Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine

It's hard to escape A Christmas Story as it's become what It's a Wonderful Life used to be, namely, if not the most watched Christmas movie around at least the most available Christmas movie on television.

After watching it again on Christmas Eve Ralphie's run-in with reality became emblematic for me of a question that Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has asked off and on all year: Who, exactly, are the rubes? And how many after a brief moment of clarity share Ralphie's sense of betrayal.

Good Management is Hard...

Bad Management is Everywhere. That's something I tend to save for the world of business but it's also applicable to the world of politcs as Jim Gerahty notes:

Democratic California lieutenant governor John Garamendi is running for Congress, in that special election in the district near San Francisco, and the expectation is that despite his flaws as a candidate, the fact that it's a heavily Democratic district should save him.


But . . . maybe not. Besides the fact that he looks silly on the stump, insisting questioners not use "the T-word" — taxes — his campaign is looking pretty amateurish.


For starters, Garamendi's campaign sent out a mailer, accusing Republican rival David Harmer of supporting "off shoring jobs" and citing a story from Utah's Deseret News from April 23, 2004.


Except that story wasn't about the David Harmer running for Congress; it was about Utah's executive director of the State Department of Community and Economic Development David Harmer.


Same name, different guy. What's more, congressional candidate David Harmer wasn't even living in Utah at the time.

Who's in charge here?

Senility Setting In?

You couldn't make this up. The Senator that just switched parties to avoid likely getting rolled in the primary next year is challenging the bona fides of his primary opponent. Really.

From CNN:


On Thursday, Specter's campaign sought to bring into question Sestak's roots to the Democratic Party. Specter's campaign sent out a list of Sestak's voting history in Delaware County, which the senator's campaign said showed that Sestak registered as an Independent in 1971, didn't vote in any primary elections from 1971-2005 and that he officially registered as a Democrat in February of 2006. Sestak was elected as a Democrat to the House in 2006.

"Congressman Sestak is a flagrant hypocrite in challenging my being a real Democrat when he did not register as a Democrat until 2006 just in time to run for Congress," Specter said in the statement. "His lame excuse for avoiding party affiliation, because he was in the service, is undercut by his documented disinterest in the political process."

Is Late really better than Never?

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Better or Worse?

Turns out the Washington Post is selling access to Administration and newspaper officials. For as little as $25K, lobbyists get access in a 'non-confrontational setting' to Admin officials, members of Congress and even (HOW EXCITING!) the Post's editorial staff.


Outrageous.


The once and future cynic in me, however, is wondering if the usual suspects who raised bloody hell about this and cried foul over this in the last Administration have anything useful to say about the Post's trashing of journalistic ethics.


Everybody's favorite Washington Post aggregator is silent on the subject. And most others as well it seems...

Even more things the Bush Administration would never have gotten away with

Fired IG Gerald Walpin speaks out about the situation surrounding his ouster at the Washington Examiner:

The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired.

Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" Walpin recalls. "Eisen said, 'You can either resign, or I'll tell you that we'll have to terminate you.'"

At that moment, Walpin says, he had finished not only a report on the Sacramento probe but also an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorps money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorps' biggest program. Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed "very interesting." According to Walpin, Eisen said it was "pure coincidence." When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. "Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response," Walpin recalls.

The method of Walpin's firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation. In the case of Walpin, Eisen's efforts to force Walpin to resign could be seen as an effort to push Walpin out of his job so that the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.

Still waiting on the outrage.

More things the Bush Administration would never have gotten away with

The Obama Administration fires Inspector General who has investigated Obama supporter, Sacramento mayor and former NBA All-star, Kevin Johnson:

President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.

Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service. The corporation runs the AmeriCorps program.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

Recall the outrage over the US Attorney firings under GW Bush. Firings, I would remind, that were perfectly legal as the President has the authority to fire and hire sitting US Attorneys at any time, for any reason.

The suggestion is, of course, that Obama's firing is purely politically motivated which then begs the question, where is the outrage? For perspective, see Byron York in the DC Examiner:


I’ve been trying to discover the real reason for Obama’s move, and it’s still not clear. I’m told that it could be a combination of the normal tensions that surround any inspector general’s office, or the president’s desire to get his own people in IG positions, or a dispute over a particular investigation. “Bottom line,” one source wrote, “getting rid of a tough, Republican-appointed IG who has been aggressively going after waste and fraud gives Obama a chance to replace that IG with a more compliant team player.”

I’m also told that a number of inspectors general around the government have been expressing concerns to Congress recently about threats to their independence. . . . Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.

In all fairness, as Byron points out, not every answer to this question is nefarious. But the appearance is surely that of impropriety.

So my question is, where is the outraged commentary that we so routinely saw in response to Bush Administration actions when similar questions of propriety hang in the air?

This is Awesome

There is shoe-blogging, sports-blogging. There are political-blogs and industry-blogs.

This is Awesome-blogging...

Where to Now?

McCain wins Florida and Rudy dropping out...where do conservative voters go now?

I think I'm gonna hurl...

Idealogical Purity and Iowa

Iowa goes Huckabee. If the GOP is serious about '08 this is where the madness ends.

Ode to Harry

Harry Reid, pilloried in prose yesterday:

Would Rockne be remembered
If the towel he had tossed?
Forget about the Gipper, boys
This game’s already lost.

Would Lincoln be a hero
And on pennies be embossed
If he announced that, after Shiloh
This Union, friends, is lost.

Would Caesar have surrendered
Before the Rubicon was crossed?
Did Ulysses pull the plug
When his barque was tempest-tossed?

Would Perry’s flag be flying
Would hist’ry gip a rip
If, on it, he embroidered“Do give up the ship!”

If we’d been bowed by setbacks
Or our opponents’ fury
Nothing would have happened
On the deck of the Missouri

So in the battle of our lifetime
If I can be the chooser
I’d rather keep on fighting
Than declare myself the loser.

A master-work from the pen of Tarzana Joe!

It makes one wonder

Brian Williams' question to the Democratic candidates during Thursday night's debate about their response to the destruction of two American cities has caught the attention of at least one or two folks on the right. One would think the answer to Williams' question is fairly obvious and straight-forward.

Not for the left however...or at least it appears that way. Both Dean and Byron rightly note the hesitancy of presumed presidential heavy-weights like Obama and Edwards to "get military" in response to the proposed hypothetical.

I'm left wondering what--if as apparently this scenario wouldn't--exactly would wake the Left from it's anti-Bush, anti-war, everything-but-anti-terrorist stupor and force them to get serious.

Low-key Meltdown

It seems that the ever low-key Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader from Nevada finds himself in the middle of a bit of a meltdown. Like most everything else about him it is definitely low key; but a meltdown none the less.

First of course came the now-infamous proclamation that Iraq is lost. Then came the attempted clarification on the day-after.

In the days since he's endured many a call for apology at the very least and from some, a demand to step down. Now we're getting Act III in this interview where Reid insists that he will not believe any reports of progress from General Petraeus in his briefing to Congress this week. Rather odd then, as Jonah Goldberg points out, that Reid prefaces those remarks with comments attributed to Petraeus himself as though the "Lying General" and his words to the President can be believed while his report to Congress can not.

When the Senate Majority Leader says there can be no military solution in Iraq, he ignores the truth about what the surge is, what it's goals are and the strategy and tactics involved. On this point, based on watching this ridiculous video, I'm forced to believe that Reid and fellow Democrats who have postured on the Surge since the first discussions in January make a conscious choice to play dumb.

Anyone who looks at the surge, what it is designed to do and how it aims getting there, must conclude that it is not just a "military solution." Indeed, it is setting the table for just the solutions that Democrats are screaming for, namely political and economic reconciliation and reform.

For two years Democrats screamed that security was the primary issue in Iraq--and they were right. The poor security situation was allowing the insurgency and Al-Qaeda to create the mess we have found ourselves in.

Now that the President has, in essence, taken the Democrats advice and added troops in an effort to create the necessary conditions that will foster needed political progress, they complain and call the effort ineffectual.

The willfully obtuse act is not holding up. They're an odd bunch, these Democrats but they aint dumb. You can't be this dumb and win and keep your seat in the US Senate.

Though there are exceptions to every rule.

UPDATE: The Vice President on the good Senator, earlier today.

What to Say

There really is not much to say about such a thing as the events of early today in Blacksburg, other than to note the horrific nature of the entire incident. Regardless of motive or cause.

If I do have anything to say, it would be about the already unfolding analysis of different elements of the story as the day went by. First, it seems to me that any discussion of this needs to understand why it is only for would-be killers or criminals to carry weapons on campus at Virginia Tech.

Not a nice sentiment at this point and it borders on inappropriate only 12 hours later but why on earth would an administration advocate such a policy that leaves thousands of staff, faculty and students vulnerable to just this sort of event?

Moving on, MKH notes the first bits of the political fallout in this: ...to look at their websites, you wouldn't know a thing about what Mitt, McCain, and Rudy think about this national tragedy. It's doesn't mean they're terrible, selfish men, as I'm sure the Left will infer. On the contrary, I'm sure all of their thoughts and prayers are with the kids of Blacksburg, just as all of ours are. But the fact is that the Big Six in the presidential race are huge, public figures who are required, for better or worse, to have a public position on every issue, ever. Today is certainly no exception.

Political web operatives on the Left understand that websites move with the news, and are sometimes the fastest way to move those messages. Today, the Dem candidates' sites reflect that and the Republicans' do not.

I think that Mary Katherine Ham has a valid point here and it is in fact true; the left feels...more and better...it's a key part of the essence of what liberalism is. At the risk of sounding too much like a dittohead, it is what they do.

It's nice as far as it goes and in the immediate aftermath of such a horrid event it is not without meaning or comfort. Sadly however, it doesn't do anything about the problem.

This kind of feel-good rhetoric is what made my hair stand up on end upon first hearing a presidential candidate tell me he felt my pain in 1992. I don't need the government or the people that form it to "feel my pain."

I need them to govern. I need them to create and implement sound policy and to protect me from reasonable threats at the federal, state and local levels.

It is wonderfully compassionate to read of Senators Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's undoubtedly real concern for the lives touched by the tragedy at Virginia Tech but it accomplishes nothing but to tell me what I already knew: they are human beings just like me.