds to enforce disclosure by labor unions of how they use membership dues.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has tried, against opposition from organized labor, to enforce at long last union disclosures imposed by the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Labor Reform Act. The funding reductions in the House bill would force Chao to cut enforcement personnel and effectively undercut her efforts.

The Democratic bill was put together by Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, who heads the Labor-HHS subcommittee as well as the full Appropriations Committee. It is one of eight money bills marked for a Bush veto. Rep. James Walsh of New York, the subcommittee's ranking Republican, indicates he will vote to override such a veto.

Read Novak for news on McCain's troubles, and for the suggestion that Giuliani won't take Iowa all that seriously.

Congress Out to Destroy the Airborne Laser

If you tell me that this world doesn't have room for an airborne laser ($), I'm not sure I want to go on living in it:

Rounding out the agency’s list of top three priorities is the Airborne Laser program. From the president’s $548.7 million request, the House cut $250 million and the Senate committee shaved $200 million.

Either cut “would spell the demise for the Airborne Laser program,” Altwegg said.

“We think this revolutionary capability should be given a chance to proceed to shoot down” in 2009, he added.

ABL is being designed to locate and track missiles in the boost phase of flight and then accurately point and fire the high-energy laser, destroying the missiles near their launch areas.

The broader article is on the action in Congress to slash the President's request for the Missile Defense Agency. The White House is really between a rock and a hard place on this, as Congress just doesn't like missile defense, and the Russians don't either:

MDA, part of the Defense Department, requested $310.4 million for fiscal 2008 to fund the proposed construction and deployment of an interceptor site in Europe. The House bill (H.R. 1585), chops $160 million in funding while the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill (S. 567), passed by the committee last month, cuts $85 million. It is unclear when the Senate bill will be introduced on the floor. The appropriations committees will not mark up their defense spending bills until after the July Fourth recess.

The United States is proposing to place 10 interceptors in Poland and the affiliated radar in the Czech Republic, but an agreement has not been reached...

Aside from the European interceptor site, Altwegg said MDA’s second priority is to get funding reinstated for the Multiple Kill Vehicle. That project allows for more than one “kill vehicle” to be launched from a single booster, with the ability to shoot down multiple objects.

“It is our linchpin that allows us to cope with ... decoys and other countermeasures that might present themselves,” Altwegg said.

The House cut $42 million from the president’s $271 million MKV request.

The Impartial Media

Is Bob Franken affiliated with any news outlet, or is he a free-lancer now that he no longer works for CNN? Reading his news commentary at The Hill -- particularly this piece about the debate over closing Guantanamo -- leaves you wondering how he was able to report the news in an impartial fashion:

No detainee has escaped, of course, but inevitably, teeny morsels of the truth did. In the name of fighting the War on Terror, U.S. interrogators were oftentimes engaging in treatment that could hardly be described as “humane.”

Guantanamo has been an international embarrassment. So much so that there is a debate within the administration over whether it should be shut down.

But that’s really complex. If these detainees are brought to the United States they would have habeas corpus rights.

For a government that refused to even extend them Geneva Convention protections, this would be like poison.

The administration argues that such niceties are distractions in the fight against global terrorism.

But even with all that the word of mistreatment oozed out and Guantanamo is an embarrassment. So too is the effort to conceal what was going on all this time.

So our national security leaders have painted themselves, and us, into a corner. Democracy can sure be inconvenient.

Speaking of their disdain for the public’s right to know what goes on in this fight to protect our way of life, a friend once remarked, “Never have so many fought so hard for freedoms they despise.”

It is a virtual certainty of course, that if Guantanamo closes, some prisoners that would have gone there will instead remain in prisons in their home countries - or in any 'secret prisons' that may remain in third countries. Do advocates really expect that the closure of Gitmo will improve the treatment received by terror suspects?

Check out more thoughts on Gitmo here.

Speaker Pelosi Supports (Canadian) Veterans

This is great.

Gore's Allies Keeping their Powder Dry

From the Hill:

Most members of Al Gore’s inner political circle have not yet signed up with any presidential campaign, triggering speculation that the 2000 Democratic nominee will jump into the race for the White House later this year. But Gore’s ex-aides and advisers say they do not think their former boss will enter the presidential fray.

Democratic political experts who played significant roles in Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, expressed strong skepticism that Gore would challenge Democratic frontrunners Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

If Gore does not get into the race, he could still play a significant role. What would Bloomberg (or Obama, or Edwards) give him for his endorsement?

Who Would Bloomberg Hurt?

McQ notes that Barone has tackled the question. And it could prove to be a very complex one. Go read the entire piece, but Barone concludes by quoting David Frum:

Bloomberg's numbers will dwindle (as Nader's did). He will then face a stark choice: accept that he's been made a monkey of—or up the ante. Nobody gets to be as rich as Bloomberg if he is not a fierce competitor. So—assuming he has followed the path thus far—he will double down. He will go negative, filling the airwaves with harsh attack ads.

Against whom will those ads be aimed? A lot will ride on that question. Attack ads are dangerous things, because they damage both the attacker and the attackee. Their main effect is not to change votes from D to R or R to D, but to depress turnout among potential supporters of the targeted candidate. Candidates refrain from excess negativity for fear of damaging their own image. But a Bloomberg in the polling basement will feel no such constraint.

The ads will be a free gift to the candidate Bloomberg dislikes less at the expense of the candidate he dislikes more.

And the candidate he dislikes more will almost certainly be the Republican.

That's certainly one plausible scenario, but I don't know that it's the likeliest. Bloomberg is no dummy. I think he could run a competitive race against two major party competitors in a harsh anti-Washington year. He'll present himself as a successful, non-partisan, no-nonsense businessman who knows what it takes to maintain economic growth, solve difficult problems, and work with Republicans and Democrats. With a billion dollars to spend, I'm not sure he reaches the point where 'his numbers dwindle.'

And if you presume that he's willing to unleash hundreds of millions of dollars of negative ads to destroy a rival, why wouldn't he do that early in the race? It's true that negative advertising typically hurts both the target and the candidate who 'goes negative.' But isn't it possible that Bloomberg sees an opening in the spring, decides he has the best chance of co-opting the support of the Democratic candidate, and then decides to spend his millions trashing that person?

Doing Nothing About Energy

The Wall Street Journal features a bipartisan criticism of Congress's approach to our energy needs:

Largely omitted from the debate has been the need to develop comprehensive and effective coal and nuclear transition policies. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts energy consumption to rise by 34% by 2030 and coal's share to rise from 49% to 57.5% over this same period. Likewise, nuclear power presents great promise on both the energy and environmental fronts, but is a hugely capital-intensive industry that must be further considered.

Opportunity still exists to forge a sound and stable domestic energy program that benefits consumers, industries and our economy. Yet, the agenda presented thus far from some corners must be viewed in tandem with the potential costs, including: higher prices for fuel, food, manufacturing and services; gasoline shortages; limited domestic capacity; increased reliance on foreign sources of energy; decreased capital investment and lower economic growth.

Congress must recognize and act upon the difference between hope and reality.

Democratic Infighting on Iraq Getting Ugly

Some analysts argue that Congressional Democrats have demonstrated political brilliance with their single-minded focus on ending the US military operation in Iraq. Democrats have relentlessly criticized the administration and Congressional Republicans, and have refused to actually use the power of the purse to end the conflict.

According to the House Appropriations Committee, Democrats had to go back on their promises on earmark reform because they were too busy working on Iraq. And the focus on Iraq has contributed to the inability of Congress to pass major legislation on other important issues. Privately, moderate Democrats and Freshmen grumble about their conference's failure to make progress on important issues.

But while the focus on Iraq may not be pretty, it's at least paying off to the tune of a 14 percent confidence rating, right? How can critics like me argue with such success?

I'd just point out that while Democrats bask in the public adulation, looks like their decision to start another ineffectual debate on Iraq has led to more nasty internecine warfare:

In an internecine skirmish over control of Democrats’ anti-war message, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday accused Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) of misrepresenting his plan for withdrawal from Iraq...

“Senator Levin knows full well that the plan I introduced … would end funding for the war in Iraq only after our brave troops have been safely redeployed out of Iraq,” Feingold said, labeling Levin’s portrayal of his plan as disingenuous...

Feingold did not let up late yesterday. On liberal-leaning pundit Ed Schultz’s radio show, he tagged Levin a flip-flopper for voting against a binding timeline for withdrawal from Iraq in summer 2006 before supporting it this year.

Meanwhile, a slew of liberal bloggers blasted Levin for suggesting that Congress should continue paying for the war until President Bush heeds calls to withdraw.

“Despite Levin’s flip-flop today in now supporting a redeployment timeline, his capitulation on the 2008 Defense Authorization bill only proves why he is not the man to force a change in Bush’s Iraq policy,” Steve Soto wrote on the Left Coaster blog.

Several singled out Levin’s decision to quote former President Lincoln in discussing the challenge lawmakers face on Iraq.

“There are no pretty words to describe what Levin has done here — he has disingenuously and cravenly used Abraham Lincoln to defend his actions,” Big Tent Democrat wrote on the popular liberal blog TalkLeft...

Harry Reid conceded a week ago that Democrats had unwisely raised the hopes of their core supporters that they could end the war, and suffered as a result. He might also have noted that the decision to drag out the debate has divided Democrats more than it has the Republicans.

Do the Democrats think that by debating this again, Republicans will suffer more from an association with the war? That's not very likely. It's pretty clear that they favor a reassessment of the surge and the mission in September; are they going to shift now?

The debate will however, give commentators the opportunity to point out that Democrats could have ended the conflict if they chose to do so. It will engender more anger from the base against Democrats like Levin. (Who knows -- maybe they can drive him out of the caucus like Lieberman.) And it will raise the hopes of the Left that this time the Democrats will accomplish something.

Earmark Disclosure's Unintended Consequences

Representative Patrick McHenry was among the leaders in fighting for disclosure of earmarks. Now that he's got what he wanted, he's defending one of his own:

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) was all over the House floor last week, bashing Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and other Democratic leaders for not doing enough to disclose member earmarks early in the appropriations process, as Democrats had promised when they took over the House in January. Republicans eventually got Democrats to back down and release the earmark requests -- read "pork" -- earlier than Obey had planned, so McHenry got what he wanted. And now McHenry will be forced to defend his $129,000 earmark, via the Small Business Administration, for Christmas trees.

Actually, the $129K is to go to the The Mitchell County Development Foundation, "a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating jobs and strengthening the educational system, as well as promoting tourism in Mitchell County."

The "Perfect Christmas Tree" part comes in because in 2003, author Gloria Houston donated the rights to her children's book, "The Perfect Christmas Tree" to the town of Spruce Pine, N.C. Spruce Pine and Mitchell Country have lost thousands of textile and manufacturing jobs over the last several years to foreign competition. Mitchell County used the money to fund some small business jobs for woodworkers and other craftsman.

Will Doha Collapse Lead to Porked-Up Farm Bill

International trade agreements are good for the US because they reduce the taxes that consumers and producers pay on goods shipped internationally -- whether they be imports or exports. They've also had the indirect benefit of preventing the US government from going 'whole hog' in giving agricultural interests the subsidies and protections to which they feel entitled.

Leaders in Congress and the Executive Branch have been able to tell farm interests, 'I'd love to help you out, but the WTO (or the EU, or Australia, or Mexico, or whoever) will file a trade grievance and slam us with penalties.' Further, while administration officials routinely claim not to do this, it at least gives them an opening to push for more pro-market ag policy, on the pretext that some key trade partner is forcing it.

The Doha Round of trade talks has been on life support since before it began (remember Seattle?) and today is no different. Agricultural talks have again gone south, and participants are pessimistic -- as they usually are -- about the chance of reaching an accord.

What is the practical effect in Washington? Well, it looks like the next Farm Bill can be more generous than it might have appeared just a day ago:

Thursday’s collapse of talks aimed at jump-starting international trade negotiations could reduce pressure on lawmakers in both chambers to keep world trade considerations uppermost in their minds as they write the 2007 farm bill...

The failure to return to negotiations comes as Congress is writing the 2007 farm bill, which will determine federal farm policy for the next five years. A key issue has a proposal from the Bush administration to cut funding for “countercyclical” payments to farms and instead provide farmers direct payments unrelated to production or sales.

Direct payments are thought to provide less of a “safety net” for farmers, but they are also considered less distorting to the market, and thus preferable under WTO standards. But the collapse of Doha negotiations means backers of direct payments will no longer be able to argue that they would better comply with WTO.

Another proposal known as Farm 21, sponsored by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) in the House and former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), would phase out all farm subsidies and replace them with conservation payments. It too could suffer from the failed talks. Proponents had argued that the plan’s trade compliance requirements would protect farmers from future trade disputes.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who said in a Thursday conference call that he expects his committee to begin marking up a Senate version of the bill after the July 4 recess, released a statement on the talks, saying, “I am very disappointed that discussion among trade ministers from these countries broke down, particularly since it now looks unlikely that an agreement will be reached any time soon.”

Harkin continued, “It is crucial that the U.S. proposal in domestic agricultural support be matched by similar improvements in offers from our trading partners in market access and export competition. We should have seen more willingness to match the U.S. offer, but we did not see it.”

Translation: if you're not going to give up your subsidies, why should we?

Posting Earmarks Online

I am as cynical as the next guy -- usually quite a lot more cynical, actually. But the competition between Republicans and Democrats does indeed make for a more responsive government over time.

Republicans had grown complacent and lost all taste for reform, so the voters kicked them out in favor of Democrats who promised to do better. Now that the Democrats have faltered, the GOP suddenly displays the zeal of the convert, on at least some issues.

To wit: the Republican Study Committee -- led by Congressman Jeb Hensarling -- is now publishing online all the earmarks they discover in moving appropriations measures. Here's the link for the earmark list associated with the Interior and Environment bill.

Do you have a suggestion for the next step in opening the House to greater transparency? Send it to them. I bet they're a receptive audience. And if not, try suggesting it to the Democrats. After all, there's no monopoly on reform.

Another Global Warming Skeptic

Vaclav Klaus -- the President of the Czech Republic -- argues in the Financial Times against a collective response to global warming:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The odd thing is, global warming 'advocates' like John Travolta are probably doing more to harm their cause than people like Klaus.

Electing an Outsider in 2008

The confidence rating for Congress is about as low as it's ever been. Americans view Congress as out of touch, resistant to change, and unwilling to tackle important issues. There's no confidence that Iraq will end well, and little chance that:

• Congress will take action on immigration, energy, entitlement reform, and ethics; AND,
• The American people will view those challenges as 'solved' in a meaningful way.
  

Unless things change dramatically in 16 months, the American electorate will be awfully restive come election day. They are likely to want significant change in Washington.

Now consider the candidates. Who's best situated to take advantage of that?

OUTSIDERS:

Michael Bloomberg: Bloomberg fits the bill. While a lifelong liberal, he hasn't been a (registered) Democrat in a while. He governed a Democratic city as a nominal Republican. He is seen as having solved big problems and gotten Republicans and Democrats to work together. He'll run as an Independent. Credentials on 'independence' and 'change?' Best in the field.

Barack Obama: As an African-American, he clearly is somewhat different. Plus, his style and manner seem a 'breath of fresh air.' He'd be more credible than some in talking about 'changing the tone' in Washington. Still, his record on the issues is that of an old-line Kennedy liberal. The GOP nominee would have fun contrasting the rhetoric and the substance.

Rudy Giuliani: Not shockingly, his profile is similar to Bloomberg's. His record is that of a problem solver (crime, budget, welfare, and the economy in NYC) who can bring Republicans and Democrats together. His high-profile unwillingness to shift on abortion enhances his credibility. The only knock on his outsider status is that he actually has been a defender of the Bush administration.

Fred Thompson: Outsider credentials? He's an actor; he served just one full Senate term and then showed no desire to return to elective office; and he sounds like the no-nonsense, maverick outsider (a persona that's heavily reinforced in his acting roles). Weaknesses? He will be painted as a DC lawyer/lobbyist, and there's more than some truth to the characterization. Can he promise to get Republicans and Democrats to work together? Perhaps not -- but he will probably strive to be the fed-up outsider who promises to shake things up -- and he might be the strongest in the field in that respect.

MIXED RECORD:

John Edwards: He hasn't served in office for several years, and his 'two Americas' message has a strong and inherent outsider flavor. His criticisms of Democrats in DC help him as well. Undercutting the outsider image is that he's been running for President since 2003 or so.

John McCain: Has spent a lifetime in Washington, fighting the establishment. Outsider credentials? Mixed. Bipartisan credentials are excellent, due to McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. Those bipartisan credits also seem likely to prove fatal to his candidacy.

Mitt Romney: Pretty good outsider/change credentials. He is not of Washington; he solved problems in Massachusetts (health care), and he certainly worked with Democrats -- plus he's the closest thing to an 'Iraq critic' now in the GOP field. His achilles heel is the perception that he has dramatically changed position to get in line with GOP orthodoxy.

THE INSTITUTION:

Hillary Clinton: Outsider credentials? She's a woman. That counts for something, but apart from that she's the closest thing to a Washington institution in this race. Can she promise to 'change the tone,' or 'get Republicans and Democrats to work together?' Not a chance in hell. Plus, after 20 straight years of Bushes and Clintons, she's the only one in the field that offers more of the same. If she wins the nomination and the electorate wants change, she could get trounced in the general election -- particularly if Bloomberg runs.

Am I missing anything? It seems to me that if voters want change in DC -- and they will -- then the candidates best positioned to take advantage are Bloomberg, Obama, Giuliani and Thompson. This doesn't mean of course, that these are the best candidates overall -- they all have plenty of other strengths and weaknesses. But in a general election, 'outsider/change' credentials are likely to be a big boost.

Nailing it on Bloomberg

John Mercurio of the Hotline argues that Democrats should be 'terrified' of a Bloomberg candidacy:

'He is a liberal Democrat. He will pull strongly... from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in a general election -- if he is an independent candidate. And he will pull from the independents...'

And while we're on the topic, now looms another potential independent bid that should scare Democrats:

Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.

If Bloomberg runs, an indie bid by Nader probably offers no greater threat to Democrats. That's because any likely Nader voter would be angry enough at Democrats to vote for Bloomberg.

Media Bias?

No way.

Travolta as Concerned as Ever about Global Warming

He arrived at the Paris Air Show in his personal 707, and had nice things to say about flying the Airbus 380:

Hollywood star John Travolta brought a splash of glamour to the Paris Air Show on Thursday as feverish buying of Airbus planes from Asian and Middle Eastern airlines continued.

Travolta, a qualified pilot and plane enthusiast, landed at the Paris Air Show in his personal Boeing 707 late on Wednesday and was to appear publicly at the exhibition site later on Thursday, organisers said.

The photo is from my colleagues at the Worldwide Standard.

Rob Port has written on Travolta before:

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to “do their bit” to tackle global warming.

But although he readily admitted: “I fly jets”, he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton’s tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using “alternative methods of fuel” – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson...

“It [global warming] is a very valid issue,” Travolta declared. “I’m wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

“Everyone can do their bit. But I don’t know if it’s not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.

Yes, we all have to do our bit. Travolta is doing his bit by courageously jetting around the world on his own private plane, and telling us all to live more modest lifestyles.

Morris: Congress Unpopular Because Nothing Has Changed

That's the assessment of Dick Morris. In particular, he points to the great number of congressional wives and children who earn loads of cash lobbying:

Of the 100 senators, the sons, daughters, husbands or wives of 20 of them are registered as lobbyists, whose job often boils down to lobbying Mom or Dad. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is typical of the conflicts that can arise in such a situation. His son Scott Hatch lobbied for the makers of ephedra while his father sponsored legislation to exempt the diet supplement from federal regulation. Scott got paid $2 million in lobbying fees, while Dad got more than $137,000 from the diet supplement industry.

Is Pelosi Trying to Kill the Immigration Bill

This is probably an effort -- at least in part -- to encourage Republicans who want an immigration bill (including the president, obviously) to step up efforts to line up supporters in the House GOP. If however, Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Lofgren really do not intend to advance a bill until September, there's a good chance it will be too late to get anything done:

House Democratic leaders began a series of immigration “listening” sessions Wednesday, but they may not have a bill ready before September — a timetable some backers say could kill the effort...

Lofgren, D-Calif., has yet to unveil a draft bill, House leaders are holding “listening” sessions this week and next with rank-and-file lawmakers rather than committee markups, and Pelosi has set a high bar for House consideration, including evidence of up to 70 Republican votes.

All of that raises doubts both within and outside Pelosi’s caucus about the feasibility of a July timeline for House action...

“If it hasn’t passed both houses by the end of July, it is toast,” predicted Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who wrote an immigration bill with Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill.

Democrats insist that Pelosi wants to pass an immigration bill, but Republicans survey the same landscape and see plenty of reasons why the California Democrat might hope it gets buried.

“If Pelosi takes up the Senate bill and moves it further to the left, it will convert our biggest potential liability into a motivating force for our base,” said Florida Rep. Adam H. Putnam, the Republican Conference chairman.

Democratic divisions have, to this point, been obscured by Republican infighting. But when the House considers an immigration bill, the majority of House Democrats are likely to be at odds with swing-district colleagues, particularly freshmen whose 2006 electoral victories gave Democrats their first House majority in a dozen years...

Some Democrats say that after years of debating immigration, the listening sessions are unlikely to yield many new votes.

“We don’t need no stinkin’ listening sessions,” said one veteran lawmaker, paraphrasing from the film “Blazing Saddles.”

Democratic leaders remain reluctant to discuss their plans for an immigration bill.

“Let’s see what the Senate does and then we’ll decide what we’re going to do,” Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said.

Read the whole piece; it's a very good summary of where the debate stands. I also can't help but laugh at the comment that 'the listening sessions are unlikely to yield many new votes.' Gee, ya think? It sure seemed to me that people were falling in love with this bill the more they hear about it.

The House Republicans have their mouths watering to get this debate underway, and they expect that the bill put forward by the Democratic leadership will be to the left of whatever passes the Senate. They feel there's no way they can lose politically. And with moderate Democrats from swing districts downright scared of the isue, you can see why.

Pay attention to what Rahm Emanuel says; he's probably the most politically astute of the House Democrats. In his move from chair of the DCCC to caucus chair, he essentially oversaw the gaining of the House majority, and has now been entrusted with keeping it. If he sounds dubious about going forward, it's because he knows it will be politically costly.

More Sopranos Parodies...

From the mascots for the Pittsburgh Pirates:



It seems that the number of mascots a team has is inversely proportional to the success of that team.

Everyone Needs a Hobby

A Michigan man is building Stonehenge in his backyard:



You can check out his website here.

Reactions to the Sopranos

A little late, but this is still pretty funny:

Is Global Cooling the Next Great Threat?

Is the science settled, or not? A Canadian scientist argues that a study of mud layers shows we need to prepare for a period of global cooling:

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Hat Tip: Glenn

Nussle Not All that Popular on Capitol Hill

This is welcome news. I think we were all getting tired of the warm and chummy relations between Bush and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Nice to know we may get some confrontation for a change:

After dealing with the easygoing Portman, who was well-liked on both sides of the aisle, the sharper-edged Nussle evokes a more combative style.

Although he was firm on spending, Portman has also displayed a willingness to compromise, including on the Iraq war supplemental and on agreeing to more fiscal 2008 veterans' spending than Bush requested.

Democrats were preparing for a long fall fight over appropriations, but with Nussle, accommodation might be harder.

"Jim has a reputation at least of being much more intransigent than Rob was, much more stubborn," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Nussle, who must be confirmed by the Senate, called him Tuesday and offered to meet with him. But when pressed for comment, Reid would say only, "I hope he's as easy as Portman to work with."

Don't bet on it. The good cop has left town and Cipowitz has arrived.

Trouble for Hillary

Looks like she's not winning any converts in the netroots:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) problems with the antiwar left were on display again Wednesday morning as her Iraq talking points were met with boos for a second straight year.

Speaking to the Take Back America conference, Clinton boasted of voting against the most recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, but antiwar groups, including the persistent members of Code Pink, booed even that.

Shouts of “Get us out” and “Stop the war” were audible throughout Clinton’s remarks, but the part of her speech devoted to the war sparked widespread boos that eventually yielded to an outbreak of cheers and support from Clinton’s supporters in the room.

If she secures the nomination -- as seems increasingly likely -- will their antipathy toward her be a factor?

A House Republican Immigration Proposal

This is likely to be the official alternative to whatever House Democrats advocate. Are you surprised that the thrust is enforcement first?

The legislation emphasizes beefed-up border security and detention of illegal immigrants, increased enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers and a revamped H-2A program for temporary agriculture workers. The legislation would require government agencies to coordinate their databases for verifying a person's identity, improve information-sharing practices, and validate identification documents. And it would require employers to participate in an "employment eligibility verification" program for their workers.

NRCC Chair Cole predicted yesterday that something would pass the Senate, and that House Democrats would move it 'to the left.' The House GOP is staking its ground, too.

Slow Progress in Democratic House

CQ notes that Democrats must soon waive the Budget Act in order to take their traditional July 4th break. The Act requires the House to have passed all the regular appropriations bills for the coming fiscal year, or return to Washington after just 3 days.

CQ says that the rule is waived frequently -- which is true -- but the last time it was not waived was just 2 years ago -- when the GOP ran a 'do-nothing' Congress. It's obviously not a big deal, just one more thing to remember when Democrats crow about how much better they are running the Congress than the GOP did:

Tucked into the 1974 Budget Act (PL 93-344) is a rule that prevents the House from taking more than three days off during the July Fourth recess unless all appropriations bills have been passed for the next fiscal year.

Normally, that would present a tricky problem. But as it often does with bothersome rules, the House typically waives the budget provision, leaving members free to enjoy a week or more off during the nation’s Independence Day celebrations.

That’s likely to be case this year. The July Fourth recess is only two weeks away, and the House has passed only two out of the 12 appropriations measures for fiscal 2008: Homeland Security (HR 2638) and Military Construction-VA (HR 2642).

It wasn’t so long ago, though, when the House got its appropriations work done before the July recess. That was in 2005, when the House passed all 11 of the 2006 spending measures in May and June.

George Backs Fred

George Allen's defeat in his re-election bid last year created an opening in the GOP presidential race. While everyone had expected Allen to be the 'Reagan conservative' in the race, he could no longer fill that role. Enter Fred Thompson.

Well, now the circle seems to be complete, as Allen is promoting Thompson's candidacy:

Allen introduced former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) when the probable presidential candidate keynoted the state party’s gala earlier this month.

“I think [a Thompson candidacy] is good,” Allen said. “I would encourage him to do so.”

Though Allen said he is not yet endorsing a Thompson bid, he did say that to grassroots Republicans “who care about the party,” Thompson’s popularity indicates “there has been a bit of a void for someone with a proven conservative record.”

Allen said that while current front-runner and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani still is “America’s Mayor” and acted admirably following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his positions on gun control and abortion issues “concern some folks.”

One other thing they have in common: the same highly-skilled new media consultant.

Bloomberg's Indie Bid

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg has changed his party registration from Republican to Independent:

Bloomberg plunged the country's political landscape further into chaos on Tuesday evening when he released a statement saying he was quitting the Republican Party.

"I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven�t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City," Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg, who joined the Republican Party in 2001 after spending his life as a registered Democrat, went on to discuss his progress in leading New York City.

I wrote about Bloomberg's politics here the other day. Suffice it to say that on the face of it -- and absent any further knowledge about how he would run -- you have to guess that he would tend to take more votes from the Democratic nominee than from the Republican. If he actually announces, and as he clarifies his views, we'll learn more.

I had the opportunity to join Rob at this session with NRCC Chair Tom Cole yesterday, and hope to write up my notes today. Throughout the session, Cole kept stressing that the 2008 environment will require candidates to be 'nimble,' since it will be unpredictable. He alluded multiple times to the possibility of a major independent bid. If Bloomberg does run and spend a lot of money, things will be unpredictable, indeed.

Hat Tip: Glenn

Update: The Politico covers the story as well. Ben Smith's piece makes pretty clear why Republicans will welcome him into the race:

He has allied himself with centrists such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and become a national spokesman on issues from gun control to the environment...

His political and personal views are more in line with moderate Democratic Party politics: His first major act as mayor was a large property tax increase, his most controversial was a citywide ban on smoking, and the signature accomplishment of his first term was an education reform that mixed centralized control with increased spending.

Vocally opposed to remarriage for himself, he favors the right to same-sex marriage and has confessed not only to smoking marijuana but to enjoying it.

Call me crazy, but who do you think he will appeal to more?

Update II: I have to disagree with CA Yankee on this -- at least if he means that this is good for Hillary. I'm not sure if he's being sarcastic or not, though.

Update II: Finding more info, including -- surprise! -- Bloomberg's 'official site' (not his campaign site, mind you!). The issues page addresses education, public health, job creation, fiscal responsibility, illegal guns, affordable housing, poverty reduction, environment and sustainability, and arts and culture.

The Paris Air Show

I'm blogging exclusively at this site this week, since the Weekly Standard blog is focussed on the Paris Air Show. Go check it out; there's lots of good stuff.

Plus, my colleague Mike Goldfarb has a keen eye.

Fred Thompson Speaks to Policy Exchange

You will find the entire speech here at Townhall. Go read it. There's a good chance Thompson will be the GOP nominee; you might as well learn what he's saying to our most important ally. My favorite part is addressed to those in Europe who think the world needs a balance to America:

For many Americans, there is a concern that even among our friends, some people are instinctively uncomfortable with U.S. power. Some on the Continent speak of the need for Europe to balance U.S. influence. Americans worry that this sentiment could, over time, lead to an uncoupling of the alliance. And if constraining U.S. power is that important, would our European friends be comfortable with other powers serving as a counterweight to the United States?

Some who seek to check U.S. power believe that legitimacy may only be conferred by international consensus as represented by the UN Security Council. They ask, “If a country can invade another nation for its own good reasons, what is the logical stopping point?”

The American response is to ask how, then, does one justify non-Security-Council-sanctioned actions, such as Kosovo? What are nations allowed to do when the UN cannot muster the political will to act? How many countries must be involved in an action before legitimacy is conferred? Is it just European countries that count? And, how do we deal with problems in concert when many of us don’t agree on the extent or nature of the problem?

For our part, we in the United States must make a better case for our views and our actions. It is possible that things that are perfectly obvious to us may not be so obvious even to those who wish us well. We must be willing to listen and we must be willing to share our intelligence to the maximum extent appropriate.

We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.

In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.

Even with Britain, France and Germany now led by people who are more or less pro-America, there's no question that there's a substantial constituency in Europe for a check on American influence. Given the unlikelihood that a strong and united Europe can play that role, there's probably no such counterweight that available that Europe would probably find acceptable. So they're stuck with us.

The question is how to make that work better for all concerned. Thompson's formulation is not 'rocket science,' but it's good to lay it out nonetheless.

Update: By the way, Dick Morris argues that Thompson won't win the nomination because -- basically -- he doesn't look good on TV. I may be going out on a limb, but I bet he'll do just fine.

Update II: Here are a few videos from the Q&A (apparently) where he addresses Iran and Lady Thatcher. They're from the Britain and America blog (which is loading slowly)





Iran is particularly important, since there's a good chance that Iran will be a more salient election issue in 2008 than will Iraq.

Hat Tip: Glenn

Hillary's Campaign Song

She announces it on her website, in a video spoof of the Sopranos finale. Johnny Sack does a cameo that will forever stain his memory.

The video is also notable for the fact that it reunites Hillary Clinton with her husband, the former President. I don't recall having seen them together in some time and indeed, he seems not even to have kept up with her campaign.

I wonder if we'll see them together again before the Democratic convention?