Modern Psychology Tips Its Hand

Haven't you always suspected this was the real objective?

Lieberman a Real Democrat?

I missed this piece from Novak earlier this week, but it's a useful reminder that Joe Lieberman may sound reasonable, and may be perceived as conservative - but that's not what his record shows.

Lieberman has to win GOP votes to get re-elected, but that probably won't lead to changes in policy or tone. After all, he's very popular among Republicans as he is.

But notwithstanding that I just saw Lieberman tell Bob Schieffer that he will remain a Democrat if re-elected, I don't believe him. I still cannot believe that he can go back to being a Democrat if he does what it takes to win this race as an Independent. What kind of stuff am I talking about? Garnering donations from Republicans, and hiring Republican pollsters.

Back to the top.

Vigilante Racial Profilers...

Fascinating story from the Daily Mail. Airline passengers feared that two arabic men on the plane were terrorists, and refused to allow the plane to take off until the men were removed.

Apparently these men were not terrorists, but what happens if more passengers do this? I would have thought it unlikely, figuring that if it was not done after September 11, it never would be. But apparently people are not content to see 75 year old caucasian grandmothers treated the same as 22-year old arabic men. Will more of this happen?

Back to the top.

House of Representatives in Suspended Animation

Well, they say that nothing happens in Congress in August. That's especially true this year, when a fire has cut off most power to the Longworth and Cannon House Office Buildings. I was up there today, and the buildings were without air conditioning, most lights, and most elevators. It wasn't quite Logan's Run or Mad Max, but think The Postman and you're close.

Hhhmmm... perhaps the House ought to look into hamsters...

Back to the top.

Meet Your GOP Candidate: Joe Lieberman

You heard it here a while ago. Now Political Wire confirms it: the National Republican Senate Committee supports Joe Lieberman for re-election.

Back to the top.

Jane, You Ignorant Slut...

While on travel, I had the chance to listen to a well-known, non-partisan, political analyst, and a member of the staff of the NRCC talk about expectations and projections for the fall elections.

First the non-partisan: he was not encouraging (if you're a Republican). He said that it's looking likely that the Democrats will retake the House. He noted similarities to 1994, and said that with Bush's popularity extremely low and with Bush's poll numbers appearing to be largely 'frozen,' (an assertion I don't really agree with), it's hard for the GOP to get much traction. This analyst said that for some months, 'macro' polls showed the GOP in big trouble, but that the dynamics of individual races did not seem to follow. He said that as time has gone on however, those races have materialized into ones that the Democrats are likely to win. He also noted that the GOP always took solace in the fact that while the GOP overall was unpopular, most voters still supported their own GOP incumbent. That has changed as well he said, so that now polls show that people are no longer so supportive of their own Congressman. Lastly, he said, polls show that Democratic voters are more highly motivated than their GOP counterparts.

He concluded by saying that this year looks like a big wave - on the order of 15-20 seats. But he added that in such years, the wave usually develops in such a way that about 5 more incumbents get beaten who were thought completely safe. So his guess is that unless something big happens to change the dynamic, the GOP will lose the House with a few seats to spare.

Anyway, the next day I heard from an NRCC strategist who took a completely different point of view. He explained why the GOP will retain control of the House. The key he said, is that the GOP has better candidates, is better at getting out the vote, and has recognized that elections cannot be nationalized (an assertion with which I don't completely agree). On this latter point, he said that Democrats have been trying in vain for years to win a majority based on Iraq, gas prices, corruption, and other meta issues. He said that the reason for their failure is that local issues dominate local races.

I'm not sure that the GOP is set to lose the House. Partly this is because there remain few truly competitive races. NRCC chair Tom Reynolds has pointed out that Democrats needed to win 87% of all competitive races to win the House. Further, Ken Mehlman is the GOP secret weapon. He organized Get-Out-the-Vote efforts for the GOP in 2004 and before, and his ability to identify GOP voters and get them to the polls is unparallelled. Recall that in 2004 Kerry was sure he won the White House, because the numbers showed that Democrats had voted in such large numbers that there was no way he could have lost. The only problem was that Mehlman turned out more GOP voters than Democrats thought possible.

Further, elections can be nationalized. This is pretty basic, it seems to me. Why would there be a '6-year curse' which turns out dozens of members of the President's party, if an election isn't nationalized?

Anyway, the GOP will lose some seats because people are coming out to vote against Bush. But there is no reason that they can't also gain an advantage from pointing out to voters that Nancy Pelosi and her team oppose some of the key laws and tactics being used by the administration to frustrate terrorist attacks. I think that however disappointed voters may be with Bush, they recognize that it is no accident that there have been no successful terrorist attacks in the US since September 11. If reminded why that is so, I think voters will respond by supporting Republican candidates.

On the Senate, this analyst thinks it rather likely that the GOP will stay in control. He said that it is easy to project the GOP losing 5 Senate seats, but hard to get to the 6th (which Harry Reid needs to become Majority Leader). This analyst says that Rick Santorum and Conrad Burns are more or less goners. It is not difficult to project Lincoln Chafee, Mike DeWine, and Jim Talent as losers. But he said that for Democrats to retake the Senate, they then need to win a long-shot - in Tennessee or Virginia. He does not think that especially likely.

But with regard to Santorum, check out Tim Chapman and Political Wire.

Back to the top.

Lieberman Angering Dem Colleagues

Hey folks - been on travel a few days, but I've returned and will be blogging more in the next few days. First item of interest on my return is this news from The Hill that Democratic Senators are growing angry with Joe Lieberman's recent actions in his Independent campaign for Senate.

I've been saying for months that Joe Lieberman will have a hard time returing to the Democratic caucus if he is re-elected as an Independent. Stuff like this will make it tougher.

Back to the top.

Even a Broken Clock...

is right twice a day. I have to agree with Senator Levin that the results in Lebanon are uncertain at best. However, he goes on to say:

"It seems to me you've got to be very objective, very straightforward, very
honest about what we are facing if you're going to try to rally the world
against the terrorist threat."

And right there he loses me, at the same place where the Democrats always lose me, the recommended course of action. I would argue that if we actually were "very objective, very straightforward and very honest about what we are facing" we would admit to ourselves that "rallying the world" is no way to solve the problem. Allowing the world to rally is what got us a UN resolution that preserves Hezbollah. If we're objective, straightforward and honest, we're going to realize that if you want something done right, you're going to have to do it yourself, whether that's in South Lebanon, Sadr city or somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan.

North Korea Has Its Hand Out Again

I haven't been keeping a very good eye on the DPRK lately but it looks like the recent flooding in the North has accelerated the reestablishment of DPRK-ROK contacts, at least in the area of humanitarian aid. Evidently, the South Koreans can't stand to see the unfortunates north of the border suffer and that concern trumps any desire to punish Pyongyang for its recent missile tests and continuing nuclear program. And in my humble opinion this one of the few occasions when that kind of self-defeating humanitarianism is understandable. I have to think that any South Koreans who hope for reconciliation with the North are basing those hopes on the belief that the two countries are one people. And it's hard to watch your own people suffer under any circumstances.

Nevertheless, it is another reminder of one of the greatest disadvantages we and our allies have in dealing with those who threaten us. We just can't seem to stand the sight of blood anymore, particularly when it's the other guy's.

The Final Humiliation.

If you think this lackluster "war" damaged Israel's credibility in the region, you haven't seen anything yet. Obviously the Israelis aren't looking for Jackson's involvement, but the fact that circumstances permit Jackson to stick his nose in shows just how hollow Omert and Bush's claims of "victory" really are.

Nationalizing the Elections

There's a shift going on in how the parties are approaching the midterm congressional elections. Up until now, Democrats have been trying to nationalize the elections, while Republicans have been trying to localize them. The Democrats have been succeeding, as current polls show the GOP taking it on the chin; it seems that if elections were held today, the GOP would likely lose the House of Representatives. (I encountered a Democratic Member of Congress the other day discussing with lobbyists how she anticipated handling her subcommittee when she chairs it next year).

Well, now I think we're starting to see evidence that Republicans are accepting that the election has been nationalized, and that they're trying to frame the issues on which they are nationalized. I've noticed this first on immigration, where endangered Republican incumbents Charles Taylor and Thelma Drake (to name but two) are attacking their opponents for being soft on border control. I am sure that there are already others, and they will be many before the elections. I know of longtime GOP incumbents in both Ohio and Connecticut for example, who are shocked at the depth of feeling among constituents about immigration. This is true in lots of places around the country, and will lead many GOP incumbents to run ads on immigration. I would also not be shocked if the House GOP re-passes the Border Security bill in the last days before the election, to try to make it a central issue on election day: Democrats either hand the GOP a major victory, or stand in the way of border protection.

As I alluded to the other day, Republicans may try to tie Democratic congressional candidates to party leaders who oppose things like wiretaps, surveillance of terror financing, and the like. Now the Hotline notes that Tom Reynolds - the Republican campaign chief - is starting to do this:

Is NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds setting up what the fall nationalized (televised) GOP message is going to be with this attack on House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi: "As a New Yorker who witnessed first-hand the grievous destruction brought on this country by terrorists, I say to Leader Pelosi that she ought to be ashamed to have voted against doing everything possible to prevent such an attack. The wiretap provision of the PATRIOT Act has proven itself invaluable in fighting the Global War on Terror and Congresswoman Pelosi is on the record opposing it.

The GOP is likely to suffer serious losses in the elections. This may be an effective strategy for reducing them.

Back to the top.

You Gotta Pitch to the Slugger

I disagree with Jonathan Last's friend - but judging by the comments section, I am the only one. How often do conservatives decry the lack of civility in society, and a lack of respect for basic right and wrong.

If we're talking Major League Baseball, I'm walking the slugger in a heartbeat. But this is Little League we're talking about. I could live accept walking the slugger to get to a weak hitter; that's baseball. But you can't take advantage of the fact that the weak hitter is also a cancer patient.

Back to the top.

AP Misses it; Time Gets it

There's an interesting contrast in today's news with regard to the terrorist chemical explosive plot just broken up. First off, note that the terrorists had just been given the go-ahead to attack. (And people wonder about the timing?) And you should also know that a key to uncovering the plot was a tip from 'a member of the muslim community.' And the attack was apparently scheduled for August 16.

The AP comes off pretty darn silly for its article entitled "Bush staff wanted bomb detect cash moved." It might just be the headline that's the problem, because the article has no coherent point and the headline gives the impression that there is one:

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 11, 7:38 PM ET

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

First note for Solomon: in a federal budget in excess of $2 trillion, every $6 million shift is 'quiet.' Would Solomon describe a moth in a hurricane as 'quiet,' too?

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget...

"They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using," Sabo said.

...Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

So Republicans and Democrats agree that the agency is a 'rudderless ship,' and are disappointed that it has been unable to spend $200 million provided to it in recent years, and yet the headline is that the Bush administration wanted $6 million shifted away? What about the $200 million unspent?

The rest of the article is similarly pointless. If Solomon and the AP are suggesting that this $6 million is somehow important to the effort to thwart terror plots, they're entirely unable to sustain the point.

Plus, even if this technology is important (which makes some sense), that's not what broke up this terror plot. And the proposed $6 million shift would have made no difference in thwarting the attack.

CNN's story on the plot discusses the methods that broke it up, and makes clear that the threat to efforts to thwart terrorists comes not from $6 million budget shifts, but from the NYT, LAT, and others in the MSM:

Counterterrorism officials used telephone records, e-mails and bank records to connect the suspects and build a detailed picture of the conspiracy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said.

Their spending habits and bank accounts also were traced by a unit that monitors the flow of money to provide evidence of association, the memo said.

Bank records, telephone calls, and money flows huh? Who would have thought that things like that could help you catch terrorists? It boggles the mind that the MSM see no harm in trying to expose every possible detail about how these programs operate.

And credit to Time magazine, which seems to lack the courage of its convictions, but at least suggests the correct response:

The answer, say security experts, highlights the need for a security system based on sophisticated profiling: It may be more important for the security system to be geared towards detecting passengers with intent to do harm rather than relying on detecting the specific means they've chosen. Boston's Logan Airport is currently testing a version of profiling called the SPOT program, but it avoids the ethnic profiling that many security experts say, despite its objectionable political connotations, would have to be the focus of an effective system.

Get ready for the next set of Republican campaign commercials: can you trust Democrats who oppose wiretaps and monitoring of transactions to fight the war on terror?

Back to the top.

Islamic Terrorists as Devil Worshippers

One of my favorite parts of the writing of CS Lewis is an epsiode from The Last Battle, which is the last book in the Narnia series. Aslan (who represents God) confronts Tash (who represents the devil). One of Tash's warriors - Emeth - is a good and righteous man, who misunderstands Tash and believes him to represent good, not evil. What is this warrior's fate? Redemption or damnation? Aslan answers him:

I take to me the services which thou hast done to him [Tash]. For I and he [Tash] are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he knows it not, and it is I who reward him...

At its heart, I suspect that this is more of a question about your religious beliefs than anything else. But if you believe in God as depicted in the Bible, and superimpose the theology of Aslan, then are not terrorists (Islamic terrorists in our current circumstance) following the devil?

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Back to the top.

Containing North Korea

Am I the only one who hadn't noticed that China has frozen North Korea's funds? China is North Korea's one and only patron, and the route through which it launders all the money it uses to evade limits on acquisition of critical technology.

It's a sign that China recognizes that it's being endangered by North Korea's recklessness. This recklessness might eventually lead to Japan becoming a nuclear power, and it will certainly help lead to a victory by Shinzo Abe when Japan votes in September.

Back to the top.

Omert Struts and Frets

"Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."

Omert can't decide whether he's coming or going. Will he have the courage to go down and tell the grunts that some of them may have to get killed as a bargaining manoeuvre?

Parting shots?

It seems that Omert has faith in two things, the UN and airpower. Beirut gets hit again.

Omert Decides To Try Jaw-Jaw

Israeli government moves to clear way for UN vote Friday. Needless to say, the IDF command is apoplectic.

But who needs the IDF, when you've got 10,000 Frenchmen to protect you?

Thinking about the Lamonts, the Schiffs, Soros et al...

Got me wondering: which is the party of the wealthy plutocrats, again?

Does the Washington Post Have This Section?

Al Jazeera, it turns out, has an entire section of their website devoted to allowing paranoiac speculation free publicity.