Enforcing Liberal Orthodoxy

Open mouth, insert donkey's hoof seems to be the reasoning behind the latest move made by the Democratic National Committee.

A bit of background is needed. The Party of the Donkey doesn't choose a nominee the way the GOP does... not only to the voters get to vote, but, in a move straight out of Mao or Lenin's Communist Party, the Party Members get two votes... one in their state primary, like all good citizens, and another one at the Convention; they're called "superdelegates." I guess the Donkeys don't want to leave the choice of the direction of the party up to, you know, the "little people."

Now comes the insert hoof part. Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a reliable lefty on basically every domestic policy, has been stripped of "superdelegate" status for the awful crime of (gasp) endorsing a Republican! And of course, this comes after the same Party of the Donkey kicked him out because he (gasp) supported the war in Iraq!

Just more evidence that the lefties support free speech only when it agrees with the Party Line.

(Cross-posted at Liberal Implosion)

Voter ID Opponents Make A Big Mistake

Those opposing the simple requirement to show photo ID in order to vote have made a huge error in choosing their "poster child." Turns out she'd be a better example of why we need laws that make it mandatory to show photo ID to vote:

On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.

Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.

Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she's never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.

Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.

But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,” Rokita said.

It really doesn't take a lot of rumination to figure out why the Party of the Donkey opposes voter ID laws so vehemently--if they believe that they are the beneficiaries of the votes of people like Mrs. Ewing, then naturally they'd fight tooth and nail against any law that stops such fraud.

Their error in picking their "injured party," however, makes it a lot less likely that they'll win this one.

Hayek and Chavez

Some interesting thoughts on why Chavez reacted to his recent defeat the way he did:

This brings us back to the question, Why didn't Chavez find a pretext to invalidate the election? What stopped him from doing this, I would argue, was not his respect for the existing constitution, which he was obviously willing to toss aside, nor was it his great love for the abstract principles of democracy, which he was willing to manipulate for his own purposes. What stopped him was simply the sobering realization that if he refused to accept the result of the election he would be faced with an outright rebellion among his political enemies, like the coup that removed him from power in 2002.

Hayek believed that democratic elections were valuable because they could prevent bloodshed and civil strife, like the 2002 coup. To see how this works, consider how elections took place among primitive armed tribes. To vote for someone to be your leader, you got up and stood next to the man you supported. By doing this, you were indicating that you would fight on your leader's side against his opponent. Hence the result of the primitive election was to disclose the relative power, in terms of armed supporters, of the various candidates. If one candidate had ninety men standing around him, while the other had only ten, then it was obvious that in an armed struggle the weaker side would lose and the stronger side would win. As a result, the man with only ten supporters would concede defeat, acting on the principle that it is better to lose an election than to lose one's head. By the same logic, when two men had nearly equal support, then this too sent a signal to the community—namely, that unless the two sides would work out a compromise, they would be plunged into a civil war that would inevitably end by weakening the community's capacity to survive struggle against their collective enemies. In short, the primitive election was a way to avoid bloody power struggles that would end up destroying the solidarity of the community.

By gracefully accepting his defeat at the poll, Hugo Chavez was skillfully averting a much worse defeat in the streets. If all the population knew that half the population had defied his bid for power, then it was obvious that there would be ferocious resistance to any attempt on Chavez' part to seize what he wanted by fraud. How ferocious this resistance might be had already been shown in 2002. It was a risk that Chavez chose not to take—but only after looking at the election returns.

Paradoxically, it was Venezuela's history of political instability, the knowledge that he could be unconstitutionally removed from power by a coup d'etat that led Hugo Chavez to abandon his efforts at mangling the constitution that is the only remaining obstacle to his own dictatorial ambitions.

In short, the happy outcome of Venezuela's most recent election should not be construed as showing that Hugo Chavez harbors no dictatorial ambitions, but neither should it be taken to be proof of the infallible wisdom of the democratic system. Instead, it indicates what we should suspect already—namely, that Hugo Chavez is no fool, and he is prepared to be prudent in order to get what he wants. And one day, he still may.

Chavez still bears watching... I said before, and I say again, I do not think he's given up the idea of seizing powers as a de facto dictator.

Corruption in New Orleans? Say It Ain't So!

Reported by the LA Times, New Orleans City Councilman, Oliver Thomas, resigned today after pleading guilty to charges that he took kickbacks.

The humorous part of the story is the shock among New Orleans residents, considering Thomas one of the least corruptible, straight shooting politicians. He was thought highly of and was a leading contender for a future mayoral run.

The longest-serving member of the New Orleans City Council resigned today, hours after pleading guilty to charges that he took kickbacks from a businessman who wanted to keep a parking lot contract for the French Quarter.

The swift fall of Oliver Thomas, who until recently served as the council's president, stunned New Orleans' political world and led many citizens and commentators to fear that it would further tarnish the city's image at a time when many think the stain of corruption is hurting Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.

[...]

Thomas, 50, was considered a future mayoral candidate and one of the city's most effective elected leaders. He was also regarded as one of the least corruptible figures in a city long sullied by sleazy politics.

He is the biggest political figure to fall in a wide-ranging federal investigation of New Orleans government that has already netted several other elected officials, including the former president of the Orleans Parish school board -- and he probably won't be the last.

The U.S. District Judge took a dim view of the charges against Thomas:

When prosecutors finished explaining the charges, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance castigated Thomas for embarrassing New Orleans at a time when it could not afford such notoriety.

Callers to a local radio talk show were dismayed

On WWL-870 AM, one of New Orleans' lively talk radio stations, news of Thomas' disgraceful end elicited a torrent of anger and disbelief from Louisianans. Many callers noted that Thomas seemed like one of the few straight shooters in city politics.

"If our best guy pleads guilty to corruption, what are we left with?" said the show's host, John "Spud" McConnell.

Despite that, at least one caller was undaunted by the corruption.

Although most people condemned his acts, some of the chatter demonstrated that New Orleans had a ways to go before it became intolerant of corruption. After the station broadcast Thomas' mea culpa, a man called in and said he didn't care. He said he would still vote for Thomas if he could.

We shouldn't be surprised by his sentiments. After all, New Orleans is the city that reelected School Bus Nagin as Mayor even after his disastrous performance. And Louisiana reelected William Dollar Bill Jefferson even with a possible indictment hanging over his head, and plenty of evidence to support it.

Why is that New Orleans residents seem to be shocked by these developments? Every casual observer of Louisiana politics isn't.

A note of interest - in four articles I read on this story, not one mentioned what party Thomas belongs to. Yeah, I know, he's just a city councilman. But he's a city councilman in New Orleans, a city that is receiving billions and billions of dollars in federal government taxpayer dollars to rebuild the city; a city that has been under democrat party governance for decades. Yet not a mention of his party affiliation.

I'd wager money he's a democratic. If he was a Republican I have no doubt that fact would have been in the opening paragraphs.

What I did find, in The Times-Picayune article, is that Thomas held the black at-large seat. There is also a white at-large city council seat. Political observers are concerned that this could present an opening to upset the racial balance of the at-large council seats.

As potential candidates study the field, a key issue will be the unspoken rule that has kept the two at-large council seats divided between white and African-American politicians since the mid-1970s.

During the recent election, Thomas was handily re-elected to the "black" at-large seat, while Clarkson and Fielkow battled for the "white" seat. Some black political commentators already are expressing fear that Thomas' departure might provide an opportunity to upset the racial balance in the at-large seats.

[...]

"Race is going to be a very contentious issue in the upcoming council race," said Sidney Arroyo, a political consultant who has worked for many local politicians, including Thomas. Holding the election at the same time as the governor's race would help African-American candidates because the turnout would be higher, he said.

Do these people realize this is 2007? Does the black population of New Orleans really think the black elected politicians in that city have really represented their best interests? I suppose it could be so, as they have continued to elect democrats despite their poor track record over the decades.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part III

Remember when the Democrats were whining about voter disenfranchisement? Well, I ran across a story about a real episode where voting rights were violated:

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge has ruled that a majority black county in eastern Mississippi violated whites' voting rights in what prosecutors said was the first lawsuit to use the Voting Rights Act on behalf of whites.

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee ruled late Friday that Noxubee County Democratic Party leader Ike Brown and the county Democratic Executive Committee “manipulated the political process in ways intended and designed to impair and impede participation of white voters and to dilute their votes.”

Racism and voter disenfranchisement. When will we hear loud denunciations of this from the likes of the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson?

Probably never.

Hat tip: Wizbang.

Update and bump: John Fund, over at OpinionJournal.com, has a lot to say about this story, and includes a lot more details.

Among the abuses catalogued by Judge Tom Lee were the paying of notaries public to visit voters and illegally mark their absentee ballots, manipulation of the registration rolls, importation of illegal candidates to run for county office, and publication of a list of voters, classified by race, who might have their ballots challenged. The judge criticized state political officials for being "remiss" in addressing the abuses. The U.S. Justice Department, which sued Noxubee officials under the Voting Rights Act, has called conditions there "the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the [department's] Voting Section in decades."

Read the whole thing. Really.

Aftermath of the French Elections

NRO has a powerful (and extensive) post-mortem on the French election. Here's a tidbit to whet your appetite:

First, the Gaullist exception in both the domestic field and in international affairs has finally been done away with. Domestically, Gaullism has been terrible for the Right. In France, after 1945, the figure of General de Gaulle singlehandedly prevented the consolidation of a powerful and durable Christian-Democratic party as arose in Germany or Italy and as existed in Britain. Even after de Gaulle’s retirement, his legacy prevented the often-attempted establishment of a conservative, right-of-center party. This fragmented the center and the Right, and forced a general shift to the center. The Right was softened, which in turn enabled the rise of an uncouth ultra-right in the form of Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose National Front took a large part of the conservative electorate.

Furthermore, de Gaulle essentially established a pact with the Communist party, which paralyzed the political landscape: Against an erratic coalition of Gaullists and Communists, it was virtually impossible to effect significant change. For the better part of fifty years, the Communist-dominated unions were like a lead balloon burdening the body politic, a powerful lobby on behalf of corporatist status quo.

No figure comparable to that of Mrs. Thatcher ever rose to break the back of the unions, no figure remotely comparable to that of Ronald Reagan ever appeared to free the political system from the poisonous legacy of Gen. de Gaulle. Sarkozy’s ascent represents the consolidation of a genuine right-of-center force in French politics and the final vanquishing of the Gaullist exception.

The summary, of course, ties it all together:

The exceptions of Gaullism, the Communist party, and Le Pen have been fatally weakened or eliminated altogether. The French body politic is ripe for a thoroughgoing reshuffle, and this is what will occur now. A new, post-Gaullist conservative pole will take shape around Sarkozy. Should the new president go to the country to acquire the parliamentary majority he needs, he would consolidate a five-year majority for himself, enabling him to implement what priorities he will select, which, if the campaign is any indication, will represent a pro-market inflection (not revolution) in the étatist policies of the French state.

The Socialist party will be torn by defeat, by the exhaustion of the ’68 generation, by the failure of the post-’68 (Ségolène Royal’s) generation to capitalize on even as calamitous a 12-year legacy as that of the pseudo-conservative Chirac. The moderate, more Social-Democratic types in the Socialist party have been signaling their willingness to deal with the center: Former Socialist government minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of the “French Doctors,” is now talking of joining François Bayrou’s new Centrist (Christian-Democratic) party. Claude Allègre, renowned geophysicist (and noted global-warming skeptic) and a former Socialist minister of Education, was spotted leaving Sarkozy’s offices a few days ago.

The grip of the “Sixty-Eighters” (soixante-huitards) on the political and cultural establishment and the complete connivance between Gaullists, Communists, and ’68ers on anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, pro-Russian, and pro-“third world” policies has now been seriously weakened. In his campaign, Sarkozy emphasized national identity and cultural roots (Judeo-Christian, Catholic, French, and Western) — subjects that drive the Left into fits of rage. The ’68ers idolized cultural relativism and multiculturalism; the new president has no sympathy for their shibboleths. The virtues he stresses and the vices he attacks have nothing in common with the worldview of the ’68ers.

With the end of its persistent and toxic “exceptions,” from the so-called French social model to the conceit of French international leadership, and with a new chief executive unburdened by these follies, France will join again the ranks of reasonably governed nations. Good news for the French, good news for us.

There's lots of meat between those two excerpts, too.

Pro-American Sarkozy Wins French Election

Foxnews.com is reporting that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French election, handing Socialists yet another defeat.

Newsbusters.org is reporting that the NY Times is already calling him names.

I guess sometimes you really can judge someone by his enemies.

Critics Complain about NYPD keeping 2004 GOP Convention Safe

Apparently it's now a violation of civil rights to protect the eeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans.

What else is one to think when "protesters" sue the NYPD for arresting violent demonstrators outside the 2004 GOP Convention?

Here's a list of some details about the planning of the demonstrations:

Eight weeks before the convention, activists designated Aug. 31, 2004, in online postings as a day for civil disorder, the "Day of Chaos," or "A-31." Groups of anarchists began identifying protest targets in public advisories, press releases and on Web sites.

For many, Madison Square Garden, the convention site, was "ground zero," which activists discussed entering with false identification. Others planned to prevent delegates from reaching the convention by blinding bus driver windows or disabling charter buses, lying under vehicles, and using rented cabs and flotillas of bicycles to clog bus routes.

A least 24 hotels throughout the city hosting state delegations were identified on Web sites as delegation hosts at which protestors could converge to harass delegates and disrupt normal hotel business. Reinforced police presence at the Warwick, the Westin and Roosevelt, Commissioner Kelly said in a 2004 speech, prevented demonstrators from "rushing" the delegates' hotels.

The intelligence files show that activists had also planned, and later attempted unsuccessfully, to close down Wall Street, disrupt traffic at Herald Square and elsewhere, crash delegate parties, stage sit-ins in hotel and office lobbies, seal off subway stations with arrest tape and switch subway signs to disorient delegates. There were plans to vandalize retail stores like Starbucks and McDonalds with what Mr. Cohen called "brick and bomb tactics"; activists were also urged to disrupt Broadway performances attended by delegates on Aug. 31, designated as "Chaos on Broadway."

Other businesses seen as hostile to the activists' agenda--the Carlyle Group, Chevron, the Rand Corporation and Hummer of Manhattan--were designated for "direct actions" ranging from blocking entrances to breaking windows and setting fires. The files showed that activists with previous arrests for violent conduct were monitored by NYPD plain-clothes detectives, and that information about their convention plans was shared with police departments in other states and counties.

Activists discussed the use of disruptive tactics that had worked so well in Seattle--Molotov cocktails, ammonium-nitrate bombs with nails, live CS canisters, Tiki Torches (soup cans filled with flammable substances attached to the end of a stick) water guns filled with flammable liquids and chemical irritants, urine or paint, and mobile infrared transmitters to change traffic signals.

The files document at least eight training sessions in New York and outside that were organized by anarchists and other experienced activists. Techniques for evading or countering the police were taught. The New York City Anarchist Tribes, for example, held martial-arts training in Manhattan in January, 2004. The Syracuse Peace Council, in Ithaca, N.Y., which planned to block traffic in New York, held weekend training aimed at "building our own radical activist infrastructure."

The "Constitutional Rights Enforcement and Support Team," an Internet-based group, stated on its Web site that "many people who join this group will die, be wounded, or jailed" in its efforts to counter "police brutality." Ashira Affinity, a Colorado-based anarchist group, urged members to join protests that were "strategic, ruthless, efficient, as well as chaotic."

In addition to the usual crackpot threats posted in Internet chat rooms, such as the one by a writer who vowed to "fly a 767 into the convention and take care of the American problem on Thursday"--which the police nevertheless could ill afford to ignore--came vaguer if still troubling counsel from would-be protestors: "Give them the New York they are afraid of," urged one listing.

In Queens, police arrested three "Black bloc" anarchists who had three imitation handguns, a butterfly knife, pellets and a map of New York City. A man arrested on Aug. 20 for criminal trespass and possession of burglary tools in the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, had been arrested more than 25 times in California for various offenses.

I'd say the NYPD had plenty of reason to keep an eye on these folks.

But noooooooo, the NYPD watching and in some cases attempting to infiltrate the groups planning this is wrong, because they were protecting the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans!

Imagine if that sort of planning had been going on for disrupting the Democratic convention. How would the ACLU and ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS react?

That should put it in perspective.