All it took was a Democratic Congress

So we go out and elect Democrats to a majority in both Houses of Congress and we get all kinds of exciting things. Such as?

Well, that long-expected return to the Military Draft that had every 18-year old in the country scared half-to-death in 2004:

Question: Do some newly ascendant Democrats have a political death wish? Do some seem to want to take the blank slate of imagery the election provided them and scribble a silly or alarming political caricature on it so it will be seized by opponents, then held up as the face of their party as a whole?

It certainly sounds that some of them do:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.Rangel's public comment also will require that if Democrats defend it they come up with some political amnesia: in 2004 John Kerry charged that it was George Bush who was going to revive the draft. The charge was dismissed by the White House.

Kerry told The Des Moines Register, "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft."Mr. Bush vowed in the second presidential debate that, if he's re-elected, "We're not going to have a draft, period."

So this was idea deemed alarming enough for Kerry to raise, claiming that Bush was thinking about it.

But perhaps Kerry's psychic powers merely picked up the wrong wave length: it was Rangel thinking of it all along.

Well, yes it was. You'll recall that the bill that got an epic slapdown to the tune of 402-2 was sponsored by Rangel, not Kerry and most certainly not President Bush.

It's all politics, all the time. Stupid politics to boot. Nobody seriously wants this, nor is it truly necessary.

What is necessary is the only decent idea John Kerry had in 2004, namely adding at least two (or 5, maybe another 10) combat divisions to the US Armed Forces. That can be done without a draft.

So, what else are we getting you ask? Wages are up, everybody's rakin' in the dough!:

American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.

The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.

For three years, pay increases haven't kept pace with the rising cost of living. Then came this year's housing slowdown, which has further squeezed family finances.

Those setbacks, however, are now being offset by rising income. Four percent may not sound like much, but you have to look back to 1997 to find a calendar year with a gain that big.

Equally significant, tamer energy prices mean that the "real" wage gains, after inflation, are above 3 percent for the past 12 months. That, too, hasn't happened since the 1990s, even though the economy has been expanding over the past five years.

"The striking feature of this expansion has been that ... real wages for the typical worker haven't risen that much," says Richard Berner, US economist at the investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York. But with real incomes rising, he says, "you get a picture of an economy that can weather this housing storm."

The risk of recession hasn't disappeared, he and other economists say. But with a fairly tight job market and low unemployment, many expect that paychecks will keep rising solidly in 2007.

And if you're like me, you can't wait to see Congress do it's best to put a dent in all that good news with a minimum-wage increase next year. I understand the argument for it, but it seems they never quite get the argument for how it helps kill an economy's forward momentum.

Living in California, I recall fondly the days that we set the pace for many trends, including even economic ones (ahhh...to be recession-proof again!). Since we've done our best to get ahead of the curve on this I guess we'll play the canary in the coal mine. I'll let you know how the economy's going sometime in February when we're in the middle of the new Quarter.

Glenn ties the package neatly together with a reader's observation: Reader Brian Gates, who sends the link, comments: "Less than 2 weeks after the Democrats gained control of Congress, wages are increasing. Imagine how much upward wage pressure there will be after the labor pool is cut by a million men due to Rangel's draft."

If I'd known that all it took was a Democratic Congress to bring about such potentially-disastrous policy decisions, I'd have advocated a Democratic sweep in '02!

The Dreamworld of John Kerry

John Kerry came out of hiding yesterday morning for the first time since the botched joke flap with an exclusive at Fox News Sunday. It was it's own complete and superbly done little expose on how never to be President of the United States. This guy just doesn't get it.

Kerry has the political instincts of a rock, and they're all on display in this one brief interview. To the issue of an apology, Kerry insists on making the same point, numerous times:

WALLACE: Senator...

KERRY: Yes, but why didn't you play the part where I said, "It was a botched joke, and I never intended to insult anybody, especially not the troops"?

WALLACE: But why didn't...

KERRY: Because that was part of what I just said.

WALLACE: ... apologize. The question is...

KERRY: I apologized...

WALLACE: The question is, why not just stop the bleeding right away...

KERRY: Sure, Chris, I've apologized. And this is now clear to everybody, that it was a botched joke; I own it.

He made that statement, "I own it," more than once, yet never really did. Every time the subsequent explanation does not address the issues raised by the joke, it is in each attempt a deflection onto Republicans in Congress and/or the President. Every time.

The only exception was his reply to the mother of dead Marine, Cory Palmer:

[KERRY]: Now, I am deeply sorry for that woman, for her. And I have asked my staff to find anybody that I can contact--I've contacted people in the military, because I feel this so profoundly.

Even the joke itself wouldn't make sense for the simple reason that we do have a volunteer army and you have to be smart to get into it. So, even that runs counter to what they did.

But even here it's about what everybody else did, not about the poor judgment that allowed for such a dumb line in the first place.

The Senator saved his best for last and shows yet again the Dems predilection for negotiating-for-negotiations-sake:

KERRY: I have confidence in the generals. I think they've been put in a very, very difficult position.

What I don't have confidence in is the policy. And General Abizaid is giving us a diagnosis that is based on the current policy. But that policy has to change, and it can change.

I believe that if you pursue--I know that if you pursue legitimate diplomacy, the way Henry Kissinger did when he made multiple trips, night after night, day after day, twisting arms, working; if you make the effort that Jim Baker did to build a legitimate coalition, I'm confident we can do what's necessary to get the neighborhood--and I include in that Iran and Syria--to take greater stakes in what they realize they have a stake in.

What does he believe we can get from the likes of Iran and Syria on the issue of terrorism generally and on Iraq specifically? What hand does the US have to play that can coax and/or force what we're looking for there?

Those are my questions to the Senator, as I'd be glad to see another means of settling things down in Iraq. But does he honestly believe this can be accomplished? If he does, do we not deserve an elaboration on the idea, something with some details?

Frankly, this is about the only kind of negotiating ploy that I can think will work with Iran. What would the good Senator have to say about it, I wonder.

In the meantime, this man continues living in his own little dreamworld where his mistakes are all somebody else's fault. His horrible instincts and rotten political judgment--and I don't think I'm going out on a limb here--have ensured that he will never see the Presidency.

Not a sprint, but a Marathon?

Late in the week I was prepared to declare Congressional Republicans winners of a perceived race to 'Stupid.' It appears this race, this mad rush to make ridiculously stupid decisions that negatively impact the prospects for both political parties moving forward might not be the 100-yd dash I thought it.

Glenn noted yesterday with this post, what he referred to as a Democrat "circular firing squad." Indeed:

FANS OF ALCEE HASTINGS are spreading rumors about Jane Harman that don't seem to be true. Tom Maguire is on the case, remarking: "let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added."

I'll just note that, true or not, the Democrats don't seem to have waited long before descending into circular-firing-squad mode.

UPDATE: Plus, Ann Coulter acquires the power to bend space and time, and incidentally to turn lefty bloggers into Emily Litella. Well, it's not the first time that's happened.

The TM post is especially interesting reading as it devolves into a bizarre little contest in the comments, featuring a cameo by the King of the Sockpuppets himself, Glenn Greenwald with a rehashing of old arguments that nobody's making about Jane Harman as head of the Intelligence Committee.

So apparently this race to be the dumbest leaders in Congress will be longer than I thought. Just when I was ready to declare the Republicans as the winner, we enter turn 2 and see the Dems about to retake the lead.

How will it all end?


UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers and a gracious thank you to Glenn for noticing. I hope you'll all notice that this post wasn't an attempt at dumping on Democrats. I've been doing my fair share of calling Republicans dummys for the better part of the last week as well. I'd just hate to see others make the same mistake this commenter did.

Summarizing McCain

Hugh has a great post here discussing the albatross that hangs around John McCain's neck. Likely the one that costs him any real shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

It's all about the judges that didn't get confirmed, or for that matter didn't even get a vote. That, barring any surprising incidents over the next 2 years, will wholly define him. Ultimately, whether that's a good or a bad thing for the GOP is debated in the comment thread and makes for interesting reading as well.

Hugh has always been of the mind that the Republican Senate squandered the hard work and effort of the base in '04 when it acquiesced to the Gang of 14 in the Spring of '05. Did that cost us in '06? Certainly some, but it was just one of many things that slowly but surely began to turn the base off and served as the first signal that Republicans had become concerned with something other than acting like conservative Republicans, despite the fact many of us made a point of sending more Republicans to Congress in 2002 and again in '04 for precisely that reason.

I hope the Senator is proud. He appears to be. I only wonder if he truly understands though what a lot of conservatives think it is that he accomplished. Dollars to doughnuts that we have differing views on the subject.

The question is, however, whether in two years time he'll think it still something worth bragging on. My hope is it won't be.

Pouty John

Somebody needs to go back to their room, take a time-out and come back when they can play nice. K-Lo's take was funny.

May your family Holiday Photo-ops be a bit less dysfunctional!

More of the Same

We don't seem capable of learning a damn thing. Republicans in the House have re-elected John Boehner Majority Leader this morning. If Blunt maintains his post as Minority Whip, the Republicans will have won the race to 'Stupid,' despite Speaker-elect Pelosi's best attempt at getting their first.

UPDATE: No sooner did I post it, but it appears to have happened. I'll be spending the morning reflecting upon one searing question. Who is dumber? The chumps in Congress or I who desires to back them all as an alternative to Democrats.

One America

It turns out there really is only One America, not Two. This One America is a place where even a well-to-do ex-Senator lives to take advantage of Walmart's low prices. So on the same day Edwards vocally criticized America's largest retailer, one of his aids is asking for "help" in tracking down a PS3 for the Senator's youngest kids:

"My wife, Elizabeth, wanted to get a Playstation3 for my young children. She mentioned it in front of one of my staff people," Edwards said. "That staff person mentioned it in front of a volunteer who said he would make an effort to get one. He was making an effort to go get one for himself.

"Elizabeth and I knew nothing about this. He feels terrible about this. He made a mistake, and he knows he should not have used my name," Edwards said.

Edwards said the volunteer was "a young kid" unaware of what he called flawed Wal-Mart policies. He called the Wal-Mart statement an effort to divert attention from its own problems.
After Wal-Mart this summer hired Edelman executive Leslie Dach as its public relations director and put him on the company's executive team, analysts said the retailer would likely become more aggressive toward its critics.

Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union- backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex- senator's family.

Some things are so ridiculously dumb that you couldn't make them up.

It's as though Lincoln Chafee never existed

I'm amazed at this bit of what Michael Ledeen called demagougery. I just found it absurd.

From a commentary at Time.com:

Nancy Pelosi showed us something important about herself this week. If Tip O'Neill thought that all politics was local, Pelosi's view is that it's personal. But what may have more significance in the long run is what her caucus showed her — that, unlike the Republicans they are replacing, they will not march lockstep at every dictate from their leaders.

Actually, what she showed was that personal loyalty trumps smart politics. Meanwhile, her membership showed quite the opposite is true by a near 2-1 margin.

And I loved Ledeen's close:

Riiight, Karen. The insurrections against Harriet Meiers and the Bush immigration scheme never happened. Lord knows McCaine never ever challenged Frist or the White House. Snowe and Collins always did what they were told. And Specter was always in lockstep with his colleagues. It was stormtroopers marching in lockstep, all the time.

It is or it isn't

But it is not both. For every day it seems that Iraq is Vietnam, we get things like this that tell us it is not. After carrying pretty much every anti-Iraq Democrat's water, the NY Times gave us a piece from Michael Gordon yesterday regaling us with tales of Generals who don't want the US to leave. Yes, many of the same ones who've declared it a lost cause and called for the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld for two years:

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

I'm incredulous, and I must confess to incredulity as my initial reaction to such a statement. I'm left thinking that Zinni's criticism over the last years was truly the grinding of a personal ax. I hope I'm wrong.

Over at Instapundit, Glenn has a roundup of thoughts; his and others:

SO WE HAD THESE HEARINGS ON IRAQ, and generals Abizaid and Zinni are arguing against timetables for withdrawal, which has been the Democrats' main policy proposal.

Did the Democrats know beforehand that this is what the generals thought? If so, were they dishonest in not taking it into account? Maybe they were relying on this sort of thing to keep from having to do what the MoveOn crowd wants, but what they know is wrong?

Or did they not know, making them clueless? Neither one's impressive. But since the big criticism of Rumsfeld, which led to his defenestration, was that he "didn't listen to the generals," what are the Democrats to do now that the generals have spoken?

He quotes Dave Price echoing that very sentiment with a very acute observation: The bedrock political strength of Bush's Iraq policy is that it rests on the advice of the military, in which public trust runs deep and wide, whatever they may think of the war itself or the decision to invade. Democrats may have no qualms about calling Bush incompetent, but witnessing how quickly they ran away from Kerry's perceived knock on U.S. troops, it's safe to assume they will be very wary about voicing similar opinions regarding the commanders on the ground in Iraq. That public view of the military as nearly sacrosanct is a major difference between now and Vietnam, and it puts the Dems in an awkward position when they advocate a position the military vehemently disagrees with.

The obvious media-slam aside, Glenn's point about this coverage is well taken. Or at least should be: It's too bad, though, that the media neglected this stuff -- along with a lot of other things -- before the elections, as part of their effort to deliver Evan Thomas's 15 percent to the Democrats. Still, better late than never.

Not surprising though somewhat infuriating.

So is it or isn't it? I don't know. It's beginning to get where I can't keep up with it. At the risk of bad analogy making, with the way this has gone back-and-forth it's beginning to look like the team who has the ball last wins this argument.

Kids say the darndest things

So do politicians. I'd be glad to hear this from anyone else. Allow TM to fill in the details:

John Murtha defends his reported characterization of a proposed ethics reform bill as "total crap":

"...it is total crap that we have to deal with an issue like this when we’ve got a war going on and we got all these other issues."

Right, then - so when Henry Waxman, muckraking chair of the Government Reform Committee, announces that he hopes to probe, per the Sun-Times, "the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, decision-making at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of corporate profiteering", we can expect Murtha to denounce the effort as "total crap". We need to look forward, not backward, yes?

That gets my vote for absurdity of the day. But it's barely even 7 AM, so we got lots of day left...

Who the heck does Murtha think he's kidding?

Meanwhile, with the obligatory Hat Tip to Glenn Reynolds, here is this...er...summary of the Murtha-esque state of affairs in the House:

Today offers the kind of spectacle that is a small consolation prize for a party out of power: the victors pummeling each other over the spoils. The election having been lost, today's majority leadership race is a win-win.If Pelosi wins, she exalts John Murtha, an extreme anti-war zealot with a "Kick Me" sign taped on his back. This will clearly define the stakes in one of the most critical issues Americans face today. Our place in the world.

A Murtha win the day after Gen. John Abizaid told Congress the United States needs to maintain troop levels and boost advisors and training for Iraqi forces should send a clear message to American voters what their narrow, fickle majorities have wrought. Murtha brings the added benefit of a right-leaning record on issues such as abortion and gun rights. Combined with a lot of harumphy codgerness, that may offset the San Francisco agenda but, we can only hope, will drive a lot of his rank and file crazy.

Sit back and enjoy.

We've got a war goin' on, don't you know!

Stick that in your Pipe and Smoke it!

Scott Adams takes one-upsmanship to the extreme.

The Young Guns vs. The Old Dogs

John Shadegg on the virtual-stump for House Minority Whip:

Yet, in defeat there is a real opportunity for Republicans. We now have an opportunity to evaluate, unite, and change course. We must learn from the mistakes of the Democrats after their loss in 1994, and not spend the next 12 years in the minority. They kept the same leaders and not until they made the necessary changes eight years later did they begin to find a road toward success. If we want to return to the majority soon, we must take corrective action now. We cannot, as they did, count on the others side to make mistakes.

To be successful, our leaders must believe in the principles they are espousing. Paying lip service to reform and principle won’t be enough. The voters saw through it last week and they’ll see though it again. We need new ideas, a shared vision for real reform, and strong, principled, policy positions.

Being a part of the Revolutionary Class of ’94 instilled a sense of optimism and hope in me that still remains. We believed then that we could return our government to the people, and I still believe it now. The American people share the Republican vision for America, but now we must earn back their trust.

We need leaders with new ideas and new energy to reignite our efforts and reclaim our rightful place as the governing party of reform and individual empowerment. These principles will be the keys to our success. We will not regain the majority without them.

At the same time, the Corner notes a hint of Pencementum. The young guns are pushing; whether they have what it takes to win remains to be seen.

Lastly, Roy Blunt makes a strong case for his election as Minority Whip:

In a nine-page memo that will be sent to his fellow Republicans later today, and obtained exclusively by NRO, Blunt writes that, “We must force the Democrats to be Democrats,” and hang together as a caucus so “their team feels the pain.” And just what pain is the former Baptist college president talking about inflicting?

The kind that comes in forcing House Democrats from moderate and conservative districts to either support the “San Francisco agenda” of their new Speaker, and “show who they really are,” or to “vote with us."

“Either way, we win,” Blunt writes.

The targets? Those 60 Democratic members from districts where President Bush won in 2004. In an indication of just what an advantage incumbency is in these contest, Blunt then lays out, according to just how red-leaning their districts are, exactly which Democratic members will be at the top of their list when the roll is called. And how will it be done?

Through amendments and substitutes that could be politically damaging for these moderate and conservative Democrats to oppose. Blunt lists ways to hold feet to the fire on the line-item veto, minimum wage, drug prices, taxes and spending.

I'm of the mind that the taint of '06 needs getting rid of and that would include a guy like Blunt. But the man definitely has a plan and it is a specific one. I like that.

First one to 'Stupid' loses!

Dean Barnett is calling it a dumb-off. While Nancy Pelosi is determined to appoint two of the most ethically-challenged Democrats going to key committee chairmanships, the Republicans have taken a step backward with the election of Trent Lott to Senate Minority Whip.

The Readers' Digest Condensed Version of why this is a stupid idea goes as follows:

The Republican brand is damaged. They've been tossed out of power for poor behavior across a number of fronts, to the point that Dems are currently trusted more on historically Republican/Conservative issues.

To solve the problem Republicans in the Senate have reached back in time to old management, asking former Majority Leader Trent Lott to help right the ship. Only problem is Lott is part of the same management team that got Republicans where they are now.

His ham-handed handling of the Strom Thurmond Birthday comments not withstanding, Lott's view on pork and grassroots efforts to limit earmarks helped perpetuate behavior for which the Republican majority was soundly beaten last week. Why would you invite that man back to a position of importance at a critical time for the Party?

The election of McConnell as Minority Leader is a wise choice I believe. And he, more than Lott, will be the face of the party in the Senate but will he successfully offset the potential harm done by a seemingly unrepentant Lott at the Number 2 spot?

Only time will tell.

Kill the Bad Guys

Ralph Peters today:

With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.

What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.

If you're not willing to lay down a rule that any Iraqi or foreign terrorist masquerading as a security official or military member will be shot, you can't win. And that's just one example of the type of sternness this sort of fight requires.

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.

I'm already on record as saying we don't have the will for what's truly necessary for bringing order to Iraq. We just don't.

And yet that we would even contemplate leaving before getting this fixed is astounding to me. I'd hoped against it, but every day we get closer to January makes Iraq look a whole lot more like Vietnam.

The Ghost of '94

Dean Barnett spent the afternoon on a number of blogger conference calls with Republican candidates for the House Minority leadership positions. To hear him tell it, it's quite an odd way to spend a day:

I've spent most of the afternoon on conference calls with Republican congressmen who are vying for leadership roles in the 110th Congress. Since I had previously dismissed such events as "reliably dull as dishwater," you're no doubt wondering why a man with a life as rich and full as mine (giggle) would spend his afternoon in such a fashion.

All self-depricating humor aside, Dean goes on to offer a summary of the various calls and his take-aways from each. Having already gone on the record as a Shadegg apologist, I must note the difference that even Dean includes:

Following Lungren, we were visited by the ghost of 1994 in the person of John Shadegg who is opposing Roy Blunt in the minority whip race. Shadegg came to office in '94, and the fire of that revolutionary year still burns within him. Shadegg rightly pointed out that if as a party we return the same leadership to office, we'll send an unmistakable message to the public. It won't be a good one.

Shadegg also brimmed with big ideas. He knows that we need to bring our health care system back to free market principles. He knows that given the sense of entitlement that has sprouted around health care, as a nation we've become trained to feel not responsible for our own health needs. Taking on this matter is critical, and a long process.

Shadegg understands the need to take Congress back in '08 when the first-time Democratic victors from last Tuesday will be most vulnerable.

It is indeed, the Ghost of '94. Shadegg was there, he knows first hand how it was done. Most importantly, he's not lost in his 12 years in the House, the principles that he and that class stood and won on.

Perhaps it's a pipe-dream that thinks that unique moment in time can somehow be recaptured that drives me to support Shadegg's candidacy and vision. I don't know for certain.

All I do know is, I cannot but help want that man in the House Leadership come January. The old guard is in large part responsible for losing the majority and it must either make demonstrably clear that it understands it's ercommitment to correcting them or be pushed aside, making way for people with the commitment and vision for conservative governance.

Truly (Un)Surprising

CBS creates a different impression than the one given by Marine Corps Commandant Mike Hagee. The Captain elaborates:

CBS News has an interview on their website with Marine Corps Commandant General Mike Hagee, which it promotes with the headline, "Top Marine: No Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq". The article that fronts this interview makes the claim that Hagee admits that the Pentagon had no plan at all for security in the post-invasion period:

As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion — why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.

Unfortunately, Hagee's comments only deepen the mystery. He says he was deeply concerned about who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines pushed through them on their way to Baghdad.

Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV — military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished." Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military — and never heard back.

Well, that sounds pretty damning -- but that's not what Hagee says in the portion of the interview that CBS has, a 7:27 segment in which Hagee explains what happened. The connection is poor and no transcript is provided by CBS (what a shock!), but be sure to watch the video for yourselves. CBS and David Martin misrepresent Hagee in this superficial web report.

Imagine that! CBS it seems has tweaked the context of Commandant Hagee's comments and in so doing creates an impression that was not conveyed by the actual comments. A review of the piece makes it clear what Hagee was talking about, specifically:

Hagee also gives the time frame of his assessments; he talks about his forces being removed by July 2003. What Hagee discusses is the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Saddam's government, not the three years afterwards. CBS makes it sound like Hagee is talking about the entire post-invasion effort and sticks words in his mouth. In their blurb below Hagee's picture, they caption it with a "fast fact": Gen. Michael Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, such as Najaf.

Of course, it is CBS and they have a history of valuing memes over facts, but this is ridiculous.

Stop Political Predators

Over the weekend, the LA Times interviewed Lane Hudson, proprietor of Stop Sex Predators where the Foley IM's first found the light of day. Color me shocked:

The AllahPundit highlights the absurdities of the Lane Hudson story.

Yes, a lot of this struck me as obvious at the outset - now ask me about my uncanny ability to predict sunrises.

Allah's basic take? Simple: Who is Lane trying to kid?

Down on the Avenue

Last night the Lompoc City Planning Commission met and reviewed plans for a drug and alcohol rehab center proposal from Good Samaritan, Inc.:

At press time, the Commission was still considering the plans, which would require a zoning change and a conditional use permit. Opponents had not yet spoken.

Neighboring residents have expressed concern about the drug and alcohol recovery program, which would serve women recovering from abuse. It would also service their children.

A main concern of residents is that students often pass by the area of the Avenue Flower Shop to pass to and from Lompoc Valley Middle School.

The meeting did indeed run long and was apparently quite heated, however it did not run all night and the commission gave unanimous approval of the plan shortly after 11:00 pm.

I have much more to say on the subject but I cannot. I'm deep within the "cauldron" on this one and saying too much wouldn't be appropriate.

Suffice it to say, this is a good thing!

Hometown boy

The Arizona Republic endorses John Shadegg for Minority Whip:

Boehner and Blunt are fine people. But if the minority Republicans are to make a case that they matter politically, they will have to do it by addressing first principles, and that includes returning to a fiscal conservatism they have not demonstrated in the majority.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana has declared his intent to run for House minority leader, following current House Speaker Dennis Hastert's announcement that he will step out of a leadership role. Pence and Shadegg, as the leaders of their party in the House, could make a strong statement that, yes, a message did in fact get through to the GOP Congress. Emulating Democrats is not going to impress enough voters to make the Republicans a majority again.

The GOP may be in the congressional wilderness for a long time. It will be a far longer trek if they fail to take cues from the guy with the fiscal compass, John Shadegg.

They're a bit behind the curve, but welcome none the less!

Abbott and Costello

Our headline for this story today made a reference to that dynamic duo. I don't see it, but maybe that's just me:

The pair addressed the 25,000-plus people attending the National Association of Realtors convention in New Orleans Saturday night, drawing at least six standing ovations and almost continuous applause.

Bush, 82, told the crowd that retirement has been good, but he acknowledged missing some of the perks of the presidency, saying he even missed the large groups of demonstrators he once had to deal with.

He recalled a demonstration that was on hand for his arrival in San Francisco, describing it as big, and led by the "ugliest woman I've ever seen in my life."

The woman approached his limousine with a sign and shouted 'stay out of my womb,"
"I thought 'Lady, there's absolutely no problem," Bush said.

Clinton bemoaned that his punishment for beating Bush in 1992 elections was that he was "condemned for the rest of my life to be his straight man."

"If I'd told that ugly woman womb joke, the New York papers would kill me," Clinton laughed.
Although he has retired, Bush said certain things have not faded in memory.

"After 14 years, no one forgets if you throw up on the Japanese premier," he said. In 1992, Bush vomited on Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa and collapsed at a state dinner in Tokyo because he was ill with a virus.

Next stop, SNL!

Making no sense

Mel Martinez as head of the RNC?

Even discounting the reports last week about the fantasy-appointment of Michael Steele to the same post, this is the best we can come up with?!

Making up for Lost Time

I've been away since early Friday evening and as such, had no time to comment on a few things about which which there was a bit of buzz. Regardless of the not-so-timely nature of the comments, I'm going to go with them anyway.

Friday
McGovern to Meet With Congress on War: George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.

McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.

"The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there," McGovern said. "That's what's driving this insurgency."

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

Perhaps I've been wrong all along and Iraq really is Vietnam. Is it just me or is this lunacy on the part of the Democrats?

The Lamest of the Lame Duck Senators, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee is considering leaving the Republican party. That would of course assume he really ever was one:

Two days after losing a bid for a second term, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he would remain a Republican.

Chafee lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in a race seen as a referendum on President Bush and the GOP. On Thursday, he was asked whether he would stick with the Republican Party or become an independent or Democrat.

"I haven't made any decisions. I just haven't even thought about where my place is," Chafee said at a news conference.

When pressed on whether his comments indicated he might leave the GOP, he replied: "That's fair."

If ever there was a RINO for whom the term truly applies, it's Senator Chafee. In the six years of the Bush Administration, he's stood with the Democrats and against his own party on nearly every large issue of the day. He refused even to vote for the head of his party in 2004.

And still the NRSC spent tons of money to get this man re-elected. Why, I'm sure I don't know.

Now that he's gone, that's money that can fund a conservative campaign somewhere. I know of no Republicans who will miss this man. It's one thing to be a maverick, it's another to consistently and dependably stand against everything meaningful your party seeks to accomplish.

Good riddance, Senator Chafee. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Sunday
The incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has written a letter to newly-elected House Democrats in support of outspoken Iraq War opponent Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) quest to become House Majority Leader. (Roll Call)

Murtha was interviewed by NBC's Brian Williams on Election night and asked about running for Majority Leader. He said plainly that he would run and seek the post. He also stood--when pressed by Williams on Iraq--behind his calls for withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible.

Calling all Libertarians, Independents and moderate Republicans! Still happy with what you accomplished last Tuesday?

Monday

Many folks have put their hopes, not to mention all their eggs, in the Iraq Study Group's basket. The commission headed by close Bush-family friend James Baker is set to release this week it's findings on Iraq, namely a strategy to win and leave. What it's found though is most definitely up for debate. Mario Loyola at the Corner last week was convinced they've come up with nothing:

Among other things, it's time to begin massively diminishing the expectations for Baker's Iraq Study Group, which looks likely to confirm the dilemma we face in Iraq without resolving it:

As will soon be apparent, the Iraq Survey Group [sic*] of which Mr. Gates is a member and to which I'm an adviser, has not discovered any way for the U.S. to exit Iraq — except under catastrophic conditions. Its recommendations will probably be the least helpful of all the blue-ribbon commissions in Washington since World War II because it cannot escape from an unavoidable reality: We either declare defeat and withdraw completely tout de suite, or we surge troops into Baghdad and fight. The ISG will surely try to find some middle ground between these positions, which, of course, doesn't exist.

If one works through the different scenarios, they all return quickly to a Rumsfeldian position that the U.S. needs to do more in Iraq with less — a position that has been proven flatly wrong since the spring of 2003. This is why Washington has not been able to draw down even though the president, his defense secretary and his generals have dearly wanted to do so. Any meaningful reduction of U.S. forces is very likely to collapse the Iraqi Army into Shiite and Sunni militias and bring on massive carnage, the likes of which the Middle East has not seen since the Iran-Iraq War. If Mr. Gates signs off on the ISG's recommendations, which will probably be completed before he assumes office, he will be party to a doomed strategy — and everyone in Washington and abroad will recognize it as a failure as soon as they start to work through it — before he even sets foot in the Pentagon. It may not be easy for Mr. Gates to recover from this initial flop.

However, when the ISG bombs, the Bush administration may finally get serious about correcting its mistakes in Iraq.

Meanwhile, over at Hugh Hewitt, they're essentially calling it the Iraq Surrender Group. If the future House speaker is to be believed, this finding will be part of at least the basis of her Party's and Congress' approach to Iraq.

The only amusing thing about it all will be watching them squirm while they balance saying they're finding a way to withdraw to satisfy their base while saying they're simultaneously finding a way to win to the rest of the country that got them elected this time around.

Too bad it's so serious a problem.

Troops afeard

Hat tip to Glenn:

AMERICAN TROOPS fear the loss of Rumsfeld. "Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished."

Gee, ya think!?

The BusHitler is dead! Long live the BusHitler!

Both yesterday and today now, the new leaders of Congress are stressing bipartisan efforts at governing as we move into the new year. Yesterday in an interview actually taped the night before, Speaker-elect Pelosi called for "more discourse, less discord."

I guess that means Democrats are going to stop calling the President a liar. Or Hitler. Or any of the other ridiculous things they've called him over the last three years.

After all, they seem to have served their purpose now in electing a Democratic majority in Congress.

"The BusHitler is dead! Long live the BusHitler!"

Sunshine and Roses

Has it really only been two days since the Democrats won back the House? Was it really just today that they learned they'll run the Senate also?

Wow, but they work fast. Everythings coming up Roses:

--All's right with the world in Afghanistan:

Despite a raging pro-Taliban insurgency, the people of Afghanistan say they are optimistic about the future, satisfied with their young democracy and rank security low on their list of everyday concerns, according to a survey out today.

--The US Trade Deficit is down:

The overall deficit declined 6.8 percent to $64.3 billion in September from a record $69 billion in August, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The drop of $4.7 billion was better than expected and represented the biggest one-month decrease in more than five years.

Their even pro Big-corporations now:

--Disney profit doubles on networks, studios, parks

--Moderate-price department store powerhouses J.C. Penney Co. and Kohl's Corp. reported on Thursday double-digit gains in third-quarter profit that beat analysts' expectations. They also both upgraded their outlook for the year, boosted by upbeat holiday forecasts.

--Delta Air Lines Inc., the nation's third-largest carrier, said Thursday it swung to a $52 million profit in the third quarter thanks in part to a one-time gain due to a decrease in previously estimated pre-bankruptcy claims for restructuring of aircraft financing deals.

And best of all, we're going to get a full season's worth of Aaron Sorkin auto-biography:

--After days of speculation, NBC has ordered a full season's worth of episodes for "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," the critically praised drama whose poor ratings placed it on the brink of cancellation.

It's all good. Nothin' but sunshine and roses baby!

VDH on Rumsfeld

Even short blurbs from Victor Davis Hanson aren't short, but this is a quick missive on the Rumsfeld resignation via the Corner:

I don't see how removing the Secretary of Defense helps either the country or the Republicans, especially given the pre-election vote of confidence in his full tenure. He was on the right track reforming the military; the removal of the Taliban and the three-week victory over Saddam were inspired.

So we are down to his supposed responsibility for the later effort to stop the 3-year plus insurgency, whose denouement is not yet known. Rumsfeld's supposed error that drew such ire was troop levels, i.e., that he did not wish to repeat a huge presence in the manner of Vietnam, but sought to skip the 1964-1971 era morass, and go directly to the 1972-5 Vietnamization strategy of training troops, providing aid, and using air power.

I think he was right, and that most troops in Iraq today would agree. I was just talking to a Marine Lt. back from Haditha and Hit; his chief worry was not too few Americans, but rather Iraqi Security Forces insidiously expecting Americans to do their own security patrolling. Since sending in tens of thousands to do a Grozny-like smash-up is both politically impossible and antithetical to American policy, I don't see the advantage of more troops at all, especially when we will soon near 400,000 Iraqis in arms, which, together with coalition forces of ca. 150,000, would in theory provide 555,000--or more than the "peacetime" army of Saddam's. As a rule in history, it is not just the size, but the nature, rules of engagement, and mission, of armies that matter.

For the future, neither precipitous withdrawal nor a big build-up are the right solutions, the former will leave chaos, the latter will only ensure perpetual Iraqi dependency. As it is, there are too many support troops over in Iraq in compounds, who are not out with Iraqis themselves; more troops will only ensure an even bigger footprint and more USA-like enclaves. Abezaid, Casey, Petraeus, McMaster, etc. understand counter-insurgency and the need for a long-term commitment that marries political autonomy for the Iraqis with American aid, commandos, and air support. Rumsfeld supported them all.

A final note.Whatever Rumsfeld's past in the 1970s and 1980s, he wholeheartedly supported the present effort to offer the MIddle East something other than realpolitik. I don't see how the Reagan-Bush era 1980s and early 1990s policies in the Middle East--selling arms to Iran, putting troops in Lebanon and running when they were hit, cynically playing off Iran against Iraq, selling weapons to any thug in the Middle East, giving a blank check to the House of Saud, letting the Shiites and Kurds be massacred in February-March 1991--were anything other than precursors to the events of 9/11--when, of course, enhanced by the shameless Clintonian appeasement of the middle and late 1990s.

The return of the realists-Baker, Gates, and the former advisors to GB I-should prove an interesting mix with the Dean-Pelosi Democrats. The latter used to call for idealism in foreign policy, then got it with GWB's democratization, then turned on him, and now will get the realism that they currently profess to favor. Don't hold your breath.

Democrats got what they wanted this week, now just what will they do with it?

Looking Forward

Sure to comfort any and all interested in winning the fight in Iraq, we have soon-to-be House Speaker Pelosi making the following remark less than 24 hours after her party won back the Congress:

...the war in Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."

UPDATE: View it here.

On Record

In the wake of last night's defeat, Republicans have begun jockeying for position in the new House Minority leadership. It's already been made clear that Speaker Hastert will not return to a leadership position. But who will?

At least one report has Mike Pence and current Majority Leader Boehner squaring off for House Minority Leader while Arizona Congressman John Shadegg (briefly considered for Majority Leader earlier in the year) has already staked his claim for minority whip:

"I am deeply disappointed by last night's election results. After being a part of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives since its inception 12 years ago, I am saddened to see it come to an end. I am proud of our many accomplishments. Over that time, we balanced the federal budget for the first time since 1969, reformed the welfare system and enacted the largest tax relief legislation in American history."

"Twelve years ago, we took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in half a century. It was an historic achievement, and it was possible because we stood for the principles the American people believe in: a smaller federal government, lower taxes, greater individual freedom, and - above all - reform. Unfortunately, over time, Republicans stopped acting like Republicans and we ceded our reform-minded principles in exchange for a seemingly tighter grip on power."

The historic Contract with America made this pledge:

"We propose not just to change the [House of Representatives] policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives."

We must rededicate ourselves to that task. We also said we would end:

"government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public money," and begin "a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American Family."

We were right then and we are right now.

"Last night's election was NOT a revolution, nor was it an endorsement of a true or real Democrat alternative. It was a rebuke of the way Washington has conducted itself as of late. This past year, we were presented with many opportunities to act decisively, but instead we wavered in our responsibilities. Yet in defeat there is hope, and now we are presented with an opportunity to reevaluate, unite, and change course."

"It is for these reasons, along with the urging of my colleagues that I have decided to run for Minority Whip. Now is the time to return to the ideals that swept us into a governing majority. The Democrats that were elected yesterday do not represent the reform that Americans want. They do not stand for a strong national defense, nor do they stand for fiscal restraint. They will not end pork barrel spending or reform the earmarking process, and they will not change the way Washington works."

"The campaign to take back the majority begins today. I have no doubt that we can reclaim our rightful place as the governing party of reform and individual empowerment, but we must begin with a renewed vision for this Conference now."

Shadegg is the real deal. Had more Republicans taken a similar stance on things like earmarks we might not be where we are.

Guys like he, Arizona's Jeff Flake and Pence must be involved somewhere in this new leadership group. I won't speak for my colleague, but as far as I'm concerned this blog stands 100% behind Congressman Shadegg's leadership run.

Dressing up the Pig

Over at Hugh Hewitt today, George Smiley--an oft quoted Republican strategist in Hugh's election-night coverage--tried dressing up the pig a little. It doesn't help:

After reviewing the vote totals there is still plenty for Republicans to take solice in. This was not the wave year that MSM claimed it would be.

Republicans won most close races despite a terrible national environment, a true testament to their GOTV efforts.

Many races the GOP should have lost last night were won or lost narrowly. Last night would have been much uglier, but for the strong voter turn out effort.

Decided by two percentage points or fewer:
23 races, combined margins, 73,753
14 wins, 9 losses

Decided by fewer than 5,000 votes:
19 races, combined margins, 50,544
13 wins, 6 losses

Decided by fewer than 4,000 votes:
15 races, combined margins, 32,452
10 wins, 5 losses

Decided by fewer than 3,000 votes:
9 races, combined margins, 11,368
6 wins, 3 losses

Decided by fewer than 2,000 votes:
7 races, combined margins, 6,392
4 wins, 3 losses

Decided by fewer than 1,000 votes:
4 races, combined margins, 1,886
3 wins, 1 loss

What he writes, even if true, is absolutely of no solace. At the end of the day, the House and now the Senate are in Democrat hands. All day and into the early evening, Hugh and George both cautioned and encouraged conservatives with the myriad of reasons as to why things were closer than they appeared.

We turned out alright. It appears though that many of us made good on our threats and voted to "throw the bums out."

Yes, it was close. But it was still a repeat of '94, the only difference being in scale (in terms of the outcome). Every close race in both the House and Senate yesterday broke for the Democrats. Marvelously run and executed GOTV programs aside, it needn't have happened that way.

The Party has only itself to blame, a result of all the things it did and didn't do.

The $64.00 Dollar Question

Well America, you did it. You shook off the yoke of tyrannical one-party rule last night. Now it's time for The Question:

How soon before you regret putting this woman anywhere near the Levers of Power?

Will it be when taxes go up, either through direct action or purposeful inaction? Will it be in the middle of all the subpeona parades we'll see next year? Will it be after Congress makes fighting the War on Terror more- instead of less-difficult?

You don't have to answer right away. After all, you've got at least two years to formulate a response. Make sure you think long and hard about it.

My once and future Home

The House is gone, it's just a question of how much. What's going on here in California?

With the polls closed for about 45 minutes, here's where the ballot propositions are. I'm having my faith in humanity restored as I see Prop. 87 going down in flames.

Arnold is cruising, Elton Gallegly looks to be cruising in CA-24 and it looks like we bucked the trend in many other states as turnout in California counties appears lower than in many other spots.

The Unthinkable

I did it. In fact, I still can't believe I actually did it.

I voted for a Democrat...first time. Ever.

Well, you did Vote!

Turnout reports across the country are good. It appears the base came out.

Problem is, it appears not to have made enough of a difference where it mattered. At least as of 8:00 PM Pacific Time.

All the NE seats and "early indicator" seats have flipped.

Are you voting for Change?

Paul Krugman arguing yesterday for the end of 'one-party rule,'...quite the collection of typical anti-Bushism we've all come to know and love. Not to confuse you of course, but there are good arguments to make for split governance in Washington D.C., just not any of these:

--At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.

--It’s too late to vote Mr. Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish Mr. Bush’s party for his personal failings. This is in spite of a vicious campaign in which Mr. Bush has gone further than any previous president — even Richard Nixon — in attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticizes him or his policies.

--That said, it’s still possible that the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress. The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle. And if you think the timing of the Saddam verdict was coincidental, I’ve got a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

--The Constitution says that Congress and the White House are co-equal branches of government, but Mr. Bush and his people aren’t big on constitutional niceties. Even with a docile Republican majority controlling Congress, Mr. Bush has been in the habit of declaring that he has the right to disobey the law he has just signed, whether it’s a law prohibiting torture or a law requiring that he hire qualified people to run FEMA.

Just imagine, then, what he’ll do if faced with demands for information from, say, Congressional Democrats investigating war profiteering, which seems to have been rampant. Actually, we don’t have to imagine: a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors.

This guy is a kook. How and why he continues writing for--presumably--the most influential daily newspaper in America truly boggles the mind.

Vote!

And when you're done, don't get back in line and do it again (unless you're a Democrat).

All kidding aside and at the risk of sounding hokey, do your civic duty and get to the polls. It's important.

A Taste of Childhood

Finally stating the obvious

The WaPo publishes a story this morning that, finally, states what should be obvious to all but apparently is not for some:

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

I've been saying it for months. Nice to see the Post put it in print.

What they would do

According to one editorial, nothing good. If you're a disgruntled conservative, are you seeing clearly the potential consequences of your temper tantrum?

Teetering on the Fulcrum

A reminder of election-stakes for your day-before.

The what: The War on Terror. The who: Lifelong Democrat and renowned write of Science Fiction, Orson Scott Card writing last week:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

That's just the introduction. Read it all.

Frosty says...

Vote for Victor!

Zogby = Garbage

As was said of this over at the Corner, Zogby jumps the shark from bad pollster to hack. The inside scoop from Mystery Pollster blogger, Mark Blumenthal:


The Post-Standard newspaper in Syracuse and WSYR-TV had asked Zogby to conduct a second poll of the race after the pollster acknowledged that his firm had improperly weighted the results of a survey last week. In that case, Zogby polled the 25th district but then weighted the data using voter registration information from the more-Republican 24th district.

Zogby promised the two media outlets that he would do a new poll from scratch, but when the results of that survey came in both declined to run them. Jim Tortora, the news director of WSYR-TV, wrote on the station's Web site that after consulting with outside polling experts, he was concerned that Zogby had conducted the second poll using the same larger sample of 5,000 likely voters as he had on the first survey.

"With respect to Mr. Zogby, we felt the questions raised ... left us with only one choice: We had to pull the poll," Tortora wrote.

Used the same sample? Here is the explanation from WSYR's Tortora about their analysis of the second poll:

This time, the Post Standard arranged an independent expert from the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy to review the findings of the second Zogby poll. Late Tuesday, we discovered that some of the same people who were called for the first poll, were called again. Zogby confirmed they did indeed use the same larger sample of 5000 likely voters, to come up with this "new" poll sample of 502 likely voters. Our independent expert felt this raised a red flag...an unknown variable. The concern? How would you react if you were called twice in about a week, to answer the same questions? Would you answer differently? The same? Would you even take the call?

And as the Syracuse Post-Standard reported, "27 people responded to both polls." If that were not enough, even after all of this came to light, Tortora repots:

Mr. Zogby firmly stands by his findings. He insists his methodology is sound, and was prepared to join us live at 5:30pm to explain his findings and back-up his results. He points out pollsters often disagree about each other's methods.

Red flag indeed. I've a modest background in research. By no means am I an expert and I, like anyone with a basic stats class under their belt, can understand exactly why you don't do this. Blumenthal finishes by highlighting research professional's on why this is a problem.

The best part? They called Zogby a rookie before even knowing who'd conducted the poll:


"I think it's sort of a rookie mistake if you're including people a second time from a database," said Cliff Zukin, past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, an industry group based in Lenexa, Kan.

A bad practice

Zukin, a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University, spoke before he was told who conducted the poll.

He said it's considered a bad practice to call the same people twice for "random" polls.
"The problem is the first interview activates them," Zukin said. "They follow the news differently. So the people become different from a random citizen.

"If you didn't purge those people from the database," he said, "then that is a significant methodological problem. It gives you a problem to make any inference from these data."

Yes, we often disagree, but there are limits to what can be waived off as a mere difference of opinion. If Mr. Zogby or any other pollsters want to explain and defend the practice of reusing sample, our Guest Pollster's Corner is wide open.

Sampling is all about bias. In fact, every possible methodology available to a research professional is about minimizing response bias.

For me, I've never been much of a Zogby fan. True, he came closest to all of calling 2000 correctly. However, he backed into it. For example, Scott Rasmussen had Bush winning in 2000 by a comfortable 3-5%, something that potentially equated to a 100-150+ electoral vote blowout.

It didn't materialize because of the DUI story which suppressed Republican turnout. The result synched nicely with Zogby's prediction, but only because of the well-timed October surprise.

As for 2002 and 2004, it's well documented just how off he was. This pretty much cements the reputation as hack far as I'm concerned.

The Verdict is in

Sadaam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging for his role in the Dujail massacre of 1982:

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging today for his role in the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims in the northern Iraqi village of Dujail following an attempt on his life there in 1982.

Hussein was convicted of crimes against humanity including premeditated murder, torture and forced deportation. Chief Judge Raouf Rasheed Abdul-Rahman read out the sentence at midday in the Baghdad courthouse of the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court. Footage was aired by major international television networks.

That's just for the one incident; we haven't even gotten to what he did to the Kurds six years later. Too bad you can't kill somebody twice.

Measure O

Brooks Firestone of the SB County Board of Supervisors representing District Three wrote yesterday about the local initiative, Measure O. This measure seeks to appropriate funding for the County Library branch located in Vandenberg Village:

Measure O is a benefit assessment that, if passed, will provide very necessary funding for the Vandenberg Village Library. The great thing about this tax is that all your money will stay local!

The Village Library has struggled with funding for years. The Board of Supervisors recognized this in the most recent budget cycle and approved $18,000 intended to cover the Library's shortfall and prevent cutting back the already limited hours the library is able to be open. But, now it is up to the voters to decide.

Voting for Measure O will bring more programs, new services, and extended hours to your library branch. But it is up to you.

I'm sympathetic. The Village Library is old, it's run-down and struggles as it is keeping the doors open. But this kills me:

The great thing about this tax is that all your money will stay local!

Sorry, no. There is no 'great thing' about this or any other tax assessment. Not after seeing my annual tax assessment in the last couple of weeks.

Not when my ballot is also chock-full of bond initiatives for the State as well as a plethora of other bond initiatives seeking tax increases from me for one thing or another--culminating in that steaming pile of garbage known as Prop. 87. Let's not forget also County Measure D, yet another sales tax increase to fund transportation projects that the original Measure D was supposed to fund and complete neary 20 years ago.

Uh uh...kids can come to my house if they need a book to read.

We are our own worst Enemy

Glenn highlights these thoughts from LaShawn Barber this morning:


Hypocrisy is mightier than the sword. When you preach/teach/nag against something and people find out you’re doing the thing you preach/teach/nag against, you are a hypocrite who deserves ridicule, especially if you’re high profile.

Having said all that, I have to say this: No Christian should be surprised that Haggard may have given in to his perverted thoughts and turned them into perverted actions. It’s a temptation we all face. . . .

Christians constantly are being watched, and rightly so. Any little thing we do that appears hypocritical, unbelievers jump on it.

I appreciate Glenn's closing comment, but sadly the rest of the world seems to believe it ought to be and LaShawn points out why.

Void where Prohibited

Moronica.

Seymour Hersh--POS

There's not really another conclusion I can draw. Read his comments before an audience last week in Canada:


If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation," he said. "It isn't happening now, but I will tell you, there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

An extended view can be found here:

[Hersh] described one video in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer.

"Three U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village, passing candy out to kids," he began. "Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles, and they do what they're told to do, which is look for running people."

"Never mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control," Hersh continued. "[The soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game."

"About ten minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop weapons there. It was reported as 20 or 30 insurgents killed that day," he said.

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation," he said. "It isn't happening now, but I will tell you, there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

All without offering anything by way of evidence aside from his own word. Problem is, Uncle Sy is known to exagerrate deliberately in public. Hugh wonders, rightly, how it is that such a thing could or would stay under wraps for any extended period of time.

It's hard to think that such a thing would--the gotcha would be too great to pass on. So you're left to wonder, is Uncle Sy lying? If he is, is it purposeful or is just second nature:

We have all become familiar with the MSM, of which Seymour Hersh is an exemplar, holding onto stories until they can do maximum damage to those they oppose, but this is worth pondering. Seymour Hersh has evidence of American atrocities that would make abu Graib, 50 plus front page stories in the New York Times and counting, look like a walk in the park, and he has withheld publication? This is hard to believe, unless there is an ulterior motive at play.

In all honesty, I don't care anymore. I've never had much respect for the latter-day Seymour Hersh. And now frankly, I'm ready for him and his Vietnam Ethos to go away. As a nation we'll be better off when it's dead.

This is cool

520 front-pages at your disposal, all in one spot.

Fish in a barrell

Hugh Hewitt confesses to being chronically unfunny. On occasion though, he has his moments. The last few days of All-Kerry, All-Day are one of those times.

This is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrell.

The Second-stupidest Democrat going

We all know who Number one is. Number two made some wonderfully ironic commentary yesterday:

"Kerry made a blooper. Bloopers happen," Dean said at the state party's campaign headquarters.

Yes, they do. And sometimes they cost you a chance at the Presidency.

Read on to learn all the evils of the Bush Administration, distilled down to a 10-second sound bite.

All along the Front

Advice this morning on capitalizing on the Kerry remarks in what's left of the campaign:

Every Democratic candidate should now be asked whether they think the troops are in Iraq because (a) they are committed to the mission and want to win or (b) because of their lack of economic and social opportunity back home. The latter is plainly Kerry's position — and that of the Democratic left — and it has now been revealed as a position for which one has to apologize. Therefore, most Democrats now will contradict Kerry, and answer (a) the troops are devoted to their mission.

Then the upper-cut. "Well do you still want them to win, or do you want them to withdraw in defeat?" Then, they either have to take their GOP opponent's position on the war, or advocate surrender.

This Kerry business is important, because once again the fool fell into the fissure in the Democratic base over the Iraq war, and haplessly drew media attention to it. If were still on a campaign staff, I would urge attacking on this this issue all along the front.

Math challenged

Actually, for that matter, just plain challenged. TM points to part of Senator Kerry's conversation with Don Imus yesterday that flat out, makes zero sense:


KERRY: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn’t send enough troops, who didn’t listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book.

...John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don’t have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it’s going to do exactly what’s already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem.

Nobody's made that argument since late 2002, early 2003 when we were still discussing issues of an 'American Footprint' in Iraq. Who the hell does Kerry think is arguing that the answer to current violence and better security is fewer US troops?

This Bud's for you!

Plotting to overthrow

The WH today announced that they see signs of a potential plot to overthrow the government of Lebanon:

In an unusual statement, the White House said it was “increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon’s democratically elected government.”

American officials who were pressed today about the assertion on Lebanon said they had evidence that Syria and Iran were trying to engineer the creation of a new “unity” government that they could control, partly through the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. One senior American official, who did not want to be identified because he was discussing an intelligence issue, said there were also indications of “planning for a more violent” attack on the government, but he gave no details.

If true...bad. Very bad. But what will we do?

Stuq in irak

That's some apology there Senator. Well, sort of:


As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Hint: Senator, it's not about whether things were misinterpreted or misunderstood. It's about what you said, whether you meant it and if you are sorry for saying it.

The Fallout

The furor over Senator Kerry's comments have resulted in cancellations of his scheduled appearances with Democratic candidates today. At least there's a few Democrats out there with some common sense God gave my dogs.

Kerry was scheduled to appear with Bob Casey in Pennsylvania today and that will not happen. Likewise it seems, all his appearances including ones in Minnesota and Iowa as well have been tabled:

ABC news is reporting that Senator John Kerry has cancelled all appearances today - including a campaign stop in Philadelphia with Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Bob Casey.

In the meantime, the surreal-ness of it all continues. One listener of Don Imus has alleged that the good Senator had to check himself and still almost managed to make the obligatory Vietnam reference this morning:

You have got to get the end of Kerry's comments on the Imus program this morning. He said 'they owe us all an apology for the disaster that is V.... Iraq'. You have to listen
closely but he started to say Vietnam, I swear. Check it out.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson eviscerates Kerry this morning with these comments. At the same time, Jonah Goldberg's summation of things states the case pretty clearly; Kerry is an ass:

But now he's questioned the sanity, the integrity and the manliness of anybody who could have possibly taken him the wrong way. That means, in effect, that he's calling all these servicemen who understandably took offense at the plain meaning of his words, wusses and nutters. That makes Kerry a tool of the first order. And, if he apologizes now, with some Gilda Radneresque "never mind," it will once again reinforce his metaphysical toolishness. The guy thinks he can be president and he thinks he's doing what the "fighting Dem" base wants him to do. The problem is he has basically radiated himself with the isotope Asinine-90 and the only way the rest of his party can protect itself from radiation poisoning is to sequester the guy in some lime-pit for 10,000 years until his asininity half-life deterioates to managable levels.

Your Wish

Is my command:

The Kobe-less Lakers defeat the defending conference-champion Suns 114-106:

Kobe Bryant could only sit and watch, unable to lend a hand to his Los Angeles Lakers teammates. Without him, it appeared they had no chance, especially when the high-scoring Phoenix Suns made their first nine shots in the season-opener.

Odom matched his career high with 34 points to go with 13 rebounds and six assists, 19-year-old Andrew Bynum had career-high totals of 18 points and nine rebounds, and Maurice Evans added 17 points for the Lakers, who outscored the Suns by 27 after falling behind 39-20 in the first quarter.

Even their coach expressed surprise.

"You don't know what to expect, these players don't have any history as far as NBA games -- kids like [Jordan] Farmar, who gave us a big lift in the second half," Phil Jackson said. "Andrew's first start in his NBA career, a start that was auspicious. It was Maurice Evans' first game as a Laker, and on his homecourt, he comes off the bench in the second half and starts and does a great job for us."

What awaits the Kobe-less Clippers tonight at Air America Arena?

The Halloween with no Children

They almost held Halloween without the kids last night in our neighborhood. The Trick-or-treaters started late and were much fewer and farther between than last year, much to the dismay of my wife who lives for the site of barely-able-to-walk toddlers in their Princess costumes.

In total, the traffic was down nearly 80% to last year. Where'd all the kids go!?