Political Football

December 31, 2007

The Conservative Tide in Major Democracies

By Bruce Walker

When things are going poorly for the Left, count on it to change the subject. After the surge refused to fail, the surge ceased to be news. Recall four years ago, when “all” the leaders of our major democratic friends were hostile to America, to our liberation of Iraq, and in particular to President Bush? Remember how Senator Kerry said that leaders of Europe privately wanted him to win the presidency? That news has ceased to become newsworthy.
Why? Because, like the surge, the sentiment in major democracies has turned as well.

The most outstanding example, of course, is the change in France. Sarkozy, a frankly pro-American French president, took office and completely transformed the policies of his nation (precisely as I had predicted he would in many articles over the period of years preceding his election.) Next most vital was the selection, after a very odd Bundestag election, of Angela Merkel as chancellor of Germany. Although much less flamboyant than Sarkozy, Merkel is quietly supportive of America and Israel, leading Palestinians during her visit to the Holy Lands to complain that she was “more pro-Israel than the Israelis.” Our neighbor to the north, Canada, also replaced the anti-American Grits with Conservative Stephen Harper. Tony Blair left of his own accord in Britain, but his Labour Party remains to the Left of the Conservative Party, the logical and historical intra-national ally of America.

In each of four major nations important to us, France, Germany, Canada, and Britain, there remain obstacles for conservatives and pro-Americans. Sarkozy cannot completely change the attitudes of his countrymen, even if he does wield considerable political clout and even if his rhetoric is absolutely fearless. Merkel and her party are a minority in the Bundestag, even when the traditional allies of the CDU/CSU, the FDP are included. Harper also is a minority premier, with all the other parties to the left of his Conservative Party. Cameron, the Conservative Party leader in the United Kingdom, is the leader of the opposition, not the prime minister.

But the condition within these democracies, these nations historically most important to America in both political and cultural connections, has improved – in some cases, dramatically improved – since the last elections in each nation.

Merkel’s Christian Democrat Party / Christian Social Union, after the October 2005 election, won only 226 out of the 614 seats in the Bundestag. Her party coalition received only 35.2% of the party list vote (most indicative of national support.) The SPD, the party of Schroeder, won 222 seats in the Bundestag and 34.2% of the party list vote. Even if Merkel reached out to her party’s historical ally, the Free Democratic Party, she could not hope to form a majority in the Bundestag. Consequently, in order to become chancellor, Merkel was compelled to form a grand coalition with the SPD.

Harper’s Conservative Party in Canada was in not much better shape. In January 2006, out of 308 seats in the Canadian Parliament, Harper’s Conservative Party won only 124 seats. The percentage of the popular vote was 36.3% and Harper, too, has been forced to rely upon the different smaller opposition parties in Canada to remain in power.

In May 2005, Tony Blair’s Labour Party won a huge majority in the House of Commons, but this was only because of the non-proportional system of election members of Parliament. In fact, the popular vote for the Labour Party was 35.3% and the popular vote for the Conservative Party was 32.3%. Gordon Brown, of course, has taken over since Blair left — pointedly, without calling a general election. Although Brown does not have to call a general election until May 2010, the longer he waits, if his party is unpopular, the more desperate his situation becomes.

What of Sarkozy? The French system is fundamentally different from most parliamentary systems. As President Sarkozy, our friend in Paris, carries enormous power quite on his own. Also, his election is for seven years, so that he is relatively immune to public opinion. He can do just what he is doing now: taking unpopular stands early in his term and waiting out his political enemies.

But, amazingly, Sarkozy remains relatively popular in France. Despite being staunchly pro-American and taking on public employees unions at the risk of social chaos, 51% of Frenchmen today are satisfied with Sarkozy’s performance as President of France. If he had been a caretaker president, this would be a meaningless fact, but Sarkozy has been anything but that. He is our friend; he is our ideological ally; and he is winning the battle for public opinion in France.

Merkel is doing even better. In October 2005, her party barely edged the SPD. Now, her party coalition has 38% of the popular support(and it has gotten as high recently as 41%. The principal opposition, the SPD, has a weak 26% popular support in the latest poll, and this figure has been as low recently as 24%. Perhaps as important, if the election were held today, Merkel could form a majority coalition in the Bundestag with the traditional allies of her party coalition, the Free Democratic Party. This governing coalition would mean that Merkel could ditch her socialist grand coalition partners, and form a more conservative coalition government with the FDP.

When Germans are asked to vote in a straight popularity contest between Merkel and the SPD leader Beck, Merkel beats Beck by an overwhelming 58% of the popular vote to 22% of the popular vote. Angela Merkel, the conservative leader of German government, along with Stephen Harper, the conservative leader of Canadian government, are the two most widely admired political leaders in the world, according to December 2007 Angus Reid Monitor poll.

Just as Merkel’s CDU/CSU group is doing better now than at the last general election, Harper’s Conservative Party also continues to lead in Canada by a wider margin than what brought it into power. Over the last few months the percentage edge over the Liberal Party has been as high as fourteen points and as low as three points, but it has been consistent. At least as importantly, Harper runs far ahead of Liberal Party leader Dion in whom Canadians prefer.

The Labour Party has ruled the United Kingdom for more than ten years. Every election it has won during this period has been under Tony Blair. Although the former prime minister was resolute in his support for America during the Iraq War, the Labour Party was not (Blair resisted Labour Party antipathy to his Iraq policy largely because Conservative Party MPs supported him.) In the post-Blair period, there is little reason for patriotic Americans to root for Gordon Brown or the Labour Party, and there is abundant evidence that the Conservative Party will win the next general election.

Depending upon which polls one reads, the Conservative Party has a good or a very good lead over the Labour Party — a plurality significantly greater than the Labour Party had in the last general election. Because the United Kingdom, like Canada, has a “first past the gate” electoral system (the candidate with the most votes wins), poll numbers of this sort would translate into a Conservative Party electoral landslide.

Gordon Brown has very low marks — 32% favorable — for his performance as prime minister and David Cameron has very high marks —53% favorable — for his performance as leader of the opposition. Add to this other polls which show 57% of Britons believe that Brown is “tainted with sleaze” and the prospects for Gordon Brown lasting until the next general election seem small.

What does all this mean for conservative Americans? In our last presidential cycle, anti-American leaders like Chirac or anti-American and leftist leaders like Schroeder and Chretien ran the governments of France, Germany and Canada. The clearest pro-American leader was out of step Tony Blair, whose Labour Party sheltered no love for America. Since 2004, elections have dramatically the configuration in the major democracies and since those transformational elections public opinion in Germany, Canada, France and Britain show that pro-American conservative leaders are very popular. If conservatives can win in America in 2008, the unity of purpose among and philosophy the major western democracies may be greater than at any time since the end of the Second World War. It could, literally, be the opportunity of a lifetime.

Link

What’s the Matter With Iowa?

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The caucuses are anything but a Norman Rockwell exercise in small-town democracy. The trouble with the Iowa caucuses isn’t that there’s anything wrong with Iowans. It’s the bizarre rules of the process. Caucuses are touted as authentic neighborhood meetings where voters gather in their precincts and make democracy come alive. In truth, they are anything but.

Caucuses occur only at a fixed time at night, so that many people working odd hours can’t participate. They can easily exceed two hours. There are no absentee ballots, which means the process disfranchises the sick, shut-ins and people who are out of town on the day of the caucus. The Democratic caucuses require participants to stand in a corner with other supporters of their candidate. That eliminates the secret ballot.

There are reasons for all this. The caucuses are run by the state parties, and unlike primary or general elections aren’t regulated by the government. They were designed as an insiders’ game to attract party activists, donors and political junkies and give them a disproportionate influence in the process. In other words, they are designed not to be overly democratic. Primaries aren’t perfect. but at least they make it fairly easy for everyone to vote, since polls are open all day and it takes only a few minutes to cast a ballot.

Little wonder that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses is extremely low–in recent years about 6% of registered voters. Many potential voters will proclaim their civic virtue to pollsters and others and say they will show up at the caucus–and then find something else to do Thursday night.

All of which means that the endless polls on the Iowa caucuses are highly suspect. Iowans have been bombarded by well over a million political phone calls in recent days. They range from “robo calls” from interest groups touting one candidate or another to breathless teenage volunteers inviting the voter to a local coffee with some obscure relative of a candidate. Smart voters tune all this out and screen their calls, making it difficult for pollsters to reach them. Even when they do answer the phone, many people refuse to participate in surveys. Pollsters can’t call people who only have cell phones. So you get implausible results like last Friday’s Los Angeles Times survey that found Barack Obama in third place on the Democratic side and Mike Huckabee running away with the GOP contest. The Times’s pollsters surveyed just 174 likely Republican voters and 389 Democratic one, with a whopping margin of error of plus or minus seven percentage points among Republicans and five points among Democrats.

Iowa voters’ allegiances are notoriously volatile. A new Associated Press poll of a large sample of voters estimates that 40% of GOP voters had changed candidate allegiances since November. In 2004, polls a few days before the caucuses suggested suggested Howard Dean would be a shoo-in. He finished a distant third, behind John Kerry and John Edwards.

Then there are the problems of reporting the results on election night. At least the Republican caucus is a one-man, one-vote affair where people write their preferred candidate’s name on a slip of paper, and whoever gets the most votes wins.

Democrats have a mind-numbingly complex system in which participants divide up into “candidate preference groups” by standing up. No paper ballots are used. Those candidates who don’t get support from 15% or more of those attending a local caucus are deemed not to be “viable,” and their supporters have to realign with some other candidate.

“That’s when it gets kind of crazy,” says Mark Daley, a former spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party. “There will be people screaming back and forth . . . and senior citizens with calculators trying to do the math.” Only after all this are county convention delegates allocated among the candidates and the results phoned in to the state Democratic Party. Delegates aren’t actually allocated until the Democratic county conventions in March.

Not all local caucuses are equal. The “entrance” polls of voter preferences that you will see reported Thursday night are likely to be from urban areas, which may shortchange candidates like John Edwards, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, who have campaigned more heavily in rural areas. “It’s entirely possible that John Edwards could come in a stunning second when all the votes are in, but the country will have gone to bed thinking he only took third place,” says Howard Fineman of Newsweek.

Rural Iowa matters for another reason in the Democratic contest. In order to encourage candidates to campaign in farming areas, state Democrats have tilted the delegate allocation so that rural areas are disproportionately represented in the final results. This sometimes can lead to bizarre results. As Roger Simon of Politico.com notes, “the turnout in some precincts is so small that a single family–let’s say four people–can determine the winner. In other precincts, only one person will show up and win for his candidate by being the only person in the room.” In small-turnout caucus meetings, ties are resolved by a coin toss or drawing lots. In 2004, four precincts saw literally no one show up to vote in the Democratic caucus.

There are other anomalies on the Democratic side. Some precincts use a different threshold level than 15% for the viability of a candidate. “Residency” rules are incredibly elastic. No one checks identification, and anyone who claims to live in the precinct is allowed to vote. In other words, very little prevents the unscrupulous (such as out-of-state campaign workers who have “lived” in Iowa for a few weeks) from having a role in the process. Each caucus also elects a “permanent chair,” who can have an outsize role in the process. Ned Chiodo, who has been appointed temporary chair of his local caucus by the state Democratic Party, told Politico.com that a permanent chair “controls the flow of the meeting. You have influence. You may be able to pick up a vote or two here and there for your candidate.”

All of these arcane rules, combined with the fixed time and place voters mush show up in order to influence the result, make the Iowa caucus a test of organization as much as actual voter support. “The candidate that provides the most babysitters or literally drives older people to the polls the most can have a real edge,” Tom Tauke, a Republican former congressman, once told me.

Thus the Iowa caucuses are far from a Normal Rockwell exercise in small-town democracy. They may not be as bad as the “smoke-filled rooms” of yore, but give me a simple primary election any day. I can’t wait for New Hampshire.

Link

below is a good blog report on Rudy’s campaign. site worth bookmarking.

——————

The Rudy Giuliani campaign KNOWS the world does not revolve around Iowa. And, it doesn’t despite what the Washington D.C. pundits and the other GOP campaigns say.

It is the number of pledged delegates to the GOP convention in September 2008 that counts.

As the national press corps have been increasingly focusing on the upcoming Iowa caucuses, Rudy Giuliani–who is largely bypassing the state—has been playing a minor role in the news cycle. He popped up in the Hawkeye State Friday and Saturday but will not be returning to Iowa before the voting begins this Thursday, and plans to spend caucus night in Miami, FL.

One senior campaign official often laments about the need for the media to better understand and report on the new campaign schedule (read: It’s all about the 20+ Feb. 5 states, stupid.)—joking that “it’s time to teach an old dog new tricks.”

Let’s look at some states that will be December/January voting:

California:

• Open of Absentee Voting: January 7th

• Open of Early Voting: Not prior to January 7th

• Mailing of Permanent Absentee Ballots: on or about January 7th

• Size of Permanent Absentee List (GOP only): 1,477,440

• Targeted Permanent Absentee Voters Statewide: 817,009

• Targeted Permanent Absentee Voters in Tier 1 Targeted CD’s: 350,305

Illinois: (Where they are already voting)

• Open of Absentee Voting: December 29th

• Close of Absentee Voting: February 5th

• Open of Early Voting: January 14th

• Close of Early Voting: January 31st

Florida: Where Floridians are already voting

• Open of Absentee Voting: December 21st

• Close of Absentee Voting: January 29th

• Open of Early Voting: January 14th

Missouri: (where they are already voting)

• Open of Absentee Voting: December 26th

• Close of Absentee Voting: February 4th

New Jersey: (where they are already voting)

• Open of Absentee Voting: December 27th

• Close of Absentee Voting: February 5th

Isn’t it obvious with large delegate states voting historically earlier than previous why the successful GOP candidate must run a proportionate campaign to maximize voter contact?

Doesn’t this explain why Rudy is currently running national cable television ads and ads in Florida, although Florida’s primary is in late January?

So, does the GOP Presidential world revolve around Iowa (40 delegates) that has one quarter the delegates as California with 173?

NO…..

And, what good will momentum generated from a few small primary states wins or places do the candidate if the voters in the other states have already voted?

Stay tuned……

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/GJOPINION_01/359960592/-1/FOSNEWS

NH paper supports Rudy.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS08/43808320/-1/news08

Peace through strength makes Giuliani the pick

Published: Sunday, December 30, 2007

All the presidential candidates reacting to the polls are fighting over who is the real Neville Chamberlain clone – except Rudy Giuliani.

Today’s “peace” candidates are similar to the “peace at any price” politicians that let Hitler run rampant throughout Europe – the Neville Chamberlain types – that cost us and our allies millions of lives. A lot of us have personally felt those losses in our own families.

The “peace” candidates can send all the flowers they want to the Iranian leader, but that is a form of appeasement that psychiatrists call “enabling.”

I’m sticking with a candidate who got rid of crime in New York, cut taxes, and who has the administrative experience and guts to lead this country toward a world of peace – but peace through strength.

Some conservatives can split hairs over social issues, but if the house is on fire that should be our first priority. We can water the lawn later.

I’ll be voting for Rudy Giuliani for president with a free and clear conscience.

Carmen Chimento
Brookline, New Hampshire

Link

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan ‘Unity’ Government

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; A04

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a “government of national unity” to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to “go beyond tokenism” in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: “It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don’t see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy.”

The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected mayor of New York as a Republican, left the GOP this past summer to become an independent. While disclaiming any plan to run for president in 2008, he has continued to fuel speculation by traveling widely and speaking out on both domestic and international issues. The mayor, a billionaire many times over, presumably could self-finance even a late-starting candidacy.

“As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues,” said Bloomberg’s press secretary, Stu Loeser. “He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders.”

Until plans for this meeting were disclosed, the most concrete public move toward any kind of independent candidacy was by Unity08, a group planning an online nominating convention to pick either an independent candidate or a ticket combining a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors, an eclectic mix of consultants who have worked for candidates including Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), have not aligned with a specific prospect.

Now, some people with high-level political and governmental credentials are moving to put muscle behind the effort. A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that “our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America’s power of leadership and example.”

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to “rebuild and reconfigure our military forces,” nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

“Today, we are a house divided,” the letter said. “We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available — without regard to political party — to help lead our nation.”

Boren said he and Nunn, who often collaborated when they headed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, respectively, issued invitations to other moderates with whom they had served, and found that almost everyone was willing to come.

“Our hope is that the candidates will respond with their own specific ideas about how to pull the country together, not just aim at getting out their own polarized base,” Boren said. “But we will have a couple months before the nominees will be known, and we can judge in that time what their response will be.”

Boren said the meeting is being announced in advance of Thursday’s Iowa caucuses “because we don’t want anyone to think this was a response to any particular candidate or candidates.” He said the nation needs a “government of national unity” to overcome its partisan divisions in a time of national challenge he likened to that faced by Great Britain during World War II.

“Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time,” Boren said. “Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting.”

Danforth said he remains a Republican but finds little cause for optimism among the current GOP candidates. “My party is appealing to a real meanness,” he said in an interview, “and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I’m an American before I’m a Republican.” Danforth has also written critically about the impact of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.

Cohen said his emphasis will be on the issues rather than on a candidacy, adding that he and Nunn will co-sponsor a series of “dialogues” on key topics, aiming to build planks for a possible consensus platform for the next president.

“The important goal all of us share,” Cohen said, “is to get government back to the center.”

Nunn, for his part, described Bloomberg as “an enormously capable man” but said: “I’ve made no decision who I’m going to support. Most of us hope to shape the Republican or Democratic side’s response, but who knows where this is going to go? I think the country’s at the tipping point, and it’s going to take a lot more understanding by the electorate for anybody to be able to lead.”

Bob Sanders and Dallas Clark – two former Iowa Hawkeye players play for the Indianapolis Colts.

Colts’ Sanders signs for five years, $37.5 million

Updated: December 28, 2007, 9:26 PM ET

Indianapolis Colts safety Bob Sanders has signed a five-year, $37.5 million contract extension that includes $20 million in guaranteed money.

Sanders

The contract makes Sanders, 26, the highest-paid safety in the NFL.

Colts spokesman Craig Kelley said the team would not confirm the deal, but Sanders told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he had signed the deal Friday.

“I got a call late in the evening yesterday from my agent and he said he was hoping to get it done,” Sanders told the AP. “I’m excited, very excited about it — knowing they want me around here makes me happy.”

The Pro Bowl selection, whose playoff performance sparked the Colts on their run to a Super Bowl victory last season, would have been an unrestricted free agent after this season. Sanders is a strong contender for this year’s NFL defensive player of the year honors.

Sanders’ average salary of $7.5 million under the extension is nearly $1 million more than what the Pittsburgh Steelers‘ Troy Polamalu got in his new deal in July, and the guaranteed money is more than what Ed Reed got when he signed an extension with the Baltimore Ravens in June 2006.

The Colts have doled out record contracts before to other top players. Before the start of training camp, Dwight Freeney signed a $72 million, six-year deal, making him the league’s highest-paid defensive end. The contract included a $30 million signing bonus.

After the 2003 season, quarterback Peyton Manning agreed to what was a then-record
$99.2 million, seven-year contract that contained a still-record $34.5 million signing bonus.

“When you come in, it’s hard but you’ve got to prove yourself and play well consistently,” Sanders said. “Just to be named with those guys, I’m honored. It’s a great honor.”

Coach Tony Dungy calls Sanders “The Eraser” for his ability to cover up mistakes.

He is also the heart of the Colts defense.

Last year, when Sanders missed 12 regular-season games, the Colts allowed a league-worst 5.3 yards per carry. When he returned in the playoffs, the Colts made a dramatic turnaround and wound up winning the Super Bowl. Sanders received much of the credit.

This year, with Sanders missing just one game because of injury, the Colts defense ranks
No. 1 in the league against the pass and has allowed a more respectable 3.9 yards per carry.

But Sanders had a bigger personal goal this year: staying healthy.

“It was just about being a player, being competitive,” he said. “I wanted to show everyone I could stay healthy. There were a lot of questions about whether I could stay healthy and I wanted to prove to everyone and myself that I could stay healthy, be consistent and play well.”

With Sanders playing closer to the line of scrimmage, almost as a linebacker for much of the season, he has 123 tackles, 2½ sacks, two interceptions and one forced fumble.

But his impact cannot be measured solely in numbers.

When Freeney went down with a season-ending foot injury in mid-November, Sanders became the defense’s uncontested leader and the results have been impressive.

Sanders’ signing is also significant because Colts tight end Dallas Clark, who is having a career year, is an unrestricted free agent after this season. Getting Sanders signed now means that if Indianapolis can’t reach agreement with Clark on a new deal, it will have the option of using the franchise tag to retain him for 2008.

Information from The Associated Press and ESPN.com senior NFL writers Chris Mortensen and Len Pasquarelli was used in this report.

I do like Scott Ott when he’s being funny (the first note) or serious (the second note below) … Scott is the publisher of scrappleface, one of the best websites around…

The Call That Couldn’t Wait
Friday, December 28, 2007
by Scott Ott

Picture this: You’re the president of a highly-unstable, nuclear-weaponized Muslim nation, where al Qaeda roams freely over vast stretches of your territory. This morning, a political opponent, the former prime minister in fact, gets assassinated and her killer slaughters two dozen others in the process just 13 days before a national election.You don’t know yet who did it — whether it’s a strike meant to settle a running political feud, or a calculated effort to disrupt the elections. It might even be the start of something bigger, perhaps a brazen coordinated power grab that will send you packing, or to the grave. Her supporters are calling for your head. They assume you’re behind the plot.

With all this terror and uncertainty on your plate, your assistant rushes in with an urgent message.

Assistant: Mr. President, John Edwards wants you to call him ASAP.
Pakistani President: John?
Assistant: Edwards, sir…the former U.S. Senator from North…Dakota or Carolina…one of the North states.
President: You mean the guy who was almost…
Assistant: Vice president…yes sir.
President: With the hair?
Assistant: Yes, sir.
President: As you can see, I’m in the middle of perhaps the worst crisis of my political life. I need to assure the world that our nuclear arsenal is secure, quell rioting in the streets, decide whether to postpone the elections, change all my travel plans for my own safety and launch an investigation into the assassination. Why should I interrupt all of this to call Senator…
Assistant: Former Senator…
President: Former Senator Edwards…why call him now?
Assistant: He says it’s urgent, sir.
President: Does he have a lead, a clue in the assassination plot?
Assistant: No, Edwards doesn’t have a clue.
President: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Assistant: He says the Iowa caucuses…
President: Iowa?
Assistant: You know, Field of Dreams.
President: Ah, yes. People will come. Love that movie.
Assistant: Yes, well, the Iowa caucuses are next week, and he’d like to just chat with you and give you some advice.
President: Wow. Are you serious? I can’t believe a one-term former senator and failed vice presidential candidate is willing to take time out of his busy campaign schedule to talk with me today. Hand me that phone.
Assistant: Is that sarcasm, sir?
President: Why would you think that?
Assistant: Here’s the phone, sir.
President: Don’t interrupt me for anything…unless of course, Barack Obama calls.

Bhutto Killing Puts EuroLeaders On Notice: Time to Choose
Friday, December 28, 2007 10:05 AM
by Scott Ott

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has put on notice the leaders of every European nation.

Your secularism, your democracy will not stand. The growing Muslim populations in your own lands that you have done so much to tolerate, protect and celebrate, will soon rise up against you. Sharia law shall become your law. The Caliph shall rule you.

It remains only for you to choose submission or assassination.

This bullet to the neck of democracy in Pakistan should cause a twinge in the carotid artery of each leader in France, Britain, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece…name them all.

The assassin, strapped with bombs and carrying a firearm, stood amidst a cheering throng and took aim at the only major symbol of liberalism and democratic reform in the Islamic world. As the mortally-wounded woman slumped through the sunroof, the happy hunter detonated himself to send a clear message that no security cordon can protect those who rise to oppose jihad.

Cling, if you will, to your professors who drone on about the legitimate grievances of oppressed peoples who wish only to be left alone. Your cartridge clicks into the chamber.

Sing yourself to sleep each night with an ode to peaceful co-existence. The crosshairs find your throat.

Cup your hands over your ears to muffle the unthinkable warnings. The finger squeezes the trigger.

As you mount the rostrum to decry the slaying and call for calm in Pakistan, do you wonder whether your security detail could stop him?

As you send your condolences to the grieving widower, the shattered supporters and the tottering Pakistani president, himself a target of previous assassination attempts, do you have a strategy for negotiating with those who embrace murderous martyrdom?

Which will you choose — submission or assassination?

Take your time deciding, but know this: The bullet hurtles onward.

Disclaimer: Scott Ott decided not to add a disclaimer to this column stating that he’s an America-loving conservative Christian who deplores the jihad ideology, because he didn’t want to soften the impact of these words.

The day after Christmas is a good day for reflection on 2007.

I’ve posted a summary of some of my favorite posts here. If you want to see a quick representation of the posts for 2007 go there first.

2007 was an interesting year, politicking for the 2008 presidential election started way too early – has it turned us away from engagement in politics?

Communication and Trust

How do we change the trend of divisiveness in politics? I’m not sure we can change attitudes and assumptions easily; especially if Americans don’t fully engage in the process. We certainly can’t if we don’t listen to each other.

One issue that highlights the disconnect is the theory of Global Warming.

I believe the hyperbole surrounding the theory that man has severely influenced and can ultimately change the cyclical nature of earth’s weather, has hurt not helped the environmental movement.

Our use of fossil fuels needs to end for a multitude of political, financial and environmental reasons. In general conservation of any and all resources is a very important “attitude” for the 21st century. How do we de-politicize Global Warming? How do we move “Band wagon” politics into thoughtful dissection of facts? This will be our challenge for 2008.

Look at the candidates running for President. Democrats attempting to best each other in gifting voters, instead of inscenting them toward excellence – continuing to villainize those who create wealth, and promise that wealth to their voters for their support.

“Those who continue to promise the most for the least will drive good and just men from politics”

We have seceded our national communication to the Media; people listen in sound bytes and don’t verify issues for themselves. Trust in our national government is at a very low mark and people are just too busy to care.

My personal favorite post remains from 2006 – a cut from a site that specialized in satire that produced a thoughtful “editorial” about the aftermath of Katrina. This post from Scott Ott is as meaningful today as it was a year ago; we have yet to learn that lesson.

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, journalists sought someone to blame. They, predictably, found President George Bush was the best scapegoat. But in lashing out, yet again, at their favorite source of all discontent, they missed a bigger target. If anyone “out there” is to be blamed, it is the large, remote, centralized federal government which has become a surrogate father to so many millions of Americans.

Over the decades, we have ceded power, authority and responsibility to the federal government far beyond anything envisioned or desired by our founders. As a result, instead relying on our own intelligence, resources and ability to work with others in our communities to solve problems, we have turned to Washington D.C..

This is not a matter of ‘blaming the victim’, because the victim has become so immersed in this twisted view of human life that he cannot see what has happened. The federal government’s dehumanizing effect has torn up neighborhoods, torn apart families and turned brave, capable people into compliant recipients of redistributed wealth.

The problem is that the morsels of that wealth never provide enough to do anything other than keep folks in a perpetual state of dependence upon the State. Even if those morsels became chunks big enough to choke a horse, the dependency would remain. The federal government has become not only the safety net, it is everything from the crib blanket to the casket lining.

The danger of centralized government control is not that it robs a few dollars from rich people and gives them to the poor. It’s not even that such a bureaucratic behemoth spawns the waste of billions of dollars. After all, it’s just money.

No, the threat of this system is that it strips a man of what makes him a man, and turns him away from his inner resources, or the inclination to partner with neighbors to solve problems. It humiliates him, blinds him and ultimately cripples him.

Of course, when a government-built levee bursts, and a government subsidized house is immersed, the natural, reasonable reaction of the displaced person is to turn to the government; both to blame for the disaster and to petition for relief. Many of the homes that were destroyed belonged to middle and upper-class citizens as well, and yet still somehow even some of those people turned toward Washington to vent anger and cry out for restoration.

Sadly, the story that rarely gets told are the daily acts of bravery, fortitude and cooperation in dozens of communities where people — often through the agency of local churches — have pulled together in reliance upon each other and in a shared dependence upon superintending grace. Work crews that report to no one in Washington have poured into the region to cart off debris and help lay the foundations for a better future. Against all odds, many of the washed-out residents have worked long hours, endured separation from family and almost-overwhelming hardship in order to rebuild what the waters ravaged. These people are beyond number, and below the media radar.

Journalists, by habit, prefer stories they can receive from the tip of a spoon held by an “expert” or official. They, too, have turned to big government and have become dependent upon her for their sustenance. What most Americans know of the situation in the hurricane zone is only what TV or other news sources tell them. Most of that information comes from “authorities” in the government. The reporters have told us that the real story is all about the government’s response. They have largely ignored the responsible activities of thousands of unseen hands restoring towns, parks, homes and lives.

Success stories are buried. Tragedy is blared from the housetops. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that further deepens dependence upon the government, and further strips the dignity of the person.

The victims of Katrina are not really the victims of Katrina herself. The tragedy began long before the hurricane hit.

Natural disasters have always happened and always will. While, mercifully, they don’t occur every day in every place, they are common enough that we ought to have an expectation that bad things can and will happen. We need to cultivate the inner resources in ourselves, our children and our neighborhoods to cope with the inevitable. When we cede that power and responsibility to the federal government, we surrender a part of what makes us human and leave ourselves more vulnerable to the tempest.

Whether you believe in God or not, you have surely experienced how the human soul sings when we gather in chorus to accomplish a great purpose in the midst of tragedy. It’s as if we were designed to work together with our family, friends and neighbors. There is a blessing in it that exceeds the penalty of the curse.

When my own community was hit by flooding some years ago, people stepped off their porches, shouldered sandbags, delivered meals, took in the homeless, wielded shovels against the muck, and generally helped each other in the task of restoration. As awful as that flood was, I will always remember it fondly, not for the harm it did to us and to our property, but for the good it did in us and in our community.

Our state-run schools and spoon-fed media have conditioned us to look to government. They’ve also trained us to take offense at any expression of love that doesn’t result in government intervention and redistribution of taxpayer dollars. ‘Compassion’ has been redefined as ‘entitlement’ and thus stripped of its power and utility.

The devastating impact of this mindset is the apparent withering of the individual spirit and of community cooperation which have been the hallmarks of this great nation.

But all is not yet lost, and perhaps not so much is lost as we have been led to believe.

Since what we know about America flows mostly from the media, we can be certain that most of what we know is just plain wrong, or at least atypical. My old journalism professor used to say, ‘News is coups, earthquakes and three-legged chickens.’

In other words, Walter Cronkite was exactly wrong to say ‘That’s the way it is.’ Journalists don’t report the truth about life. They are carnival barkers selling the unusual, the atypical, the freaks. And we continue to reward them for doing so.

The actual truth about life in our great Republic is quite different from the daily portrayals in the media.

Everywhere in this God-blessed America covert radicals roam, committing seemingly-random acts of kindness — unmonitored, untallied, uncontrolled, unshackled from the federal government. It is, in effect, a shadow government that we have set up for ourselves to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

This decentralized movement of men and women accomplishes most of the great work of charity, compassion and community building. Their individual efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of government largess, but in the aggregate and ultimate their service far exceeds anything that government can deliver.

In fact, the vast majority of Americans behave as if the federal government did not exist in their day-to-day lives. This underground movement is entirely healthy and necessary for the maintenance of our Republic and for our pursuit of happiness.

We don’t have time to blame anyone for our misfortunes. We’re too busy working to overcome them. We don’t have faith in some distant bureaucrat, rather we turn to the resources that God has placed near at hand. We lean on our brothers. Many of us call on our Father in our time of need, and He sends our neighbors who love us more than we love ourselves. Later, we will turn to our helpers when they need us and repay the debt, only to learn that no debt existed because acts of compassion shower blessings on giver and receiver alike.

We find these local (and spiritual) solutions not only adequate, but invigorating and inspiring because it is only when we are pressed hard by life that we discover there is more life in us, among us and beyond us than we had imagined in carefree hours.

Electing any Republican President may not move us exactly in the direction I want to go, but it’s clear to me any Democratic President could make great changes that will put us on a path of destruction of this great nation. Democracy isn’t a gift, it needs to be fought for generation after generation.

As a nation of free men we must live through all time, or die by suicide. – A. Lincoln

It’s time to choose. I choose Rudy.

Happy New Year and May God Continue to Bless the United States of America. pf

below is a fair review of where Hawkeye Football is at for next season. I’m just happy Kirk is back with all the rumors this Fall about him going to Michigan.

Experience, schedule point toward Iowa improvement in 2008

By Ivan Maisel ESPN.com

All of America will watch Iowa on Jan. 3. Unfortunately for Hawkeyes fans, America will be watching the Iowa caucuses, not the FedEx Orange Bowl. Caucuses might fill the local hotels and restaurants, but they don’t satisfy Hawkeyes fans who have been treading water for three seasons.

Iowa went 7-5 in 2005 and 6-7 in 2006. Mathematicians might say the Hawkeyes “improved” to 6-6 this season. To the rest of us, the record indicates that Kirk Ferentz’s team jogged in place. A closer look, however, indicates that Iowa didn’t stand in place. The Hawkeyes turned the corner.

Scott Boehm/Getty Images
Kirk Ferentz played 31 freshmen — 11 true, 20 redshirt — during the 2007 season.

When the Hawkeyes begin winter workouts, they will have more than 50 returning lettermen, as opposed to 37 last winter. They will have at least 15 returning starters. And unlike in 2006 — when the team went through the motions in the second half of the season, finishing 1-6 — this squad improved. These Hawkeyes won four of their last six.

“Even when we lost four in a row, I felt like the attitude of this team was more than solid,” Ferentz said Friday. “We were making progress. We have a lot of work to do. That last game will serve as a reminder of where we are.”

Iowa lost that last game, 28-19 to Western Michigan, when a victory would have meant a bowl game. But the same inexperience that contributed to a 2-4 start had everything to do with taking the Broncos of the Mid-American Conference for granted. Ferentz played 31 freshmen — 11 true, 20 redshirt — in 2007.

The offense, hit with a rash of injuries in August and September, bore the brunt of the inexperience. Iowa finished last in the Big Ten in the well-known categories (total offense, scoring, third-down conversions). More obscure numbers pointed out the problems, too. Iowa forced 21 turnovers but created only 37 points from them. The average touchdown drive went only 53 yards. Ryan Donahue set a school record by punting 86 times. And so on.

The offense floundered in part by design. If offensive coordinator Ken O’Keefe had been any more conservative, he would lead former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Iowa state polls. For instance, sophomore quarterback Jake Christensen didn’t look downfield very often. The top five receivers averaged 11.5 yards per catch, and freshman Derrell Johnson-Koulianos led the team with only 38 catches.

But O’Keefe knew what he was doing. Christensen didn’t turn the ball over. Iowa committed only 13 turnovers, third in the country. Christensen threw two interceptions in the Western Michigan loss after throwing a total of three in the previous nine games.

The point for Iowa is simple. There is promise. In addition to the freshmen who gained experience, among the injured expected to be healthy are wide receiver Andy Brodell (hamstring), offensive lineman Dace Richardson (knee) and tight end Tony Moeaki (elbow, hand). Moeaki had a second surgery last week and will miss spring practice, Ferentz said.

The defense does lose leadership up front from ends Kenny Iwebema and Bryan Mattison and linebackers Mike Humpal and Mike Klinkenborg. Four of the top six tacklers won’t be back. Look for freshman middle linebacker Jacody Coleman to emerge next season.

The 2008 schedule has no Ohio State, no Michigan, and home games against Wisconsin and Penn State. In other words, the Big Ten has set the table. A year from now, Iowa should be talking about football, not politics.

Ivan Maisel is a senior writer for ESPN.com. Send your questions and comments to Ivan at ivan.maisel@espn3.com.

Just wow.

… he wants Congress to come up with as much as $100 billion to prepare for a potential economic slowdown….

… He didn’t propose how to pay for the plan, saying it’s his first policy proposal where he hasn’t come up with a detailed plan for funding. “It’s a one time thing and it’s paid for by growing the economy,” he said….

Huh? The economy is fine. The issue is simply that Americans live with too much debt, and it has been made much worse by the irresponsible lending practices of the last 15 years. Most of those lending practices have been masked by housing going up, adding equity to a home owners investment. When that equity disappears, as it has recently – too many people are “upside down” on their mortgage. The resulting credit squeeze (which never should have been necessary if lenders were less greedy) is going to affect the economy in a bad way, but how much is not yet certain.

It has been a concern of mine for years that Americans in general aren’t creating as much wealth as they did in the past. Creating wealth is what America was about in the 20th century.

Mr. Edward’s policies will fix nothing. Mr. Edward’s policies will continue the trend of citizens relying on government to “bail them out”, but where will the money come from? It is those who create wealth that remain in America who continue to have the upper hand. But to tax them more is crazy. They have the choice to remove their wealth from this country by foreign investments and moving their companies out of the country. Then what do you do then? As Mr. Chavez in Venezuela.

Ask yourself this question. Are wise Americans moving some of their wealth OUT of America for the first time in history? If you say yes, you are watching the news. Government bailing people out of bad lending practices solves nothing. This will be painful but needs to be a wake up call.

This is indeed a scary time for Americans. Do we want to wake up and build a better future together or continue with the development of a nanny state?

It’s your time to decide. Vote for Rudy, who will make government accountable for what it spends.

December 23, 2007

Edwards proposes $100 billion economy bailout

Edwards is calling on Congress to loosen the purse strings for an ailing economy.”

LISBON, Iowa (AP) — Presidential candidate John Edwards on Saturday said the country can’t simply wait for the economy to turn around, and he wants Congress to come up with as much as $100 billion to prepare for a potential economic slowdown.

The Democrat and former North Carolina senator suggested an initial investment of $25 billion for job creation and other aid, and asked lawmakers to be prepared to come up with the rest if the economy slides into a recession.

Edwards said the economy is struggling because of the housing crisis and stagnant wages. Housing, energy and health care costs have increased, while the median income for working-age families dropped $2,400 between 2000 and 2006, he said.

“I’ve been concerned for some time that the economic growth in this country is completely concentrated in the top with big corporations and the richest Americans, and middle class families are struggling,” Edwards said at a news conference after a stop in eastern Iowa “We need to stimulate the part of the economy that helps working families.”

He didn’t propose how to pay for the plan, saying it’s his first policy proposal where he hasn’t come up with a detailed plan for funding. “It’s a one time thing and it’s paid for by growing the economy,” he said.

Edwards’ plan also calls for Congress to update the nation’s unemployment system, which he said now leaves workers unprepared for hard times. He called on Congress to help states cover 500,000 additional workers each year, and set aside resources now to keep workers from having to wait for benefits if the unemployment rate rises.

Aid to states also would be boosted under the plan to keep them from having to increase property taxes or cut programs such as Medicaid in order to balance their budgets.

To combat the housing crisis, Edwards wants lawmakers to create a home rescue fund to help families get counseling, loans or other financial aid to avoid foreclosure. He also believes that families facing bankruptcy should be allowed to rewrite terms of their mortgage, and write off debt that exceeds the value of their home.

To keep such a crisis from happening again, Edwards said Congress should pass stronger laws against predatory lending and create a federal regulator to oversee financial services products.

Edwards wants Congress to make a major investment in clean energy that he contends would both fight global warming and create jobs to spark economic activity.

Several of Edwards’ economic proposals, including some of his energy and housing proposals, have been included in other policy plans he has offered over the course of the presidential campaign.

However, his proposal that Congress act now to shore up the economy rather than waiting for a new president to be elected is new, his campaign said.

While addressing a crowd of more than 100 at a school in Lisbon, Edwards was told by a woman in the audience that he comes off like a “very angry man with a mission,” although she said that reminds her of the 1960s leaders “in a good way.” But, she wanted to know where he’s willing to be cooperate to get things done.

Edwards assured her that his anger is reserved for special interests and greedy corporations, and that there are “many arenas I would be diplomatic.”

“This fight that I’m talking about is not with politicians.” But, he added: “If you don’t have a president who has the toughness and strength to stand up and fight, then nothing is going to change.”

Filed under AP, John Edwards

Posted 12/23/2007 07:51:40 AM | Permalink

Whose Christmas Is It Anyway?

By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Here we go again. Even before the Thanksgiving turkey made it through the leftover cycle, the now-annual, national Christmas squabble began.

Neighbors in a stew over a manger scene in somebody else’s front yard; call the ACLU. A store won’t call their evergreens Christmas trees; it makes the evening news. A company’s catalog says “holiday” instead of “Christmas”; a boycott is announced. Somebody get out the volume of Supreme Court rulings labeled, “Christmas,” so we’ll know which way the Christmas winds of justice are blowing this year; it’s all capricious nonsense. This bickering is downright sacrilegious.

Time to plan the little tykes’ holiday pageant; Santa is fine but Jesus is banned. Santa brings sugar-laden candy; call the AMA. Now that you mention it, he’s too fat; call Jenny Craig. Put the reindeer on hold and call the PETA; animals are people too. Santa says “ho”; cover the children’s little ears. Please, does it get any sillier than this?

We’re not really celebrating Christmas on the right day. Jesus wasn’t born in the winter. It’s mostly recycled pagan ritual anyway. They didn’t even celebrate Jesus’ birth until a couple of centuries after. The Church just co-opted a bunch of Roman stuff and made it conform to Christianity. Who really cares? A symbolic feast is a symbolic feast is a symbolic feast.

Christmas is too commercialized. It’s not commercialized in the right way. Don’t dare misappropriate our holy day for ghastly profits. Buy, buy, buy or the retailers and their families will suffer. How dare they put a Coca Cola in Santa’s hand? What, you prefer Pepsi?

My teacher said, “Merry Christmas”; I’m scarred for life. No red and green this year; it says “Christmas” loud and clear. No, it’s really a holdover from a way, way, way bygone year. Just another pagan thing, you know. Hang a wreath; don’t hang a wreath. Only a live evergreen will do. Artificial trees are more ecological. Get some mistletoe and kiss yourself.
Good gracious, who cares!

I’ve had it up to my neck with the squabbling, the nit-picking, the analyzing and every other little bit of scrooging and religiosity. None of this bickering comes across to me as even coming close to the joy-to-the-world Christmas that I believe God intends it to be.

I take my Catholic faith very seriously; it defines my life. But I’ve never been a form-over-substance person, so I can’t get all worked up over what appear to be insignificant details. And it seems to me that when we take our eyes off Christmas’ meaning and get caught up in the details instead, we hurt God much more than any societal slight ever could.

I think it just might be time we get down to brass tacks on the matter and ask ourselves simply:Whose Christmas is it anyway?

Christmas, as defined by the Church, is supposed to celebrate God’s supreme gift to mankind for all generations, past, present and future. As Christians, we believe that Jesus, born in Bethlehem in the land of Judea, is the Messiah, foretold by the prophets.

And we believe, according to our sacred Scripture, that when he was born, an angel appeared to the shepherds guarding their flocks in the fields, and proclaimed: “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:
“Glory to God in the highest! On earth peace, good will toward men.”
Luke 2:10-14 (New American Bible)

Just how we got from that idyllic scene of glory, peace, good will, good news and joy for all, to the current state of squabbling over every little detail, is a 2,000 year up, down, right, left, east, west and every which way story. But the bottom line is that Christmas belongs to God.

His idea. His Son. His angels. His manger. His gift.

Truth be told, if God were anything at all like Santa Claus, and he had asked us humans first what we wanted, most humans would probably have opted for a gift quite different than the babe in the manger who was supposed to hold the promise of internal soul-peace that surpasses understanding.

I don’t intend to give up a minute of that peace this Christmas paying any attention whatsoever to a single squabble. Everywhere I go, I’m going to share Christmas in a smile with everyone I encounter.

As for my husband, me and our house, we will shut the door tight this year against the cacophony of Christmas squabbling, and seek the peace of Christ in our own way.

We’ll hang the wreath on the door and not worry over whether a pagan ever did the same to honor some other made-up god with a wacky name. We’ll don the tree with the all-white lights, because to us, they most resemble the star of Bethlehem, and as we gaze magically upon them in our darkened living room by the fire, we will also be reminded that we know Jesus as the light of the world. We’ll hang our ornaments one by one, old and new, and talk about the year our little ones pulled the tree over and broke every single breakable object in sight. We’ll remember that Santa, to us, has always represented the spirit of sacrificial giving, and we’ll try to play the merry ole fat guy for each other. We’ll put up the dozen golden angels over the mantle, and spread our collection of crèches all over the house. We’ll spike our eggnog, roast our turkey, and enjoy our friends, both Christian and non-Christian alike.

We’ll rejoice in the freedom to worship our God in joy and song and dance, not only in sacred liturgy. We’ll try to rekindle warmth with our neighbors and look for any who might be alone or neglected. We’ll buy gifts for the children of strangers just for the happiness of the smiles we won’t even see.

We’ll stay up late for midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and as our hearts are lifted to the heights of heaven on the majestic chords of the Gloria, we’ll imagine that we were there on that starlit night, and heard the angels sing. And we’ll know – yes, we’ll know – that nothing else matters one little bit.

“Merry Christmas to all, and to all a goodnight.”
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com.

The left and the right doesn’t want Rudy running because they know he can win.

I still puzzle @ why the right fears him so. The race is exceedingly volatile right now and will continue to be through Super Tuesday (FEB 5). It’s my understanding that Fred is really short on cash, so he’s on a bus in Iowa up to the caucus. Huckabee had an audience of 50 when in town today.

It’s the holidays.  I still wonder how many people will show up on January 3rd.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhartas.cgi/16394

Chris Matthews, no friend of Republicans, was horrified on his 12/21 broadcast because he ran with the story last week about the big flap about Rudy’s payroll paying for his “mistress trysts” – which is now being retracted – by everyone. He posted this banner on his show on 12/21 (below). Chris Matthews is actually extremely embarrassed – you can watch it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_LWWu5S9uI
if you want to use the bandwidth….

Chris was musing out loud if the NYT will “give back” the 10 points he lost over this last week… I wonder where it may be covered elsewhere – it’s not showing up on FOX News – which seems to be all about Fred or Huckabee – except for George Will…. And they talk about Blogs needing to be regulated……  bleh…..  The Main Stream Media, becoming more irrelevant every day.
 

December 21, 2007

The Buried, Unquotable Exoneration

The New York Times exonerates Rudy Giuliani from charges that he moved travel expenses around through subsidiary agencies in order to hide his affair with his now-wife, Judith. People looking for that exoneration on their feedreaders will find themselves frustrated. Not only did the Times bury the story on one of its blogs, it put it in a graphic format that doesn’t allow for copy-and-paste. In fact, it isn’t even shown as an entry on the blog itself:

All eight of Mr. Giuliani’s trips to the Hamptons in 1999 and 2000, including the period when his relationship was a secret, were charged to his own mayoral expense account, according to the records.

In fact, the amount of money transferred through those agencies represent an insignificant percentage of the total cost of those travel expenses. Furthermore, the Times found that Giuliani had started spreading the costs of travel through subsidiary agencies two years before his affair with Judith, which makes it rather obvious that the motive was not to hide his infidelity. Russ Buettner ends by concluding that Giuliani’s accounting had nothing to do with his relationship to Judith.

One might believe that these conclusions might make a few headlines, given all of the attention paid to these allegations. Anderson Cooper asked Giuliani about this pseudoscandal during the nationally-televised CNN/YouTube debate, after all, and Giuliani’s record as mayor might be of particular interest to a New York City newspaper. Instead, the Times seemed to go out of its way to hide this report and its exoneration of Giuliani on accusations of manipulating public records for his own personal motivations.

Of course, even a front-page report on this wouldn’t unring the bell; the damage has been done, and it has been considerable. It looks like the Times wanted to make sure none of it got undone. (via Power Line)

Link

Well you’ll need to take it as an element of faith as they’ve pulled the article… but it went like this:

No Such Thing As Good News

This is one of those headlines you couldn’t make up: As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch:

At what’s believed to be the world’s largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn’t good.A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

This goes in Best of the Web’s “World’s Smallest Violin” category. Via InstaPundit.

from InstaPundit webblog

GEORGE W. BUSH, CLIMATE-CHANGE HERO:

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

They told me that if George W. Bush were elected, the United States would lag behind the rest of the world on greenhouse gases And they were right!

UPDATE: Actually, if you look at the most recent years the news gets better:

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels decreased by 1.3 percent in 2006, from 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2 in 2006, according to preliminary estimates recently released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), grew by 3.3 percent and energy demand fell by 0.9 percent indicating that energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) fell by 4.2 percent. Carbon dioxide intensity (CO2 emission per unit of GDP) fell by 4.5 percent.

The market seems to be doing what Kyoto hasn’t. (Somewhat related item here).

I can’t explain why the last three articles I’ve posted have been on global warming, except I want to rail on some republican candidates for President and am trying NOT to…  can’t wait until the caucus is over…  :::sigh:::

Link to powerlineblog.com article

Tom Friedman strikes again

We commented on the AP’s Kyoto revisionism in “The AP strikes again” this past September, noting an AP story stating:

Under the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton, the United States joined a U.N. meeting in Kyoto and agreed to the protocol. But the United States rejected it under the administration of President George W. Bush, Clinton’s successor.

Readers with a long memory may recall that the United States never adopted the Kyoto Protocol because the Clinton administration never submitted it for ratification to the Senate. The Clinton administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because in July 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 to adopt a resolution stating that ”the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.”

Today Tom Friedman writes another consciousness-raising column on events at the UN global warming conference last week in Bali. According to Friedman, global warming presents an emergency requiring “transformational” economic action. Friedman’s Bali buddies are dubious of America’s bona fides as a result of “the gratuitous way President Bush trashed the Kyoto treaty in 2001, without presenting any alternative for six years. Message to world: ‘Get lost. We only care about ourselves.’”But Friedman, like the AP, conveniently forgets the role of the United States Senate as the original author of that resounding message regarding Kyoto. And a cynical person might conclude that Tom Friedman’s carbon footprint sends an identical message, as does the hot air he contributes to the purported crisis of global warming.

Link to article

December 18, 2007

Does Gore Know What He’s Talking About?

By Ed Koch

I may be old fashioned, but I think it’s wrong to publicly attack and criticize your own country overseas. It is doubly wrong to do so in the presence of those who hate the United States.

Al Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, a former Vice President of the United States and the 2000 Democratic candidate for president, apparently believes that since, as he said, he is “not an official of the United States,” he is free to attack his native country anywhere.

This month in Bali, Indonesia, the United Nations held a conference on global warming for the purpose of extending the Kyoto Protocols, which will formally end in 2012. The United States — concerned about Kyoto’s effect on economic growth — has refused to ratify the Protocols. On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate rejected then Vice President Gore’s advice and voted 95-0 to reject the Kyoto Protocols.

Last week Al Gore appeared at the Bali conference and said, “I am not an official of the United States and I am not bound by the diplomatic niceties. So I am going to speak an inconvenient truth. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that.”

Oh, really? And just how do we all know that? Is it true that the U.S. is “principally responsible for obstructing progress” in Bali? The New York Times, which applauds the former Vice President, reported on December 14 that “[t]he emerging economic powers, most notably China and India, also refuse to accept limits on their emissions, despite projections that they will soon become the dominant sources of the gases.” The same Times article stated while the U.S. opposes an agreement that would include numerical targets, so do “a few other countries, including Russia.”

On November 7, 2006, The Times reported, “China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming, the International Energy Agency has concluded in a report to be released Tuesday.” The article continued, “China’s rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases.

Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century. The agency’s prediction highlights the unexpected speed with which China is emerging as the biggest contributor to global warming. Still, China has resisted limits on its own emissions and those of other developing countries.”

The argument offered by China, India and other developing countries is clear and direct. Said Lu Xuedu, the deputy director general of the Chinese Office of Global Environmental Affairs, “You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions.” China’s intent is to put the United States and Europe in a difficult economic position where standards of living will be reduced until developing countries rise to the standard of the U.S. At that point the developing countries will be required to reduce their emissions.

President Bush has been attacked by Al Gore and his supporters for resisting a treaty that could inflict economic harm on the American people. Does Al Gore seriously think that we should reduce the U.S. standard of living until developing countries — formerly called Third World countries until that term was discarded as demeaning
– catch up with us economically?

China is growing at a tremendous rate. So far this year, China’s gross domestic product has grown 11 percent, while U.S. growth is two percent. According to The Times, India has a middle class of 250 million, while the entire U.S. population is 300 million. What’s going on here? These facts alone make clear it is not necessary to effectively mandate a reduction in the U.S. standard of living in order for other nations to grow.

I wonder if Al Gore knows what he’s doing. Reducing and sacrificing the U.S. standard of living as a way to bring others up the ladder, rather than allowing the U.S. to maintain its living standard while encouraging and helping others to reach our level, is a foolish and dangerous plan. It is simply unacceptable. Al Gore and his friends live in a Democratic society and have the absolute right to say what they want. But those of us who do not want to see the U.S. punished because of its success have rights, too. I believe it is our duty to denounce Al Gore’s unwise attacks on America and hold him accountable for what he says.

Today, China has a hugely favorable balance of trade with the U.S. In 2006, for example, China’s net favorable balance was more than $232 billion. The New York Times on December 14, 2007 reported that “China’s trade deficit with the United States is expected to soar to nearly $300 billion this year, representing nearly half the overall American trade deficit.” Thanks to these enormous trade advantages, China has now accumulated more than $1.4 trillion dollars which they can use to buy up our industries cheaply, especially now when so many American business leaders are prophesizing an American recession. The Chinese have actually set aside $200 billion for the purpose of making such purchases worldwide, as a start.

Should Al Gore be out there creating the impression that the U.S. primarily is the cause of global problems? I say “no.” It is particularly galling when a recent Wall Street Journal article reported: “Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets…[M]eanwhile in the U.S., under the president’s oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.”

In other words, when it comes to the emissions problem, the U.S. is leading the way toward solving the problem without throwing millions of people out of work.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

Link to article here

December 11, 2007

Kyoto Schmyoto

Randall Hoven

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

• Maldives, 252%.
• Sudan, 142%.
• China, 55%.
• Luxembourg, 43%
• Iran, 39%.
• Iceland, 29%.
• Norway, 24%.
• Russia, 16%.
• Italy, 16%.
• Finland, 15%.
• Mexico, 11%.
• Japan, 11%.
• Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

Update: In response to a reader request, here is a link to the table showing increases in absolute numbers, not percentages.

Here is a good post from powerlineblog.com - even if it doesn’t favor Rudy – I agree with it in principle.  To go directly to the archived article on the blog space click here: 

———————

The Huffington Post has released additional documents from then-Governor Huckabee’s file on Wayne Dumond, the rapist Huckabee concluded should be released from prison and who, after he was released, committed murder. Our friend Byron York, who has been and remains critical of some of the attacks directed at Huckabee over the Dumond affair, has reviewed the documents. He concludes that Huckabee has a lot to explain. I’ll say. The file was provided to Gov. Huckabee by a staffer who didn’t agree with Huckabee’s view that Dumond should be freed (it is this staffer, I understand, who provided the documents that appear on the Huffington Post). The file contains 12 letters written by eight different women, three of whom reported being raped or sexually assaulted by Dumond. It also includes an affidavit provided by the Arkansas state police in which Dumond confessed to a rape for which he was never charged. Thus, far from being a victim of the criminal justice system, there was good reason to believe that Dumond had committed crimes for which he was not serving time. Why Huckabee thought Dumond had gotten a “raw deal” is beyond me, and Huckabee has failed to provide a plausible explanation.

Return to the Article

December 10, 2007

Play President, Real Threats

By Michael J. O’Shea

So you’re sitting in the Oval Office, presidential as can be, and up pops this little flash – and it ain’t from the CIA.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has a much stronger BW [biological weapons] program today than it had in 1990.”

The former chief biological weapons inspector for the UN tells that to the House Armed Services Committee – after 9/11 – and you dismiss him?
Then what do you do with the UN itself?

“the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq”.

What about the Nuclear Threat Institute, headed by former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn?

“Thirteen German companies are suspected of having assisted Iraq in building nuclear facilities and developing its Scud missile program. Illegal exports from Germany to Iraq include missile parts, aluminum pipes for producing gas ultracentrifuges, and design plans for nuclear technology.”

What about Senator Nunn himself on terrorists and nuclear weapons?

“If they get the materials, they can make a bomb. If they get a bomb, they’re going to use it.”

Then there’s the BBC’s report on Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, the BND.

“BND says it has evidence to suggest the following: Iraq has resumed its nuclear programme and may be capable of producing an atomic bomb in three years”

Do you shrug at former Iraq nuclear inspector David Albright and Khidhir Hamza, “Saddam’s Bombmaker”?

“Our conclusion is that Iraq could make a nuclear device within two to 12 months after deciding to do so, assuming it acquired sufficient fissile material. We also believe that the more probable time is closer to two months if HEU[Highly Enriched Uranium] is obtained”

No wonder President Clinton said to the American public on December 16, 1998:

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

“And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. “

Whether Saddam actually had WMD was irrelevant: he “will develop” them, “will deploy ” them, “will use” them.
Four years later, Colin Powell was just as stark:

“We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi stockpile of WMD and of mid- and long-range missiles. But no one can doubt the record of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, one after another, and for 12 long years.

“And no one can doubt that the Iraqi dictator’s intentions have not changed. He wants weapons of mass destruction as clearly as he wants to remain in power.”

Anthony Cordesman was equally adamant:

“The issue is not whether Iraq has yet achieved nuclear weapons or extremely lethal biological weapons. It is that this regime will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and biological weapons with equal or greater lethality if it is given the time and opportunity to do so. It will not change character or somehow enter the mythical ‘family of nations.’”

More inspections, President Clinton warned, were pointless:

“the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

“Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

“This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.”

Nothing had changed by 2002, not according to Anthony Cordesman:

“Even if a new, more aggressive U.N. inspection regime is eventually allowed back inside Iraq, inspectors ‘cannot hope to detect a covert biological program with nuclear lethalities, and they cannot hope to prevent Iraq from assembling a nuclear device if it can obtain fissile or ‘dirty’ fissile material from outside Iraq,’ Cordesman said. ‘In fact, efforts directed at large, observable Iraqi CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear] and missile activities may simply push Iraq into concentrating on biological weapons and asymmetrical means of delivery.’”

Even with troops massing at Iraq’s borders in 2003, chief UN inspector Hans Blix concluded:

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”

With no “genuine acceptance – not even today” – Ambassador Blix warned Iraq:

“Inspection is not a game of ‘catch as catch can.’”

Iraq’s Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure submitted just the month before was further proof of the “game.”.

“Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number.”

Weapons inspector David Kay said of that document:

“Iraq mocked the United Nations with its declaration. It rejected what the Security Council, in Resolution 1441, insisted it must do – that is, answer all outstanding questions about the program. And it had the gall to contend that it hasn’t had a prohibited weapons program since the end of the Gulf War.”

Six weeks later — twelve days before combat began — Hans Blix said Iraq still had resolved nothing:

“Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note.”

Two months after Saddam fell, Ambassador Blix reported:

“the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation.”

That “long list ” from the UN – not the CIA – included VX and these concerns from Ambassador Blix:

• “The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed”

• “Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable”

• “UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.”

• “there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for”

• “I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.”

Chemical weapons were not all the UN – not the CIA – cited; there were also biological ones, including anthrax.

• “Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.”

• “There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.”

• “Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media”

• “I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.”

The UN – not the CIA – reported that Iraq further refused to account for outlawed missiles.

• “There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War.”

• “Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems….. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.”

• “Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers…. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.”

• “associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002.”

The UN – not the CIA – proved Saddam had had WMD.
The UN – not the CIA – proved he refused to account for WMD.
The UN – not the CIA – proved he imported prohibited materials.
The UN – not the CIA – proved he teamed with foreign scientists despite UN sanctions.
The UN – not the CIA – proved he lied in every official UN report.
Not even war opponents — including Barack Obama — denied Iraq had WMD. And neither Bill Clinton nor Anthony Cordesman nor David Kay believed inspections would prove anything.
Nor should they. The burden was not on the UN or the US: it was on Saddam.
Colin Powell:

“The resolution does not call for them to go snooping all over Iraq to see what they can find; the resolution puts the burden not on the inspectors but on Saddam Hussein to come forward, complete declaration, full cooperation, and telling us everything that has been going on in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, lo these many years, with respect to weapons of mass destruction. If he were to do that, if he had done it over the years, but especially in the weeks since [UN Resolution] 1441, here’s what we used to do, we’re not doing it now, you can audit it, here’s what we have left, and we haven’t told you about it before, we’re telling you now, here is the difference between what you think we have and what we actually have, and here is how we account for those differences – if that had been his attitude, we’d be in a different situation; that has not been his attitude. He still thinks that he can string out this process and escape the judgment of the international community. And the international community cannot allow that to happen.”

Have would-be presidents read the 9/11 Commission on terrorist threats?

“Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier-but it then may be too late.”

Candidates today play president but not as much as they play with facts. And history. And lives. And, if many of them had their way, they’d be still playing with Saddam. Armed. No sanctions. No No-Fly Zones. Uday, Qusay ready to carry on. Osama accepting Saddam’s safe haven offer.
So you’re sitting in the Oval Office, presidential as can be. What do you do?
Thanking God for George W. might be a good start.

NATIONAL REVIEW

A Problem-Solver Whose Time Is Now
For Giuliani
By: DAVID FRUM

This is a difficult hour for the United States. It’s not just the strain of war. On domestic issues, too, discontent runs strong. The incomes of ordinary Americans have stagnated over the past six years. Health-care and energy costs have surged. In many cities, gang violence has surged. Over two-thirds of Americans now describe the country as “on the wrong track” — astonishing for a non-recession year.

We must avoid the mistake we made in 1996, when we picked a candidate because he made us feel comfortable — with little regard to how the majority of Americans would feel about him. When Americans look at our array of candidates on the stage, they see only one president up there. That’s the president we should offer them.

Mr. Frum, an NR contributing editor, is the author of the forthcoming book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again.

He is an unpaid senior policy adviser to the Giuliani presidential campaign.

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

The paragraph above is what will “last words” from The New Republic Magazine, but never “famous last words” because many more will have read the lies before they read this – if they do. The damage has been done.

It took TNR 14 pages to explain why they “cannot stand by these stories”.

If you want to read that manifesto go here.

To very briefly summarize – in July The New Republic published a story from a soldier named Beauchamp who wrote about events in Iraq that were not favorable (some horribly ugly) focusing on US soldiers. As usual, bloggers, notably Michael Yon and Little Green Footballs and their readers, researched and reported on the story doubting major elements. As it turned out even though Beauchamp admited problems with the article himself, TNR would never admit any wrong doing. Until now.

Five months later they can’t deny it. But so what, they won… no one will remember this part of the story.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

This was true when Mark Twain said it and truer now when the MSM reports whatever it wants to say and doesn’t verify it’s sources adequately. Media Bias at its horribly worst.

Here is a link to some documentation on this “story” on Little Green Footballs if you want to look through the entire sad story.