Original Jurisdiction

And We're Back!

2011-06-19T16:15:00.000-04:00

This blog has returned from a brief (3-year) hiatus.

Olbermann

2008-11-12T19:27:00.001-05:00

Beyond Man's Law

2008-11-11T23:36:00.000-05:00

Obama likely to escape campaign audit.

The Brevity of Memory

2008-11-07T07:52:00.002-05:00

In this Times (UK) article, Archbishop of Atlanta Daniel Gregory claims that "[t]he election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope." You see, Archbishop Gregory said that the next time cardinals gathered to elect a Pope they could "in their wisdom" choose an African pontiff.

It seems there are still some things Barack can't do; if only because of history. The Catholic Church has already had at least 3 African Popes. Granted, there is some controversy as at least some, if not all, of these Popes have Berber ancestry and are not considered "black" by some people. However, Catholic tradition holds that there was least 1 "black" Pope during the first couple centuries B.C.

Bob Novak is Wrong

2008-11-05T10:35:00.002-05:00

Here, Bob Novak argues that Obama did not get "a mandate" because Democrats only control the entire legislative branch by a small margin. While I think the concept of a mandate shifts depending upon the status of a politician (I would argue that winning 51% to re-elect a president could bemore of a mandate than winning 52% to your first term, the fact is, Obama DESTROYED John McCain by 6%, a major feat in modern Presidential politics, especially considering how well known (and generally liked, personally) John McCain is and how unknown Barack Hussein Obama was (can I use his middle name now?).

The fact is, Democrats now control the Congress, the Senate, the White House, and I believe a majority of governor's mansions and statehouses. And they managed to pick up seats in all of those I believe. The fact is, the nation, over the last 2 years, has soundly rejected the Republican party in virtually every venue possible. Rather than sitting around, licking their wounds, and discussing how "little" the Democrats have acheived, perhaps Republicans should try to figure out where they went wrong and how they can fix it.

Why America is the Greatest Country in History

2008-11-05T00:15:00.002-05:00

It's purple fingers in Iraq and it's a 92-year old woman in Texas, voting from an ambulance.

Obama's Victory Speech

2008-11-05T00:13:00.002-05:00

Jesse Jackson is sitting there going "I can't believe this isn't me."

What Voter Intimidation Actually Looks Like

2008-11-05T00:11:00.001-05:00

All Over But the Crying

2008-11-04T23:26:00.002-05:00

Well, McCain got destroyed. Unfortunately (for me), my prediction that the hotly-contested Democratic primary and the cake-walk GOP primary would lead to a strong Dem campaign and a weak GOP campaign turned out to be pretty much right.

Before the gloating and the commiserating, I've got my picks for winners and losers in this election (since I lost, I'll put losers first):

LOSERS:
1. John McCain: he ran a back-assward campaign that stumbled often, he failed to rally his own party and showed he was anything but a leader of conservatives.

2. The GOP: after showing the country they were no better in power than the democrats they ousted, the GOP is now a minority in state houses, Congress, the Senate, and the White House. Their primary candidates were all pretty lousy too.

3. Laissez-faire economics: from McCain's jaunt to Washington, DC to "save the economy" to the Bail Out to Obama's open embrace of wealth redistribution, it's clear that laissez-faire is no longer mainstream in any American political party.

4. The Press: the idea that the press is "biased" is a complete joke; this year the press ran an open guerrilla campaign for Obama, actively withholding information and publishing factual inaccuracies. Now the Republicans will constantly cry Media Bias, but because Obama won, it will all be somehow meaningless and meanwhile, the media seems to have lost all semblance of dignity and impartiality.

5. The "switchers," from those helped cram McCain down conservative's throat (i.e. Chris Buckley) to those who formerly launched all kinds of invective towards Obama (i.e. Peggy Noonan) all kinds of conservatives revealed themselves as nothing but opportunists and attention-mongers.

WINNERS
1. Barack Obama: he befuddled the Clintons and swept the country in a landslide, the man might be the preeminent politician of our day, and that's saying something coming on the heels of Clinton and W.

2. The Democrats. They now run the country. Good luck.

3. Rhetoric. "Obama is a good speaker" was the reason one woman at my office voted for him.

3. Class Warfare: Obama openly espoused it, as did several Senatorial and Congressional candidates and...America embraced them for it.

4. Hope: The effervescent feeling won.

5. Horatio Alger (without the boy-touching stuff): America is the place where anything can happen, including the election of a half-African Socialist, half-Kansan graduate student to President of the United States.

Breaking New! Stop the Presses!

2008-11-04T09:34:00.002-05:00

New York Times Discovers...there are terrorists at Gitmo! (shocking, I know)

Obama on Obama

2008-11-04T08:45:00.000-05:00

Obama Finally Says Something I Agree With

2008-11-04T08:39:00.001-05:00

Obama favors playoffs in college football...

A Glimpse of The First Amendment Under an Imperial Obama?

2008-11-01T11:36:00.002-04:00

On Democratic Prompting, the FCC investigates TV Military Analysts who were pro-War on Terrorism and pro-Bush.

Obama Bans Reporters of Newspapers that Endorsed McCain from his Plane.

Obama Campaign Asks DOJ to Prosecute a 527 Group for Producing An Ad Asking Questions about Obama and Bill Ayers.

Obama Campaign Asks DOJ to Investigate Those Questing ACORN Over Voter Fraud (including John McCain).

Obama Lawyer Threatens TV Stations that Run NRA Ad.

Obama Campaign Asks Supporters to Flood WGN Radio Station with Calls While National Review Author is on Call-in Show.

How does that liberal saying go? If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.

Peggy Noonan Gives a Sort-of Pseudo-Endorsement of Obama

2008-10-31T08:45:00.003-04:00

Peggy Noonan has a weird column praising Obama (and McCain a little too) without seeming to actually want him to win or endorsing him. However, I, as jerks are want to do, posted a not nice comment at the WSJ.com. Here it is:

Ms. Noonan is certainly right, if he is elected, Barack Obama will have the ability (just like any other President) to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy. But I think we must ask ourselves just exactly what that new tune will be. You don't have to be a fan of George W. Bush in any sense of the word to recognize that a foreign policy that brooks every provocation, that turns a blind eye to the dangers the world faces, that assumes that America is the cause of and solution to all the world's problems is disastrously naive, at best. Time and time again, Mr. Obama has shown that his foreign policy is nothing but an unfortunate empty shell of rhetoric and hopeful-but-ultimately-unrealistic expectations. Time and again Mr. Obama has insisted that he will meet foreign leaders without precondition, that he will lend the world's worst tyrants America's credibility. Even as Senator, Obama's meeting and touring with Prime Minister Raila Odinga boosted that man's support throughout all of Kenya. But Obama was nowhere to be found when Mr. Odinga's supporters torched a church with 50-some people inside. Is this really the new tone for which Ms. Noonan hopes? A foreign policy too blinded with self-righteousness to recognize good from bad, friend from foe?

Ms. Noonan, [i]is[/i] wrong about at least one thing, however. Mr. Obama's election would not be "a fresh start." Mr. Obama's election would be a return to the domestic and economic policies of 70 years ago. The New Deal isn't so new anymore. And while there are many people in America who openly support those policies, Ms. Noonan, to date, has not been one of their number. Now, however, now that Obama is a "runaway train," Ms. Noonan sees all these policies as "a fresh start." How illuminating.

To Ms. Noonan, Mr. Obama "shows good judgment." Of course that's true, now. It wasn't true when Mr. Obama was younger and a major drug abuser. It wasn't true when he was a community and organizer operating among one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. I'm guessing it probably wasn't true--at least to Ms. Noonan--when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state senator and consistently voted the direct opposite of Ms. Noonan's stated views. But Ms. Noonan is right, for the last 4% of his life, Mr. Obama has shown excellent judgment and therefore is somehow qualified to be President.

Finally, one has to wonder which Barack Obama Ms. Noonan is talking about when she writes "[Obama] took down a political machine without raising his voice." Mr. Obama didn't take down a political machine, he enmeshed himself in it. Over the years, Mr. Obama has shown that there is no member of the Illinois political machine too loathsome to support, that there is no ethical breach bad enough to separate him from the powerful and the greedy. Mr. Obama's own advisers regularly cycle themselves between his camp and the Illinois political machine; perhaps he speaks softly to them about taking down the machine in between political cycles. Some may say that's simply how you get things done in Illinois. Some may say that's simply how politics work in America. Both may be reality, but the Obama who takes down political machines is a mythical creature with no relation to reality.

When Obama won Alabama, it was a great moment. When he refused to criticize Palin, that was a great moment too. His campaign is certainly historic and would definitely serve as a practical rebuke of George W. Bush.

But shouldn't the Presidency be above all that? Shouldn't the Presidency be above the historicity of one man? If Ms. Noonan is so eager to raise the level of political discourse in this country, shouldn't she begin by recognizing that our country is too important to let personal feelings count in the voting booth.

The more people talk about the historical nature of an Obama presidency, the more it appears that they're voting for all the wrong reasons--that they're voting in some sort of vainglorious attempt to somehow squeeze their name into the history books beside Obama's. Or perhaps they're simply voting for Obama because they dislike George W. Bush. But neither a sense of vanity nor a sense of personal animosity should be important enough to count in the ballot box, and while they do, this country will suffer.

Rather Pathetic, Honestly

2008-10-30T08:43:00.005-04:00

So a writer at The Atlantic has started ragging on the LA Times for suppressing a video of Obama and Ayers at a party praising Rashid Khalidi and Charlie Gibson has decided he's going to start asking Obama some tough questions about his rather questionable fund raising operations.

Trouble is, the election is less than a week away. These questions have been swirling around the campaign for weeks and yet we've heard nothing. Now it is clear the press is desperately trying to write a record that they think will make them look bipartisan in the future. Four years from now, when someone implies that Charlie Gibson was in the tank for Obama, he'll say "no, no, look, I asked him some pretty tough questions." Nevermind, of course, that the election is less than a week away and Gibson obviously knows there's nothing anyone can do about corrupt fund-raising practices now.

Frankly, I think it's shallow and it reveals the press for what they really are: snakes who think the rest of this country is too stupid to figure out what they're really doing.

Sidebar

2008-10-30T00:23:00.001-04:00

By the way, the new commercial by ACORN/Obama, accusing John McCain of actively suppressing the black vote is utterly disgraceful, although I'm sure no one in the Obama campaign is embarrassed about it (except maybe Joe Biden).

The Vacuous Intellectual

2008-10-29T23:28:00.002-04:00

At age 30, she didn't have the audacity to write her memoirs because she had won a popularity contest among the editors of the Harvard law review. Instead she saw a problem with her small town and became mayor. She didn't hope to become part of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country, instead she ran against her own party on a "clean government" platform. Instead of sabbaticals to Bali, she worked on fishing boats with her husband. For all this, she has been charged one of the teeming masses, part of that faceless (and obviously brainless) part of America that doesn't live on the East Coast or in LA. She is the very opposite of her Democratic opponents, she is an anti-intellectual.

But let us look briefly at those "intellectuals" she's running against. You see, these are serious people, you can tell they've "thought" about things. But where, for instance, did Joe Biden earn his intellectual stripes? Hopefully it wasn't in law school, where he had to repeat a class for plagiarism and graduated near the bottom of his class (despite his assertions many years later). Surely it wasn't when he first ran for the Democratic nomination and was forced to pull out after he lied about his early life and law school and his undergraduate transcript. It must be at Katie's Restaurant where, according to Mr. Biden himself, he gauges the problems of everyday Americans. Of course, the fact that Katie's hasn't been open for years doesn't deter him.

But what about Mr. Obama? Surely his ability to act serious means he is serious. But Obama does nothing but blindly follow the most liberal political views in American politics. When pressed to explain his more liberal votes in the Illinois State Senate, instead of explaining his reasoning for making them, he simply blames his former staff! The NY Times' description of his time in law school is no better. The picture painted was of a man unwilling (or unable) to enter into the serious debates his peers held all around him. Instead of taking a side or proffering his own ideas, Mr. Obama sat mute, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything. Surely this man is a great a thinker!

I think the truth is, the idea of the modern intellectual is largely smoke and mirrors. Joe Biden is more "intellectual" than Sarah Palin because he's "thought about the issues." Nevermind that he's been proven wrong on virtually every position he's ever taken. As for Obama, mutely watching his Harvard classmates debate topics earns him the right to be intellectual while Sarah Palin living an actual life earns her nothing but contempt from the "working man's party."

Who was the last Democrat President who was not "intellectual" (if not "an intellectual")? Jackson? And yet compare public opinion of Barack Obama and the utter vacuousness of his so-called "intellectualism" with Ronald Reagan, a man who had been making serious policy speeches for 20 years, who ran California, and who successfully debated William F. Buckley on television by the time he was President.

The Pro-America Parts of America

2008-10-22T12:12:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin's comment about the "pro-America areas of this great nation" has drawn much criticism and hysteria. I would not characterize any area in the United States as anti-American. Large urban areas filled with liberals, like New York, contain just as many patriots per capita as any other place. See, e.g., 9/11/2001. So her comment is not accurate, or politically smart. But there is some truth to the sentiment she expresses.

The contributors to this blog visited Morgantown, West Virginia, one weekend last fall. We had always joked about starting "U-S-A" chants in public places just to see if anybody would join in. Upon entering one establishment on a Saturday night in Morgantown, we began to chant "U-S-A." Everyone else in the place joined in and enthusiastically chanted along with us. Would that ever happen in DC or San Francisco? It wouldn't last more than 20 seconds in New York before you were belted across the back of the head with a rolled up copy of The Nation by some guy wearing tight black jeans and a Che Guevara shirt. So there are certainy different comfort levels with public displays of patriotism depending on where you are in America.

From the Much Hated Obama-Cult-Wire

2008-10-19T23:09:00.001-04:00

San Francisco finds religion! (again)

Palin on Weekend Update

2008-10-19T20:31:00.001-04:00

Men love them some Palin

2008-10-18T20:36:00.001-04:00

“The criticism is part of the process,” Mr. McLain said, adding of Ms. Palin, “Who can’t trust a mother?”

The dudes tend to make themselves noticed. “You tell ’em baby,” a man yelled out at a rally Wednesday night on a high school football field in Salem, N.H.

I mean, cooooooooooooome on.

From the WayBackMachine

2008-10-18T12:56:00.001-04:00

Asked for, received: Morning in America

Oh No Joe!

2008-10-17T07:17:00.003-04:00

On today's Good Morning America, Dianne Sawyer revealed, with apparent glee, that "Joe the Plumber" has a dark and shadowy past. You see, he owes almost $1200 in back taxes! Can you believe that? A guy who already owes $1200 is worried about increasing taxes? I find that hilariously impossible to believe!

Secondly, Joe, doesn't have an unnecessary plumber's license. What shame! What horror! You see, Joe works as a plumber, for a plumbing company, but doesn't have a plumbing license because--he doesn't own the company. Oh Dianne, lucky thing you so snarkily reported all this. However, what Sawyer didn't say was that, because he plans to buy the company soon, Joe is in the middle of the licensing process.

Here's my question, maybe some of the faithful can answer it. Why are people combing through Joe's tax records? Why is he under a microscope? Because he was approached by the fearless leader and had something other than praise?

Let's just say this, Joe has already been more scrutinized than Bill Ayers.

GOP: Fat, Complacent, Lazy

2008-10-15T23:53:00.004-04:00

I guess conservatives thought they'd never have to worry that a candidate for President of the United States would openly espouse wealth redistribution and gain votes because of it. The liberals, we were led to believe, would use subterfuge, skulduggery, artifice, guile, all the tricks in their bag. Aided by the mainstream media, these politicians would sneakily obtain positions of power and then enforce hidden socialist tendencies.

In truth, however, the Democratic candidate for President openly espouses wealth redistribution. He brazenly asserts that the tax system isn't about government revenue but about "fairness." He looks middle-income Americans in their eye when he says that he plans to share their wealth.

Where is the conservative panoply? Have we forgotten Hayek and Friedman and Goldwater and Hazlitt and Bastiat and their arguments? Has the GOP moved so far into the compassionate conservative camp that it can no longer mount a reasonable defense of the free market and American principals?

Did we miss our rendezvous with destiny?

David Allen Greer is Back!

2008-10-15T23:10:00.002-04:00

As predicted, Greer's new show is pretty freakin' good. I have always maintained, going back at least to his In Living Color days, that Greer was one of the funniest people around. He was hilarious as "The Truth" on Crank Yankers and I've often lamented that DAG and Tommy Davidson should be on television more.

It's Abundantly Clear

2008-10-15T21:33:00.001-04:00

McCain has no interest in being President of the United States.

McCain Tonight

2008-10-15T09:46:00.003-04:00

My opinion is that the first line McCain must make against Obama is that his naivete has already led to people's deaths and making him the President only increases the likelihood of that repeating (I say 'first' because it's obvious McCain needs to do a lot tonight).

As I previously noted, yesterday the Washington Times ran an article about the massacre of 50 church-goers in Kenya by supporters of prime minister Odinga. It seems that, with his support in Kenya waning, PM Odinga received a huge boost when he toured the Kenya countryside with Sen. Barack Obama, who made several speeches on the socialist prime minister's behalf.

While Obama is not responsible for those parishioner's deaths, I think that this story viscerally illustrates the danger that exists when a naive politician blindly lends credibility foreign leaders.

What is the danger when the President of the United States decides to unilaterally meet with every foreign leader without precondition? Barack Obama was only a Senator when he supported Odinga and an entire church was massacred then.

E.J. Dionne and the Loss of All Credibility

2008-10-15T01:03:00.003-04:00

Today, Dionne writes that "When [John McCain's] running mate, Sarah Palin, first brought up Obama's association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, who has become a centerpiece of McCain's attacks, she accused Obama of 'palling around with terrorists.' What other 'terrorists' was she thinking about?"

Such garbage reveals either Dionne's incompetence or refusal to acknowledge even that which Obama himself has admitted. Of course there is the ever-present Bill Ayers, whose name surfaces at virtually every intersection in Obama's life over the last 15 years or so. But that's only one, right? Well, Ayers' is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another former weatherman terrorist. And it was at an intimate gathering at Dohrn and Ayers' house that Obama's political career was launched. Furthermore, there are indications that Dohrn may have worked with Obama's wife at Sidley Austin. This all despite Obama's insistence that Ayers' was "just a guy" living on his street.

But wait there's more!

This article from the Washington Times outlays Obama's travels through Kenya with Raila Odinga, as well as speaking on Mr. Odinga's behalf. Mr. Odinga, whose supporters burnt a parish of the Assembly of God church with approximately 50 parishioners inside (the ones that managed to escape were hacked to death by the mob), is the socialist prime minister of Kenya.

What proved to be impossible for E.J. Dionne took me roughly 15 minutes to prove: that Palin was correct, terrorists.

Fall of the House of Buckley?

2008-10-15T00:13:00.002-04:00

While a senior a Yale, William F. Buckley founded a journal of politics entitled The National Buckley, and a literary magazine called The Buckley Review. Later, he would merge the two publications into what is now known as The Buckley Buckley, at least according to David Brooks. Somewhere along the way, the Buckley Buckley would morph into the National Review.

At the Nat'l Rev., Mark Steyn wrote a pretty darn good column on the back page. With Mark Steyn tied up in the ironically named Canadian Human Rights Commissions though, the amazingly talented Christopher Buckley, son of William F., recently took the reins of the last page of the Nat'l Rev. With William F. Buckley's passing this year, it appeared, at least to me, that some of torch had been passed.

Only 7 columns in, however, Chris Buckley endorsed Barack Obama in a mildly insulting article (see below). At least a few of the editors of the Buckley Buckley were not pleased. In a move of apparent childish flippancy, Chris Buckley offered to resign. As Steyn, an equally talented writer, was freed from bonds of the commission's shackles, the resignation was accepted. Now the pages of the Nat'l Rev. drift out to sea Buckley-less.

I can't help think that the readers of National Review are the worse off for this whole debacle. While I think Buckley's argument for endorsing Obama was fatally flawed (more on that later), it did not diminish his ability to write (imagine, Steyn and C. Buckley in the same issue). Unfortunately, that appears like an unlikely pipe-dream for me now. I'm also saddened by the unshakable feeling that Chris Buckley greatly diminished himself during the handling of this whole thing.

Response

2008-10-13T22:23:00.004-04:00

1) You can write about whatever you want. I just find it boring and trivial and wish you would write about more substantive issues instead of harping on (what I believe to be) non-issues in this campaign.

2) Yes, the children singing is weird in a "Children of the Corn" odd sort of way but I actually think it is great that people and children look up to the future President of the United States. I know, I know. God forbid.

3) This comment has everything to do with your personality trait that is it is "you against the world" and less with what I actually wrote. I never, ever ever ever implied anything of the sort. What I implied was the use of the racial slurs without condemnation by Palin is what is holding this country back. If someone disagrees with Obama's policies, fine. But to continue to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist (which is false) and then allow the crowd to scream racial and ethnic epithets does hold this country back from moving past racism. Re-read the post before you go off and accuse me of saying what would've have been a stupid comment. The continuing use of the line "palling around with terrorist" continues to breed hatred and leads to racial and ethnic epithets being screamed at during campaign events. Go watch some youtube video of events. Or read here, here, or here.

You write: "Honestly, what I really am saddened and amazed by is that these people have nothing better in their life than to worship a politician. That they apparently have no problem forcing impressionable children to do the same is an outrage. How vacuous must your life be when your only glimmer of hope is a politician?"

I think you are being completely shortsighted. Just because you have been fortunate to have had heroes throughout your life that probably include family and close friends does not mean others have been so fortunate. Maybe you/I can't completely understand a lot of these attitudes (note: Calling him the Messiah is obviously bat-shit crazy). But maybe, just maybe, Obama isn't the worst hero for a young person to have. His life story is pretty miraculous and I truly think these rumors involving Ayers are crazy and have continued to state that the craziness of Reverend Wright does not mean Obama is also similarly crazy or believes similar ideas. Apart of being intelligent is the ability to be discriminating: seperate the good ideas from the bad. I think Obama has this ability and therefore the continued attacks associating Obama with shady characters holds no water with me. Show me something Obama has done totally wrong?! Stop showing me what people he knows did wrong because they are not running for President. I can show you things McCain, the actual man, did wrong without having to argue that he was friends with shady characters.

I didn't make a personal attack against you. You know I think to highly of you to do so such a thing (at least on the blog). Non-issue.

You wrote: "that is the most worrisome aspect of speaking out against Barack Obama: close friends and associates have implied awful motives and deeds to me simply because I am not an Obama supporter." See here. Nobody (no party) is perfect.

Christopher Buckley endorses Obama

2008-10-11T00:22:00.000-04:00

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/10/a-buckley-endorses-obama/

Latest from the Obama-Cult Department

2008-10-10T07:58:00.001-04:00

Farrakhan on Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'

"I will follow him," Obama as Smith College co-ed's personal Jesus

Bizarre--IMO--Thought

2008-10-08T07:33:00.003-04:00

One of the strangest lines, I thought, from last night: "Well, I think [health care] should be a right for every American." -Barack Obama

I think this is one of the strangest talking points. First of all, what does it even mean? Can the government force a doctor to see me? If so, what about the doctor's other, "more minor" rights, you know, like those listed in the Constitution. When a hypochondriac is turned away from the emergency room so doctors can focus on actual injuries, are we going to have a Supreme Court fight on our hands? What about people who openly abuse the health care system, who go to the emergency room for even the minor scrapes hoping for prescriptions and what-not? Do those people have a right to be there?

Secondly, if its a right, doesn't every American have the same entitlement? The guy who smokes 8 packs a day and eats a bacon sandwich for lunch and dinner should have the government pay for his health care just as the guy who runs 3 miles a day and eats a salad 3 times a day?

In reality, it's just code for nationalizing the health care. My guess is no one at the Obama campaign bothered to think it through and that it's just a stupid talking point, but the coddling of America continues apace.

PS: The Obama employee insurance plan / tax plan is hilariously ironic. Most small companies in America already run very very tight. They have a very small profit margin and often literally cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees. Obama's plan through a combination of "pay-ins" and taxes will force many to shut their doors and fire their employees, but those that do manage to keep their job will be able to buy government insurance--awesome!

Be Honest

2008-10-08T00:26:00.002-04:00

Who really won tonight?

My scorecard reads "neither candidate actually said anything, but Obama didn't say anything better than McCain didn't say anything."

[Obligatory Sports Metaphor] McCain needed to play some serious defense and hopefully get a turn over, he didn't really do either. Obama didn't get a touchdown, but he did move the ball down the field.

Sidebar

2008-10-06T09:04:00.002-04:00

Mathew Yglesias steps in a big pile of satire; liberal readers assert that their inability to tell satire from reality proves how stupid Sarah Palin is.

Ohio #1

2008-10-05T22:28:00.001-04:00

Ohio #1

So although I have only been in Ohio for a few days now I think I have already picked up on the general sentiment of this town. I, along with another person, am running field offices in Wilmington, Ohio and Lebanon, Ohio. Both are heavily Republican districts and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. In Wilmington, 1/3 of the town was employed by DHL (the mail service) but because of a merger with UPS this "factory" is closing down leaving 1/3 of the population jobless. Needless to say this will effect the entire economics of the town and I have personally witnessed a number of people who are registered Republicans but either 1) (this is more typical) cannot take 4 more years of same/similar economic policies as W or 2) are pretty embarrassed over the Palin pick and find her inequipped to be V.P. with such an old candidate (a vastly less cited reason that #1).

If I were to rank the importance of the issues right now for this town it would go 1) economy, 2) healthcare (as people lose their jobs, universal health care starts sounding a lot better), 3) and abortion (which is what typical holds people up when they come into the office).

All in all, it has been incredibly interesting and fascinating because I hadn't fully appreciated what it means when I would hear about the impact of a factory closing in a small town. Honestly, the people of this town are scared out of their minds because they don't have transferable skills and really don't want to move.

The big solution proposed was to put in a casino close but most of the people here do not seem keen on the idea of a casino (plus, I could not imagine most of these people working a casino).

I just got back from a small meeting where Governor Strickland's wife (Governor Strickland won Wilmington) spoke. This was one of those small town hall meeting where everyone knew each other and people from the audience would blurt out profanities when Palin's name was uttered. On a bad note for the campaign, I just found out Palin is coming to give a speech here on Thursday. That means that the McCain campaign would have come here 3 times (2 by McCain, 1 by Palin) and the Obama campaign has made no appearances yet. Not good news. (I can't verify this but supposedly the very last stop Bush made in 2004 was to the DHL factory here).

Change We Can Believe In...

2008-10-05T17:05:00.002-04:00

Evidence continues to mount that the Obama campaign's fund raising activities are less than, shall we say, "above suspicion," despite such treatment by the media.

Accusations on the right have continued to mount, finally leading the MSM to the story, no doubt helped by news that the GOP plans to file complaints about Obama's fundraising.

Here's my question to Obama supporters: Are you completely comfortable with the fact that the fearless leader refuses to release the names of all donors, like the McCain? Are you not bothered by the fact that Obama's oversight "missed" donations by "Mr. Good Will" that went over $12,000 over the federal limit?

Cue the fearless leader's excuse machine...

Obama Supporters Unite!

2008-10-05T16:54:00.001-04:00

First child molesters for Obama, and now jaundiced buffoons?

You Say It's Not a Cult, and Yet...

2008-10-04T00:02:00.003-04:00

Really, if you don't see something creepily wrong with all this, well, I just don't know what to say...

UPDATE:

This just in from the nut-job-cult wire:

Ohio #1

2008-10-03T21:50:00.004-04:00

Ohio

2008-09-30T21:49:00.003-04:00

So I leave tomorrow to go to Ohio to work on the next President of the United States' campaign. I will update the blog if I have any interesting stories to tell from there. Voting has already started there because of a recent state court decision so I am sure the next 35 days will be extremely busy (which I am looking forward to). Good luck to everyone with their jobs and talk to you all soon.

Good News and Bad News

2008-09-29T13:09:00.002-04:00

The Good News is, with recent polling as an indication, the electorial prediction I made back in June seems to be coming true. The Bad News is that it means Barack Obama will be the president of the United States.

McCain End Game Becomes Clear

2008-09-29T12:29:00.002-04:00

After last week's swift decamp to Washington, McCain spent an entire debate not looking at Barack Obama. It seems clear now that McCain's endgame will be focused on McCain as a leader. His debate performance screamed, "yeah, Barack knows a lot, but me, I'm a leader, look how dismissive of this neophyte I am." It seems increasingly clear that McCain will try to make the election somewhat of a referendum on whether the country likes and respects him and his running mate. Will it work? I don't know. There's a lot to admire about John McCain, and even Republicans that strongly disagree with the man view him as a viable leader and respectable person (some Democrats too). But there are an awful lot of people who don't take that view and there are even more people who disagree with the man's policies. Moreover, when was the last time an election was won as a referendum on the winning candidate? Clinton's "the economy stupid" made the election a referendum on Bush I. The Swiftboat veterans helped t0 make the 2004 election a referendum on Kerry, as much as one on Bush II.

I think this new strategy, that the election is about McCain as a leader is one that might cost him the election. There's a reason everyone decries personal, negative ads and then goes on to use them: they work. McCain is trying to rise above it. Will that work? Only time will tell.

Minitrue.

2008-09-28T20:57:00.004-04:00

Let us hope that the way the Obama campaign is run does not foretell the way an Obama presidency will operate. On Friday we learned that several members of Missouri law enforcement, including sheriffs and prosecutors, have joined the the "Obama Truth Squad." They will be scouring the state looking for "misleading" statements about Barack Obama in order to hold the offenders and the John McCain campaign accountable in some way. Conservatives, especially on the web, have decried this so-called "truth squad" as Stalin-esque thuggery intended to intimidate critics. The Obama campaign, however, insists that it is absurd for the GOP to contend that the Obama truth squad plans to use the courts to silence critics. Yet, the Obama campaign does frequently attempt to silence its critics with the court systems. On September 23rd, the Obama campaign sent a letter television stations, not-so-subtley threatening legal action for airing an NRA ad. And such tactics, while disturbing, are nothing new for the Obama campaign. Back in August, the Obama campaign mailed similar letters to certain television stations, again not-so-subtley implying legal consequences for airing an ad asking questions about Bill Ayers. The campaign then went one step further, however, and DEMANDED that the DOJ criminally PROSECUTE the group responsible for a Barack Obama-Bill Ayers ad, as well as the group's donors.

Doubtless Obama defenders are now and will soon rush to his aid, hysterically claiming that Obama is well within the letter of the law to do everything he has done so far, the comparisons with their own criticisms of George W. Bush notwithstanding.

How tragically hilarious that the campaign of change, the side of those who compare "George W. Bush's America" with Orwell's Oceania, are apparently well on their way to creating a Ministry of Truth. I only hope I can somehow avoid Winston Smith's fate.

WOW! That didn't take long!

2008-09-26T22:46:00.001-04:00

The Debate So Far

2008-09-26T21:28:00.001-04:00

Obama while speaking: "I'm a serious person who deserves to be listened to."

Obama while John McCain is speaking "I'm a spoiled brat who can't believe this guy has the nerve to disagree with me."

Open Forum

2008-09-24T17:22:00.003-04:00

So what does everyone think about McCain's suspension of his campaign? My thought process went from confusion to humor because now I can keep thinking about the Chris Farley sketch where he pretends to be General Schwarzkopf and challenges all Iraqis to a fight. Does McCain need to go back to D.C. to fix the problem himself? Can he not read on the Straight Talk Express because it gets too bumpy which causes his to lose focus on the papers he is trying to read?

Does anyone think this was a good idea or can we all concede he is just trying to avoid the debate because he forgot to prepare while Obama, the smarter of the two, has been prepping?

Silver Lining

2008-09-20T18:08:00.002-04:00

It was disappointing that McCain and Obama did not go on a town-hall road tour over the summer. But the two camps have agreed on a much different debate format for their three scheduled encounters. Read about it here. On another note, the article says the McCain campaign fought very hard and won the ability to hold the vice-presidential debate in a traditional, structured (read: boring) format. The McCain campaign said a freewheeling style would leave Palin "at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive." I think that's certainly true, and the cynic in me can't help but have flashbacks to the "caribou in the headlights" look she had during the infamous Bush Doctrine question. But I also think the last thing Joe Biden would need is a freewheeling format. Apparently Biden has a hard enough time keeping himself under control on the stump.

What goes down, comes back up.

2008-09-20T10:01:00.001-04:00

I wonder if Sarah Palin also said "thanks but no thanks" before accepting the pay raise she was originally against.

Life in Palinland

2008-09-19T06:55:00.009-04:00

If you were born to America's favorite hockey mom, find out what your name would be here. Would you too be named after a member of Roy Rogers's barnyard family? Or perhaps a 1980s fantasy epic? Go ahead and see what might have been ...

Thank you for not being a pussy

2008-09-19T06:55:00.006-04:00

I get why college football teams schedule games against I-AA schools: pressure to make bowl games, extra home-game revenue, no exhibition season, give your bench guys some time, and on. I still hate it. I hate seeing 66-7 scores flash up on TV; I hate to see scores getting run up against tomato can programs; I hate the inflated win totals and stats. Of the current AP Top 25, Texas Tech, Clemson and Florida State play TWO I-AA teams. It's a joke and an embarrassment, but as long as the NCAA keeps sanctioning more bowl games, there's no hope to see it stopped -- even as the number of I-A programs continues to grow.

Some relief worth appreciating: Seven currently-ranked teams do not have a single I-AA team on their schedules. USC, Texas, Alabama, ECU, Oregon, Wake Forest and Fresno State all play I-A-only schedules. Congrats to them. Their schedules still have gimme games on them with teams from the Sun Belt and the dregs of the WAC. (Then again, Louisiana-Monroe did beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa last season). Only USC, ECU, Wake and Fresno play fairly respectable non-conference opponents the whole way through. Once upon a time, wins against I-AA teams didn't count toward a team's bowl eligibility; then it was only one win every other year; now it's open season. With that in mind, I'd rather have Alabama destroy Western Kentucky than Western Carolina. The difference between the two literally is nominal, but it's still a difference and one worth noting.

Palin From Northwest, Some Crazy People Live There, Thus Palin = Radical Racist Secessionist

2008-09-15T16:16:00.005-04:00

Here's an excerpt from a professor's groundbreaking article:

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist
groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the
beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family's come
dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years.
Likewise, Palin's husband was a member of a political party whose members
favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical
antistatism.
Perhaps somewhere on the record, Palin has publicly condemned
the radical politics of her region. But it is hard to know where she stands on
issues of race, equality and diversity. Thus it is high time to review the
cultural ideals and models of the radical rurals from the Great White Northwest
and find out for sure where Gov. Palin stands.

Part 2 of Wiretapping Drama

2008-09-15T12:40:00.001-04:00

Here.

Comey pulled out his BlackBerry and sent a note to six colleagues at 9:27 a.m.
"The president just took me into his private office for a 15 minute one on
one talk," he wrote [22]. "Told him he was being misled and poorly served. We had a
very full and frank exchange. Don't know that either of us can see a way out. .
. . Told him Mueller was about to resign. He just pulled Bob into his office."
The FBI director was no more tractable than Comey. This was a rule-of-law
question, he told the president, and the answer was in the Justice Department
[23]. The FBI could not participate in operations that Justice held
to be in breach of criminal law. If those were his orders, he would respectfully
take his leave.
And there it was, unfinessable. Bush was out of running
room, all the way out. He had only just figured out that the brink was near, and
now he stood upon it.
Not 24 hours earlier, the president had signed his
name to an in-your-face rejection of the attorney general's ruling on the law.
Now he had two bad choices. March on, with all the consequences. Or retreat.
The president stepped back from the precipice. He gave Mueller a message for
Comey.
"Tell Jim to do what Justice thinks needs to be done," he said.
Seven days later, Bush amended his March 11 directive. The legal
certification belonged again to the attorney general. The surveillance program
stopped doing some things, and it did other things differently. Much of the
operation remained in place. Not all of it.

What if McCain Picked Romney

2008-09-15T06:38:00.002-04:00

We'd be reading op-eds from E.J. Dionne and Paul Krugman and others that go roughly like this:

"After Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ran historic campaigns that broke down barriers and inspired millions, John McCain returned to politics as usual by choosing Mitt Romney, a card-carrying member of the Old Boys Network. At a time when the political world is finally embracing the diversity of the real world, John McCain rejected that progress by turning away scores of women and independent voters by giving us more of the same. Sen. McCain missed an opportunity in his selection of Mr. Romney. Choosing Sen. Joe Lieberman would have sent a clear message that Sen. McCain was willing to govern in a bipartisan manner, but he caved to the radical right wing of his party. But another name has surfaced in recent days, one that most have probably never heard of, and never will now, thanks to John McCain. The name is Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, our largest and most energy-rich state. If Gov. Palin had been chosen, it would have been a clear message of change, progress, and open-mindedness that the Republicans desperately need to portray. Gov. Palin is wildly popular in her home state and she is a former Mayor and City Coincil Member, the kind of local experience that could be comforting to struggling middle class families throughout America. Some may say that Gov. Palin is too inexperienced, but if the last 8 years have shown us anything, it's that experience matters less than an ability to connect with ordinary Americans, a trait that Gov. Palin has. We may never know what the race would look like today if Sen. McCain had chosen Gov. Palin, but I suspect the country would be better off with her presence on the national scene. That Sen. McCain rejected her speaks volumes about his judgment."

Palin always wanted to be President

2008-09-14T23:20:00.002-04:00

From this NY Times story:

Laura Chase, the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996, recalled the night the two women chatted about her ambitions.

“I said, ‘You know, Sarah, within 10 years you could be governor,’ ” Ms. Chase recalled. “She replied, ‘I want to be president.’ ”

Yet she didn't know what the VP does? Um...I call bullshit that she ever said that.

Internal Drama Over Wiretapping

2008-09-14T14:41:00.002-04:00

Read this interesting article about the debate within the Bush Administration about the NSA Wiretapping Program. That is part 1, part 2 is tomorrow. Here's an excerpt:

This program, Cheney said, was vital. Turning it off would leave us blind. Hayden, the NSA chief, pitched in: Even if the program had yet to produce blockbuster results, it was the only real hope of discovering sleeper agents before they could act.
"How can you possibly be reversing course on something of this importance after all this time?" Cheney asked [19].

Comey held his ground. The program had to operate within the law. The Justice Department knew a lot more now than it had before, and Ashcroft and Comey had reached this decision together.

"I will accept for purposes of discussion that it is as valuable as you say it is," Comey said. "That only makes this more painful. It doesn't change the analysis. If I can't find a lawful basis for something, your telling me you really, really need to do it doesn't help me."

"Others see it differently," Cheney said.

There was only one of those, really. John Yoo had been out of the picture for nearly a year. It was all Addington.

"The analysis is flawed, in fact facially flawed," Comey said. "No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it."

Gonzales said nothing. Addington stood by the window, over Cheney's shoulder. He had heard a bellyful.

"Well, I'm a lawyer and I did," Addington said, glaring at Comey.
"No good lawyer," Comey said

Experience

2008-09-13T10:11:00.002-04:00

Now that we have lived through 3 weeks of Sarah Palin hysteria, it would be helpful to give an objective assessment of her. A good start would be to read this George Will column from September 3, back when any kind of serious reflection about Palin was drowned out by shouting about teen pregnancy and other similarly pressing national issues. Here's an excerpt from that column:

The word "experience" appears 91 times in the Federalist Papers, those distillations of conservative sense and sensibility. Madison, Hamilton and Jay said that truths are "taught" and "corroborated" by experience. These writers were eager to "consult" and be "led" by experience. They spoke of "indubitable" and "unequivocal" lessons from experience, the "testimony" of experience and "the accumulated experience of ages." "Accumulating" experience is "the parent of wisdom" and a "guide" that "justifies," "confirms" and can "admonish." America's Founders were empiricists and students of history who trusted "that best oracle of wisdom, experience,"which is humanity's "least fallible guide."
A telling touch, that "least fallible." The Founders represented the sober side of the Enlightenment. They knew, as conservatives do, that all guides are fallible. Hence conservatism's inclination to discern prescriptions in traditions, which are mankind's slow adjustments to the accretion of experiences.
So, Sarah Palin. The man who would be the oldest to embark on a first presidential term has chosen as his possible successor a person of negligible experience.

And after giving a great convention speech, drawing large and inspired crowds, enraging the left, doing reasonably well in her ABC interview, and single-handedly pulling McCain even and ahead of Obama in the polls, the question of Palin's experience remains. Her star power may be strong enough to carry her through November, but eventually she will have to prove herself in a substantive way.
I'm worried that she has not spent enough time thinking about what she thinks and why she thinks that way. Her answers in the Charlie Gibson interview were mostly well delivered, but they came across as coached and not well considered. When John McCain speaks, his words convey a seriousness that reveals years of thinking. Granted, he has had more years than most to think, but you get my point. I am hopeful that she will gain the experience and the seriousness that she needs and, more importantly, that the country needs in its Vice President. In the end, she will get my vote becauses, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote for the candidate that you have, not the candidate that you would like to have at a later date.

Obama Says: Don't Arrest the Wrong Mohammed

2008-09-09T06:36:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama on the reason for recognizing habeas corpus for captured combatants (link):

But, the former constitutional law professor argued, "What I have also said is this: that when you suspend habeas corpus -- which has been a principle, dating before even our country, it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law -- which says, very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' and say, 'Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.'"The reason you have that safeguard," he said, "is because we don't always have the right person. We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.

Sarah Palin!

2008-09-03T23:43:00.004-04:00

Her speech was magnificent. The crowd erupted at the very sight of her, and they remained electrified throughout. Her personal story was compelling, her discussion of energy had some strong arguments, her praise of McCain was right on, and her jabs at Obama were direct but innocently funny (what the hell does a "community organizer" do anyway?).

Over at MSNBC, Eugene Robinson and Rachel Maddow were hysterical. Gene Robinson's criticism of the speech was that it was "too bifurcated" and that it had been "written for her by a speechwriter." Hey, thanks to Gene Robinson for uncovering that scandal. You mean a politician delivered a speech written by someone else? Has Keith Olbermann done a Special Comment on this yet? Meanwhile, Maddow was borderline incomprehensible, but I think her point was that Palin has never given a big speech like this before, so that means she's inexperienced.

And that is why I don't care for either of them. I don't mind that they are liberal, but I do mind that they feel compelled to concoct nonsense objections to Palin's speech merely because they like Obama. After Obama's speech on Thursday night, several conservatives (Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, Karl Rove) praised Obama's speech. They did so because it was a very good speech. Is it too much for Robinson and Maddow to admit when the other guy (or girl) has a good night?

Sarah Palin

2008-08-30T09:53:00.002-04:00

When MSNBC reported at about 8:00 a.m. Friday that Mitt Romney would not be in Dayton, Ohio for McCain's VP announcement, I was disappointed. I had thought Romney was the best choice. But after experiencing a day of Sarah Palin, I am realizing that this was the best pick McCain could make. We are seeing McCain go on offense (thanks Rudy!) by doing two things: 1) exploiting Obama's Hillary problem and 2) baiting Obama's to talk about Palin's inexperience, a trait she shares with Obama. Few people saw this pick coming, but I would like to mention that our own Publius was among them when he wrote a lucid post way back on June 21st entitled "Why Alaska matters (really)."

Drama at MSNBC

2008-08-27T22:03:00.001-04:00

Story from Politico:

On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked.

On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?”

But Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, became enraged when Shuster made a reference to “your party.” Asked by Scarborough what his party was, Shuster said he was an “independent.”

"I feel so comforted by the fact that you're an independent,” Scarborough said, in a mocking tone. “I bet everybody at MSNBC has independent on their voting cards. Oh, we're down the middle now.” (Shuster left the set, but returned later to hug it out, "Entourage"-style.)

Original Jurisdiction at the DNC

2008-08-23T10:45:00.002-04:00

If I get the chance, I'll post some dispatches from the convention this week: funny stories, celebrity sightings, and maybe even a substantive post or two.

One quick hit: I think the Biden choice is solid, if not particularly inspiring. Biden -- though perhaps not as "honest" as David Brooks said -- is nonetheless frank and unvarnished. He's great at taking the fight to the other side, which Obama desperately needs right now. Bayh checked more boxes (has enough experience, very popular in a competitive state), but he's ultimately a very boring white guy who would probably be no better than John Edwards as an attack dog. Toward the end, I found myself rooting for Hillary only because I think she'd bring the most votes to the ticket. After that, I guess Biden was the best possible choice.

Unfit for Command: McCain Has Seven Homes

2008-08-21T11:44:00.003-04:00

McCain has the experience to handle the Rise of the Russian Bear, but can we trust a man with 7 homes? As a rule of the thumb, never trust a man with more than 2 homes (or 1 home and 2 timeshares).

BREAKING NEWS

2008-08-11T13:20:00.001-04:00

Bill Kristol writes a decent NYT column. Experience the surprise here.

Keith Olbermann has completely lost it

2008-08-06T10:17:00.002-04:00

So my main man Dana Milbank left Countdown for CNN. He left because Keith Olbermann is a preening schmo. I used to like Olbermann, and still watch the show on rare occasion, but this entire incident is just so hypocritical. Olbermann whines about and browbeats people for not being fair, for being in the tank for a particular ideology, etc. Well, heaven forbidthat Milbank say something mildly nice about Charlie Black. Charlie Black may be a douchebag, but even douchebags are allowed to have someone say something nice about them from time to time. Coupled with Milbank writing something critical of Obama, these incidents prove how much of a hack Olbermann has become. When Milbank wrote his great "ex-candidate" column ravashing Hillary, no one raised an eyebrow. But he criticizes Obama in Berlin and now he's effectively blacklisted from the show. It's really a shame: Olbermann is far smarter, far better read, far more articulate than clowns like O'Reilly and Hannity, and yet at least they have people on who disagree with them and make the show worth watching. Olbermann doesn't want an interesting show; he wants an echo chamber.

Write-the-caption contest -- Add you own

2008-07-23T09:27:00.006-04:00

A much-needed study break:

"Does this qualify for that $300 million you're raffling off?"
"What?" "What?" "What?" "Did you say something?" "No, did you?" "What?"
"Hey you kids, get off my lawn!"
"Don't worry...a properly used latex condom is 99.9% effective"

Least sexy image since Bob Dole's Viagra commercial

2008-07-15T14:17:00.002-04:00

This little tidbit from Nancy Pelosi, on how she spends her R&R:

"Dark chocolate. I love chocolate. I love chocolate ice cream. I love chocolate candy. The darker the better. . . One of the things I do each day is take my bubble bath with my book and my chocolate candy. All day, I know that by night I'm going to be doing my crossword puzzles or reading a book, soaking in the tub, eating my chocolate."

What Part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed' Does DC Not Understand?

2008-07-14T18:24:00.005-04:00

SCOTUSblog is reporting that the District of Columbia has proposed a new handgun law. Here is the pertinent text (emphasis added):

Each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device, except that this requirement shall not apply to:
“(1) Law enforcement personnel described in section 201(b)(1);
“(2) A firearm that is kept at the registrant’s place of business and not the
registrant’s home;
“(3) A firearm while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the registrant’s home;

The first bold provision retains the old complete ban on assembled or unlocked handguns, and the second bold provision is the exception to the ban, the supposed codification of the Supreme Court's holding in Heller, that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. The Court dispensed with the old ban quite simply: "We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __ (2008).

Applying that rationale to the newly proposed D.C. law, it is clearly unconstitutional. If one can only possess an assembled, unlocked handgun "while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm," then it is impossible to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The D.C. law narrows and constrains that right to the point of nullification. An analogy will help to demonstrate the damage this law does to the Second Amendment. Imagine that the rules of football were altered so that a team still retained the right to play defense, subject to these limitations: 1) all defensive players must remain seated on the bench, 2) their shoes must be untied and their helmets and pads off, and 3) they may only adorn their equipment and enter field when the opposing offense has advanced to within 10 yards of the endzone and the defensive team reasonably perceives that the offensive team is capable of scoring an immediate touchdown.

The right to defend oneself must be the right to defend oneself effectively, i.e., having a gun readily available at all times in case of emergency. Emergencies are unpredictable, and thus preparing ahead of time by possessing an assembled and unlocked handgun is the proper scope of the right. The D.C. government is deliberately thwarting the Supreme Court's holding in Heller.

Defense wins championships

2008-07-14T16:24:00.003-04:00

Apologies to Rudy Guiliani, but if John McCain wants to be president he should not go on offense. Instead, he should camp out in about six states that Bush carried in 2004 and make Obama beat him there. What states are those? Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia (and maybe Indiana).

Let's look at the map. I think it's fairly safe to say that Obama is going to win Iowa and New Mexico. McCain has little presence in Iowa, (rightly) opposes ethanol subsidies and largely shunned its caucuses both times he ran for president. New Mexico has grown more Democratic since 2004, has a Senate race that favors the Democrats and has Richardson behind Obama. Moreover, despite McCain's immigration position and Obama's weakness among them in the primaries, Hispanics are poised to vote for Democrats in largely the same numbers as they did in 2006 (as opposed to Bush's 40% in 2004). A June AP poll had Obama leading among Hispanics 60-23. FiveThirtyEight.com has Obama's chances of winning Iowa at 76% and New Mexico at 74%.

So, with Iowa and New Mexico, Obama gets boosted up to 264 electoral votes. Were McCain to hold serve in the six states I mentioned, he would win 274-264. So if you're a candidate with a shaky political organization and perhaps limited financial means relative to your opponent, why would you expend valuable resources to try and pry back Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania? In all three of those states, Obama has decent leads (8 points in Michigan, 11 in New Hampshire, though admittedly conflicting polls in Pennsylvania with one poll showing him up 12, another only 4). Even if McCain thinks he can make up that ground (particularly in Pennsylvania), why even bother when you can use the resources elsewhere? I'm not sure his chances of winning in any of those three states, with a shrinking GOP brand, are better than his chances of holding any of the other six.

Instead, McCain could shuttle among six states and keep Obama at bay. Despite my Kool-Aid-inspired wishes, I really doubt Obama is going to make up ground in North Dakota, Montana, Alaska or North Carolina. McCain already has solid footing in Nevada, Missouri and Indiana. Virginia and Ohio are true toss-ups. Colorado is perhaps the most difficult state of the six for McCain to hold, but I think it would probably be a better bet to play defense in a traditional (if changing) GOP state than spend a lot more money trying to win Michigan with an unpopular economic plan, or by picking a running mate he genuinely doesn't like and who is no guarantee to deliver a state he hasn't lived in since he was a boy. With such limited pickup opportunities, I think McCain's best strategy is to make Obama beat him on GOP home turf.

Of course, Obama has the ability to play in a lot of states and he may beat McCain in some of these 2004 Bush states. He may even get hot and win Florida or North Carolina (doubtful for both). But if he wins those states, McCain probably wouldn't win Michigan or Pennsylvania anyway.

Obama: All things to all people

2008-07-11T09:15:00.001-04:00

Take your pick here.

E.J. Dionne: Hysterical (again)

2008-07-11T07:05:00.002-04:00

And by hysterical, I mean rambling, not funny. Dionne's M.O. seems to be this: 1) make a few bold assertions, 2) offer no support for those assertions, and 3) instead quote a conservative that agrees with him as proof that even conservatives agree with him, so he must be right.

Here's an example of 1) and 2):

The old script is in rewrite. "We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview. He notes that in 1999 when Congress replaced the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act with a looser set of banking rules, "we let investment banks get into a much wider range of activities without regulation." This helped create the subprime mortgage mess and the cascading calamity in banking.

Here's an example of 3):

What's striking is that conservatives who revere capitalism are offering their own criticisms of the way the system is working. Irwin Stelzer, director of the Center for Economic Policy Studies at the Hudson Institute, says the subprime crisis arose in part because lenders quickly sold their mortgages to others and bore no risk if the loans went bad. "You have to have the person who's writing the risk bearing the risk," he says. "That means a whole host of regulations. There's no way around that."

After quoting Seltzer's view that CEO pay is a big problem, Dionne then piles on:

(Barney) Frank takes a similar view, arguing that CEOs "benefit substantially if the risks they take pay off," but "pay no penalty" if their risks lead to losses or even catastrophe -- another sign that capitalism, in its current form, isn't living by its own rules.

Here's another sign that capitalism isn't living by its own rules: E.J. Dionne still has a job as a columnist.

Newt has a boner for Bobby Jindal

2008-07-09T09:32:00.006-04:00

See the lovefest here. Bobby Jindal is a genius and all, but I wonder if something like this -- and the social conservatism he espouses -- limits his potential. Still, the guy is just 36; he has a long time to massage a policy position or two.

Pick Again

2008-07-07T15:37:00.002-04:00

"Webb says he won’t be vice president“Last week I communicated to Sen. Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Webb said. “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.”

Happy Fourth of July!

2008-07-04T19:44:00.004-04:00

To all those patriots out there, a less-famous but equally stirring part of the Declaration:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Have a great Fourth!

Bush Declares Christopher Hitchens an 'Enemy Combatant'

2008-07-03T08:19:00.000-04:00

Story here.

Conservatives and Judicial Review

2008-06-30T18:04:00.004-04:00

Around this time every year, those who are dismayed by the cases the Supreme Court has decided begin to whine about how it is Un-American that "unelected judges" have so much power. I came across this post on the Corner, which is typical of some conservatives' misguided calls to "rein in" the Judiciary. For your convenience, I have reproduced the post below, and also my response to it, which I e-mailed to the author:

Mark Krikorian: I think we opponents of expanded judicial power are missing an opportunity in the wake of the D.C. handgun case and a couple of others that we approve of, but the Left does not (the Medellin and voter-ID cases, for instance). The discussion usually focuses on who voted which way, the illogic of much of the reasoning, the likely consequences of November's election on the makeup of the Court, etc. . . . . This is all important stuff, but if we're ever going to have a chance of ending the Judgeocracy, we need to change the game altogether, to rein in the institution of the federal judiciary itself, not just try to get better judges and justices (as important as that is). And, since the Left usually likes what the judges come up with, we need to be prepared to pounce when there are high-profile decisions the Left hates, to find allies for institutional reforms.
I'd love to repeal the 17th Amendment, for instance, something one of Jonah's readers pointed to as a cause of the expanded power of the Court, though I'm afraid that's an indirect remedy, at best. A more radical re-assertion of elected officials' authority over interpretation of the Constitution would be to follow Hadley Arkes's advice echoing Lincoln's reaction to Dred Scott, to respect any unconstitutional decision by the Court, "but only as it bore on the litigants of that case" — in other words, reject the Court's authority to establish as precedent principles which the president considers unconstitutional. . . . .
Perhaps most feasible would be term limits for all federal judges — a single non-renewable term of, say, 11 or 13 or 15 years, then out. This would drain much of the poison from judicial nomination process, because it would no longer be for a lifetime appointment.

My response: I am writing to disagree with your argument that we need "institutional reforms" for the Judicial Branch. You say that "if we're ever going to have a chance of ending the "Judgeocracy," we need to change the game altogether, to rein in the institution of the federal judiciary itself, not just try to get better judges and justices (as important as that is)." There are two problems with your argument. First, it is fundamentally unconservative to advocate such a sweeping change to our constitutional structure, i.e., removing life tenure for federal judges, as a solution to a current predicament. Because conservatives are dedicated to preserving the Constitution we inherited from the Framers, one should tread more carefully when addressing contemporary problems than to call for an upheaval of the foundation the Framers set forth in Article III. Second, you undermine your own argument for "rein[ing] in" the courts when you admit that "get[ting] better judges and justices" is "important." Would not confirming constitutionalist judges obviate the need to pursue further "reforms?" Judicial review (buttressed by life tenure and salary protection) is part of the bedrock of the Republic. Judges who abuse that authority reveal a defect in themselves rather than in the Constitution. If conservatives are willing to discard well-considered constitutional principles in favor of winning a contemporary political battle, then, as a conservative, I would stand athwart such irresponsible short-sightedness, yelling "Stop."

UPDATE: Mark Krikorian responds here, along with some responses from other readers who agree with him.

Shhh! No one wants to hear about racism

2008-06-29T14:01:00.005-04:00

Well, here's another incident. Undoubtedly, there have been others before it and there will be others to follow. But just as some on this forum thought the Post's earlier report about incidents in Indiana and Pennsylvania was somehow condescending, I'm sure there will be those who complain about Obama supporters "playing the race card." Or those who say people don't want to be called racists, which is to say they don't want to hear anything about race. It'd be easier to pretend that society has come so far and everything's great. But incidents like this prove everything isn't great, and the news media should report them with vigor.

Movie Review: Wall-E

2008-06-28T12:44:00.002-04:00

I got to see this movie last night. The reviews were out-of-this world. Joe Morgenstern of the WSJ went so far as to say it is a "masterpiece." Rotten Tomatoes has it at 97%, Metacritic has it at 92%.

My thoughts: It was very very good but not a masterpiece. The graphics were insanely awesome, but that goes without saying for Pixar. The storyline was thoughtful, oftentimes bordering on preachy but never to the point of annoyance. The most impressive parts of the movie were:

1) That for the first 30 minutes there is no dialogue but it keeps you captivated.
2) You genuinely enjoy the characters of the movie who are non-speaking robots in the future.

The message is clear from the get-go: the overconsumption of society and the impending lethargy from our technology filled, on-the-go lifestyle with destroy Earth. Like I said above, it makes its point without pointing fingers and telling the audience they are disgusting, hedonistic, and thoughtless (although sometimes I felt this movie would be perfect to show to a 4th grade class to teach them about the environment and other important lessons of how to "save the earth.") Still, it was really well done.

The second point above brings up something I would like to put into writing: people who clap in movie theaters should be escorted out unless it is 1) opening night or 2) someone who was seriously involved with the film is in the audience for that particular showing. The whole time I knew it was going to happen, but not only did people clap at the end of the movie (which was to be expected and almost ruined the entire movie experience) but people also clapped at a certain part of the movie when Wall-E (a cartoon robot) is in danger but recovers. Who are these people clapping for? Is there anyone in the theater to receive it? Now I know a lot of people will disagree with me and say it is all in good fun, but they are wrong -- you clap at the end of plays, operas or other events where "live" actors are present and who appreciate the audience's clapping as sign of their approval of the performance. With the 2 exceptions above, this just isn't the case when watching a movie and clappers should be publicly ridiculed and escorted out of the theater while other audience members throw popcorn and other assorted solids at them (with the possibility of throwing nacho cheese depending on if the patron being escorted out taunts the audience).

Overall score for Wall-E: 15 out of 18 on an MPQ1 scale. (I couldn't think of anything funny but had dedicated myself to incorporating the Bar into this post. That was the best I had. I apologize to all.).

Sometimes it is racism

2008-06-27T16:09:00.007-04:00

Often we've heard the refrain (on this forum and elsewhere) that people unfairly cry racism whenever someone criticizes Barack Obama. Well, here's a pretty clear case of actual racism. In relevant part, Grover Norquist referred to Obama as "John Kerry with a tan."

Would it be ok to call Rudy Guiliani "Joseph McCarthy with greasy hair"? Would it be ok to call Joe Lieberman "Zell Miller with a hook nose"? Or maybe Condi Rice as "[insert crappy Secretary of State here] with big lips"?

You get the point. It's pathetic and validates Obama's claim that, yes, people are going to make subtle attempts to "remind" voters that he's black, hoping it'll unnerve enough people on the fence about voting for a black candidate. Has Obama & Co. done it with McCain on age? Yeah, maybe. But McCain is free to call Obama out on it. I hope people will call Norquist out on this.

Richardson's warning ...

2008-06-27T14:39:00.002-04:00

... or "How I Tried Blatantly and Pathetically To Keep Myself In the Veepstakes."

More Supreme Court talk

2008-06-27T13:29:00.000-04:00

Jeffrey Rosen still hearts John Roberts.

Will McCain Nominate Conservative Judges?

2008-06-27T06:32:00.002-04:00

After a day where the Supreme Court struck down two laws, one violative of the First Amendment and the other of the Second Amendment, you had to guess that George Will would use those events to make this point: John McCain is inadequate. Indeed, most of his columns make that point no matter the surrounding news. This morning's column ends with a simple question:

The more McCain talks -- about wicked "speculators," about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet's thermostat, etc. -- the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?

District of Columbia v. Heller

2008-06-26T22:32:00.005-04:00

Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ends with a few important passages that summarize the Court's role in enforcing constitutional rights. Enjoy:

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interestbalancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

* * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

FLASH: Originial Jurisdiction Declares Cease Fire on Obamania Tactics

2008-06-25T15:18:00.003-04:00

Word from the Obama camp tells us that they are feeling the heat from Original Jurisdiction's assaults on their candidate -- and they are feeling it bigtime. The no-nonsense calling out of his doublespeak [and at times untrustworthiness] is driving people nuts in Obama's Chicago headquarters. They've got interns staying up all night doing damage control figuring out how to convince our vast readership that Obama is not in fact pandering when he goes to AIPAC or "triangulating" when he talks about public finance.

Well we have good news for them. Original Jurisdiction is calling its dogs off and declaring a ceasefire on Obamania.

Original Jurisdiction feels that although Obama may constantly triangulate, be sorta arrogant, and flip flop on certain issues or stances ... that is not where the real battle should be.

Original Jurisdiction decrees that politics is a blood sport. Surviving means winning. If Original Jurisdiction were in a fight, Original Jurisdiction would throw sand in your eye, pull your hair, and kick you in the junk. Original Jurisdiction therefore expects both Obama and McCain to do the same.

So go ahead Obama...triangulate, pander, flip flop, and charisma your way to the general election. Original Jurisdiction won't criticize. And go ahead John McCain...do the same [although you're not very good at it].

Original Jurisdiction is going to save its fire for the actual policy analysis. Right now we are waiting for Obama's answer to the Lexington Project.

Sally Forth!

Maureen Dowd on Karl Rove

2008-06-25T10:47:00.003-04:00

Once again, Maureen Dowd hits it right on the head. I've said it before and it's worth repeating: She -- along with Dana Milbank -- has been the best columnist this election in shaping the trends and discussions that have dominated this election. Before it became fashionable to criticize Obama (and it was only really fashionable for about two or three weeks), she was making those same criticisms (effete, self-congratulating, etc.) months before. Yeah, she trades in psychobabble and dopey pop culture references, but usually she's right and way ahead of the rest of the media.

Here, she picks apart Karl Rove's idiotic description of Obama as "the guy at the country club." The guy Rove describes, she says, isn't Obama, but George W. Bush. To wit:

[Obama]'s not Richie Rich, saved time and again by Daddy’s influence and Daddy’s friends, the one who got waved into Yale and Harvard and cushy business deals, who drank too much and snickered at the intellectuals and gave them snide nicknames.

To be fair, she renews her criticisms of Obama -- and doesn't let him off the hook for being arrogant: "Obama can be aloof and dismissive at times, and he’s certainly self-regarding, carrying the aura of the Ivy faculty club." Indeed, the imagery she uses to describe Obama is far more accurate than Rove's, and I'm not sure any less damaging:

He might be smoking, but it would be at a cafe, hunched over a New York Times, an Atlantic magazine, his MacBook and some organic fruit-flavored tea, listening to Bob Dylan’s “Blood on the Tracks” on his iPod.

I Just Can't See This Being Good for PR in Middle America

2008-06-25T10:16:00.002-04:00

Obama to Get Hanuman Idol

From the article:

"The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms."

"Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said Bhama."

Saving the Earth from Humans

2008-06-24T15:33:00.003-04:00

Charlie Crist, who apparently has a job as Governor of Florida, struck a deal with U.S. Sugar where the State will buy the company's facilities in the Everglades. This will help to reinvigorate the Everglades, which is good for all Floridians. But read this interesting reaction from an environmental lawyer:

Environmental groups hailed the undertaking. “This is putting it back the way it was in 1890,” said David Guest, a lawyer with Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. “When you come back in 20 years, it will look indistinguishable from the way it looked before the white man.”

Two things are remarkable about that statement. First, "putting it back the way it was in 1890," is an implicit concession to the argument that environmentalists are anti-modernity, anti-growth, and anti-human progress. Going back to 1890 does not sound enticing to anybody who likes to sleep in air-conditioned homes, eat mass-produced food, and drive gas-powered cars, which is to say, everybody. Second, saying that, in 20 years, the Everglades "will look indistinguishable from the way it looked before the white man," is an implicit admission that industrial growth on otherwise pristine lands does not cause "irreparable harm." If, after decades of supposed environmental ruin and decay, the land can simply heal itself, then is the environmental hysteria not overblown? I thought Al Gore said we were passing the point of no return.

What's Going On at AOL's Straw Poll?

2008-06-24T01:09:00.003-04:00

I just voted in AOL's online straw poll. Their results? McCain 60%, Obama 40%, McCain winning every state with 180,000 votes so far! This poll started on the 20th of June. The last poll? McCain 56%, Obama 44% with 410,000 votes!

What in the world is going on? Are AOL customers just overly conservative? Does McCain have some silent, secret crushing majority that's just waiting to crush Obama in November?

The sight had some reasonable protections against robot/script voting, so I'm curious as to what exactly's going on here.

Obama and Harvey Dent would be good friends

2008-06-23T22:23:00.003-04:00

So lets add up the tally of the political feint / parries and doubletalk of the Obama Campaign. This could take a while.

Flag Pin
Making a stink out of not wearing it, only then don it proudly in the "values" ad that is going to run in Kentucky...etc. This is what was said initially: "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, [the flag pin] became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." I guess now it isn't a substitute for true patriotism? Alternatively, maybe now he feels comfortable substituting it for true patriotism to make McCain spend money in KY and the like? As apt as I may be...I wasn't the only one that noticed the problem here.

Protectionism
March into OH and drum up protectionist sentiments only to reverse position now that he doesn't need those "bitter" voters. You know the drill on this story.

Stance on Israel and the Middle East Politics
Middle East Doubletalk: So...Obama is in a rush to talk to Hamas and Iran [something I actually agree w/ on certain levels] ... but when talking to AIPAC he maintains the untenable position that Jerusalem must be the 'undivided capital' of Israel [a laughably inflexible position compared to his efforts to reach a dialogue]. In fact, this is something that even Olmert and the Israeli's don't pursue. In fact many Arab leaders reacted quite poorly to his AIPAC speech. Interesting that he comes out as more "pro-Israel" than the Israelis when he as speaking at AIPAC. The background of his problem winning over Jewish voters is informative here...say what you need to say, when you need to say it, to whom needs to hear it in order to win. Awesome new politics.

Public Finance
You know the drill here too...is this a flip flop or just a lie. I vote lie. The Washington Post gives it its second highest rating for untruthfulness. They also drew a link between this "parsing" and his previous all star performances: "His carefully parsed retreat on public financing is similar to his hedging on an earlier promise to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea "without preconditions" during his first year as president. In this case, however, the turnaround is even more blatant."

Jim Johnson / Country Wide Scandal
First the vigorous defense ["I am not vetting my V.P. search committee for their mortgages." He said Johnson had a "discrete task" that he was performing well.] ... only the next day to have him "resign." Is anyone noticing a pattern here? Hopefully everyone else will be too bitter to notice.

Trinity Church
I think this one has been pretty well explored already. You get the 1st race speech ["I could no more disown him than I could my own grandmother"] . Then you get the subsequent disowning and withdrawal from the church. [I guess somewhere in there he disowned his grandmother too]. Maybe he just realized that he didn't need Trinity for political gain the way he did when he first joined 20 years ago.

Religious Plurality ... Except Muslims ...
So despite all his tolerance Obama seems to be fervently denying the fact that he is Muslim. In fact...I hear more implied denunciations of Islam from him and the rest of the left than I do from the right. I guess some Muslims feel the same way. Sheesh...even The Nation is giving him a hard time about not defending Islam when he cries "I'm no Muslim!". Other commentators have similar views.

Then his campaign goes and kicks out two Muslim girls from behind the podium ... so they don't get on television and fan the "Muslim rumor." Sure, they were volunteers. But volunteers do not just do things. They do as they are told, and they respond to instructions and a general MO of a campaign.

But ... then there is this speech talking about how we are "no longer a Christian country" but also a Muslim, Jewish...etc country. Hello? Maybe if he stopped insulting Islam by pretending that being a Muslim is bad and stopped kicked Muslims out of his events...he wouldn't have to give a speech like this. Or maybe it is just more doublespeak.

Obama Seal
See below. First he arrogantly rolls out "Obama for America" only to pull it off the shelves a day later. Classic. If we all blog about how much we liked the seal...will be bring it back tomorrow?

Vindication, Anyone?

2008-06-23T21:19:00.003-04:00

Check this out. Thats right. You heard it here first. Obama pulled his self-congratulatory "Obama for America" seal today.

Karl Rove: asshole

2008-06-23T15:04:00.004-04:00

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The McCain campaign can't get any real momentum so Rove has decided to take it upon himself to wage a personal assault against Obama. In the words of none other than Jake Tapper (note: the Capitol Hill Club is the GOP equivalent to the National Democratic Club):

Interesting that Mr. Rove would use a country club metaphor to describe the first major party African-American presidential candidate, whom I'm sure wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent.

But the picture Rove paints is interesting. Who, pray tell, is Rove at this country club?

The guy telling funny stories near the band?

The charming president of the club's philanthropic arm?

The brainy guy with all the sports scores?

Or the guy who vandalizes your car and blames it on the kitchen staff?

West Virginia Day

2008-06-21T18:58:00.003-04:00

Yesterday was the 145th birthday of my beloved West Virginia. I was going to celebrate with a film festival but I was way too busy. I was going to post a big essay on here about West Virginia, but I figured that everyone was tired of my tales of West Virginia as a utopia far too good to be true.

But let me just say that it's the only place that I miss like a person and I'm not alone. Wilmington, NC, for example, has a city-wide birthday party put on by the WV diaspora every June 20. If you get it when John Denver sings "I get a feeling that I should been home yesterday," then you know what I'm talking about.

So, happy birthday West Virginia.

Vanity, anyone?

2008-06-21T17:18:00.005-04:00

So Obama has ripped off the presidential seal and changed it a bit to create a stylish new graphic for his campaign podiums.

Check it out here.

Notable changes to the graphic include [as quoted from the linked article]: "Instead of the Latin 'E pluribus unum' (Out of many, one), Obama's says 'Vero possumus', rough Latin for 'Yes, we can.' Instead of 'Seal of the President of the United States', Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his 'O' campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead." [Also, the article failed to mention that "Obama for America" is inscribed on the top of the new "seal."]

Now look, I guess this is not really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather spend my time getting miffed about him flat out lying months ago re: the public finance program [and his meager 'declaring our independence' crap that followed]. Also his lying to Ohioans about his candidacy being the new protectionist vanguard of the country ... just to drum up all those "bitter" [as he puts it] voters who cling to protectionism... only to do an about face once he doesn't need their primary votes anymore. And yea, maybe all the lying about the looming horde of 527's that are about to descend on him like a vulture to a rotting carcass [interestingly, there are none yet and many prominent republicans, including Huckaboom himself have warned against such tactics] is also something to be irked about. Or maybe his new "the republicans will use racism against me" line -- when really that hasn't been happening yet at all [a "Bush-esque" tactic to appeal to the fear of voters] -- is worth complaining about. What is next, a color coded racism threat alert. I can see it on his website now "Republican Racism Threat Level -- Orange: Heightened Risk of Racial Attacks from the Republicans." Obama should unearth Tom Ridge from wherever he has been hiding these last 5 years and get him to read these alerts every 15 min -- just like the good old days.

Anyway...maybe all that stuff is worth spending a Saturday afternoon thinking about, and this is just a drop in the bucket of why this ardent legion of Hillary Clinton is finding it difficult [no matter how hard he tries] to fully come around to Barak Obama. Barak...you are not making it easy on me here!

But come on; how flipping arrogant and vain is this. He re-designs the presidential seal with his name on it!? What next, a new American flag w/ his face on it where the stars are supposed to be? Give me a break.

Everyone that has drank the cool-aid on Barak Obama will love this I'm sure...but those of us who didn't put on our Nike Shoes and attempt to kill ourselves when Hale-Bob came around in 1997 find it pretty distasteful.

Why Alaska matters (really)

2008-06-21T09:09:00.006-04:00

So the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama down four points in Alaska. Yes, that Alaska. Again, is this a state I expect Obama to win come November? No, probably not. But there are quite a few reasons why making a play there makes a lot of sense for him. (Full disclosure: some of the things I'm about to say can be found at my new favorite site, FiveThirtyEight.com, but I've thrown in a few more tidbits of my own, particularly about Young and Stevens).

First, Alaska has the youngest average age in the United States at 32 years old. As a general rule Obama does very well among younger voters. My guess is that's the single biggest factor in him keeping it close.

Second, what normally hurts Democrats in Alaska -- an opposition to drilling in ANWR -- doesn't hurt Obama that much because McCain opposes it, too. Indeed, McCain's switch in favor of offshore Gulf drilling raises an issue Obama will not have to confront: why in Florida and not in Alaska?

Third, there is perhaps no place in the country where the Republican brand has become more toxic than, ironically enough, a state George W. Bush won with 61 percent of the vote. Don Young, a strong candidate for America's worst congressman, is a serious liability. The reasons are manifold: he's addicted to pork, he has unseemly ties to Jack Abramoff and other influence peddlers, and his office has this gem of an "intern survival guide." Tips include knowing that Young "expects you to open doors for him" and other sundry peccadilloes. (Ok, it's a pretty silly document; just kinda funny). And oh yeah, Young is the subject of several investigations for corruption.

Alaska's other congressional heavyweight, Ted Stevens, only makes matters worse. Everyone pretty much knows about Stevens: the man who -- literally -- threw a temper tantrum on the Senate floor when one of his earmarks was being challenged. What earmark, you ask? The infamous Bridge To Nowhere. Like Young, Stevens is also under investigation for corruption; his house was raided by federal agents last summer.

Both Young and Stevens face competitive re-election races where character surely will be on the line. Given the poor national mood directed toward Republicans, these especially toxic figures may be enough to drag down the entire ticket in Alaska. (A cautionary note: Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin, is the most popular in the country. She's a reform-minded Republican who ousted a corrupt Republican incumbent in a primary. She has not endorsed either Stevens or Young. Young faces a very serious primary challenge from Palin's lieutenant governor.)

Lastly: 40 percent of Alaska's population lives in Anchorage -- not exactly a high-priced media market. If Obama continues to run ads in Alaska, as he has just begun, and makes even a single campaign stop there, the ramifications could be quite significant.

Alaska has voted Democrat for president once in its history: the first time it was eligible to vote, in 1964. For a presidential candidate to actively make a play for Alaska will surely energize that state. (Just imagine all the free local media Obama would generate with one campaign stop). It then puts McCain in a pickle: Does he let Obama spend time and money on a state he's convinced he'll win, with only three electoral votes at stake? If McCain does start to lose ground, will the bad press (McCain is losing in Alaska???) spill over to harm his campaign overall? Then again, if he does make a play there, will it suggest weakness of another kind: that he needs to play defense in an otherwise ruby-red state instead of devoting time to potential pickup opportunities? (Couple that question with other defensive measures in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia -- whereas Obama plays defense only in Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, maybe Minnesota).

The potential gains for Obama make Alaska matter. He can't really lose: either force McCain to spend money on Alaska that he needs elsewhere, or, if everything goes right, maybe even win the state. Regardless, it's so cool that this election will be determined by more than the ten usual states. (I still don't like the Electoral College, but I'll concede that this development would probably be a non-issue were it not to exist.)

Really? Really?

2008-06-20T11:09:00.002-04:00

Obama has famously backed out of his pledge to use government funds and limit his campaign spending.

His reason? Republicans are dirty politicians.

There may be all sorts of good reasons for backing out of his pledge, but frankly, that's pathetic.

Panned!

2008-06-20T09:43:00.003-04:00

If you thought the review of "The Happening" was savage, check out this gem from A.O. Scott on "The Love Guru." Just devastating.

New HQ for Original Jurisdiction?

2008-06-19T10:12:00.003-04:00

Wm. F. Buckley's NYC apartment is up for sale.

Perhaps a wealthy benefactor could provide a lush headquarters for the faithful OJ bloggers?

Nuclear Power

2008-06-18T15:51:00.002-04:00

"Sen. John McCain is calling for construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledging $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality. He says the measures will reduce American dependence on foreign oil." Link here. Harry S. Truman announced on August 6, 1945, that "[t]he force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East." It is obvious that we need to find more energy sources. Let it be loosed again.

This is horrible

2008-06-18T11:43:00.004-04:00

Really a douche move. Advance people are a breed on to themselves and hard to control. (A friend of mine did advance for Hillary and complained at length about the assholes that abound). Still, this is absurd. (Note: these were volunteers, not even advance people. Still, you should have people who have the pretense of competency making these decisions).

Where's that bounce, you ask?

2008-06-18T10:00:00.004-04:00

Jake Tapper, Vitus's new BFF, wonders. Well, here you go. I personally don't think Obama will win Florida. But if indeed he does, McCain will not be president. Even if Obama keeps Florida close, McCain's opportunities to go on offense (Giuliani-style, of course) diminish dramatically. With his financial and organizational disadvantages, can he really hope to make up ground in Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin (forget Connecticut and New Jersey) if he has to fight in Florida (plus play defense in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado)? I'm very dubious.

As a side note, there's a great polling site that I would strongly recommend. It's run by a bunch of polling geeks who use current polls to predict actual outcomes. They take a bunch of polls, assign different weights to them based on past accuracy, then throw in some other turnout projections and crap like that to gauge how the election will unfold. Their methodology is explained on the site. Right now, they have Obama with a 74%+ chance of winning. These numbers change with every new poll, so it's not hard and fast. But it's a still pretty cool site to check out. Their blog entires are also pretty informative.