Making Up Arguments

You may have seen reports of a "disagreement" between General David Petraeus and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey in the news recently. However, this isn't as big an issue as some in the leftymedia would want you to think it is. Military historian Frederick W. Kagan explains:

The actual disagreement between Casey and the other chiefs on the one hand and Petraeus and Odierno on the other is less obvious than drama-seeking news stories have made out. After the New York Times reported that Pace would advise the president to draw down tens of thousands of U.S. forces in Iraq next year, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs issued a public statement denying the claim. And a sensationalist article in the Wall Street Journal attempting to pit Casey against Petraeus nevertheless claimed that Casey wanted to pull six brigades out of Iraq by the end of 2008 — in other words, to return to pre-surge levels. That is what both Petraeus and Odierno have been suggesting that they would like to do as well, if it is possible. It is by no means clear from the public record, therefore, just how much space there actually is between the chiefs and the commanders in the field.

Let me summarize that in my own way:

• General Casey says we need to pull six brigades out of Iraq next year.
• General Petraeus says he would like to pull six brigades out of Iraq next year.

So where's the big argument?

Sure, there may be small disagreements over small issues, such as which brigades, and when they leave, but on the main point--pulling six brigades out--there seems to be agreement.

Of course, it should not be overlooked that the media is helping the Party of the Donkey portray General Petraeus as poorly as possible, as well as making the US presence in Iraq look bad at the same time.

One might hope for a media that didn't try to create controversy where it doesn't exist simply to assist one side of the political debate in this nation.

TIME - Fifty Worst Cars Ever

I know. Not the usual subject of this blog. But I like cars and car history and when I get done you'll see how this actually relates to this blog.

It's the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of the Ford Edsel, possibly the biggest disappointment to ever come out of Detroit. Despite it's colossal failure in the marketplace, it is one of the best known cars ever. It's the butt of jokes, ridicule and the object of collectors desires and the theme of car fan clubs.

In honor, or dishonor, of this epic failure, TIME has selected the fifty worst automobiles of all time. Not surprisingly, cars like the Renault Dauphine, Yugo, Trabant, AMC Pacer and Gremlin, Corvair and Chevy Chevette made the list. Even one model year of Corvette made the list. I was personally surprised the Chevy Vega wasn't on the list while the Ford Pinto was. Admittedly, Pinto made it for it's infamous exploding gas tank fiasco, but Vega had those crappy little aluminum engines.

For this special feature TIME teamed with Dan Neil, Pulitzer Prize-winning automotive critic and syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times. I have never heard of this guy, probably because he currently writes for the LA Times. Reading the piece in TIME it seems he is a car aficionado, even commenting about cars on the list his family and he have owned or driven.

But, this is TIME and he's a journalist, so, even in something seemingly as innocuous as a fifty worst cars list, some liberal bias has to be evident. As I read the feature, four cars were on the list that sort of surprised me. The Ford Model T, Ford Explorer, Ford Excursion and Hummer H2. Were they included because they were flops? Because of poor design or styling, excessive recalls, safety reasons, shoddy workmanship or mechanical problems? No, none of those reasons.

The first surprise, almost right out of the blocks, was the 1909 Ford Model T. Yeah, that Model T. The one that set America in motorized motion, that made automotive mobility available to the average American. The first mass produced vehicle, in all it's monochromatic black glory. Neil notes all those things. He knows including the Model T on the list is going to give him trouble.

Uh-oh. Here comes trouble. Let's stipulate that the Model T did everything that the history books say: It put America on wheels, supercharged the nation's economy and transformed the landscape in ways unimagined on the day the first black-only Tin Lizzy bucked and trembled off the assembly line.

What could he find wrong with the Model T?

[c]onferred to Americans the notion of automobility as something akin to natural law, a right endowed by our Creator. A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots.

Yep. It made Americans think they should be able to drive. Which obviously led to us driving, causing pollution and driving our need for oil, in turn causing us to have to be in Iraq.

Want to take bets that this guy is an anti-war, Bush hating liberal? Plus, how utterly bourgeois. Didn't those early adopters of the automobile know they would be much more noble if they availed themselves of mass transit people movers? How dastardly of Henry Ford, laying the ground work for disrupting the socialist dream.

Finally, Neil shoe horns in a legitimate reason, in his eyes, for inclusion of the Model T on his dishonors list.

And by the way, with its blacksmithed body panels and crude instruments, the Model T was a piece of junk, the Yugo of its day.

You mean, in 1909, in the infancy of the automobile, the first mass produced car wasn't a marvel of technology and fine workmanship? Who'da thunk? Wonder how it stacked up against the common horse drawn wagon, buckboard or carriage of that time? After all, that's what it was replacing.

Next up for Neil's particular brand of car critique, the 1995 Ford Explorer. Yes, one of the heirs to the Soccer Mom Van.

[I]n its very success, the Ford Explorer is responsible for setting this country on the spiral of vehicular obesity that we are still contending with today. [...] Even though more fuel-efficient minivans do the kid- and cargo-hauling duties better, people came to prefer the outdoorsy, go-anywhere image of SUVs. In other words, people became addicted to the pose. And, as vehicles got bigger and heavier, buyers sought out even bigger vehicles to make themselves feel safe. Helloooo Hummer. All of that we can lay at the overachieving feet of the Explorer.

Get it? Explorer's success and popularity caused us to want bigger vehicles. You should not be allowed to want that because you don't need it and there are other, more sensible and practical, options. Thus it's sin and inclusion on the list.

After the Explorer, Neil's ire was shifted to another large automobile, the 2000 Ford Excursion. It's transgression is that it's not ecologically friendly and the reasons Ford gave for producing it are dubious. As if Ford needs a justification other than thinking they can sell a bunch of them and make a nice profit. Also, Ford needed a competitor for the Chevy Suburban.

[D]ubbed the Ford "Valdez" by the Sierra Club, the Excursion was a passenger vehicle of gob-smacking proportions. It weighed 7,000 lbs, measured almost 19 ft. long and stood 6.5 ft. tall. At the time, Ford argued that many of its customers — ranchers, farmers, um, tugboat enthusiasts — needed a vehicle this big with over 10,000-lb. towing capacity. Maybe that was true, but that didn't keep Suzy Homemakers from driving them to the mall.

[...]

Need I say anything? You don't really need that big vehicle. Mom's, why are you driving these things to the mall? There's just no legitimate reason for that.

Finally, the piece de resistance. The 2003 Hummer H2 comes under some especially scathing criticism. It's an indication of our national attitude. And it's not good.

One struggles to think of a worse vehicle at a worse time. Introduced shortly after 9/11 — an event whose causes were tangled in America's unquenchable thirst for oil — the Hummer H2 sent all the wrong signals.

I guess GM should have cancelled the introduction of the H2. Even after they'd probably spent three to four years in design and testing and tens of millions of dollars getting it to market. GM should have just lost tons of money all because it was bad timing and sent the wrong message.

It was/is arrogantly huge, overtly militaristic, openly scornful of the common good. As a vehicle choice, the H2 was a spiteful reactionary riposte to notions that, you know, maybe we all shouldn't be driving tanks that get 10 miles per gallon.

Sounds like Neil thinks the H2 is indicative of how he looks at America. Arrogant and militaristic. Did you catch that part about being openly scornful of the common good? How very socialist of him. When did he become arbiter of what is the common good?

Not surprisingly, the green-niks struck back. A Hummer dealership was torched in Southern California.

Neil sounds approving of the green-niks actions. I guess the Hummer dealer brought it upon himself and deserved to have his property destroyed. Wonder if Neil's a donor to eco-terrorists or ELF. One of the eco-terrorists in the Hummer dealership vandalism and arson has been convicted.

The H2 was also a PR catastrophe for GM, who happened to be repossessing and crushing the few EV1 electric cars at the time. It all contributed to GM's emerging image as the Dick Cheney of car companies.

I don't recall hearing about the PR disaster. How hard did he have to work to get a disparaging Dick Cheney comparison in the piece? With a little more effort, I'm sure he could have fit in a disparaging George Bush comparison.

Finally, the 1997 GM EV1. Neil liked this car, so why inclusion on the list? I'm not really sure. Maybe because it didn't work out like Neil fantasized.

The EV1 was a marvel of engineering, absolutely the best electric vehicle anyone had ever seen. Built by GM to comply with California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate, the EV1 was quick, fun, and reliable. It held out the promise that soon electric cars — charged from the grid with all sorts of groovy power sources, like wind and solar — could replace the smelly old internal-combustion vehicle

That's what LA needed last week during the heat wave. One million Los Angelenos plugging in their cars while the California power demand was setting new records.

It's drawback at the time was battery technology. The batteries of that time just weren't up to the task.

And therein lies the problem: the promise. In fact, battery technology at the time was nowhere near ready to replace the piston-powered engine. The early car's lead-acid bats, and even the later nickel-metal hydride batteries, couldn't supply the range or durability required by the mass market.

Oh, and that pesky little problem of practicality and meeting consumer expectations.

The car itself was a tiny, super-light two-seater, not exactly what American consumers were looking for.

And last, it was too expensive to build so GM scrapped the program.

And the EV1 was horrifically expensive to build, which was why GM's execs terminated the program — handing detractors yet another stick to beat them with. GM, the company that had done more to advance EV technology than any other, became the company that "killed the electric car."

Neil must think that GM should have just poured money into an economically unfeasible product - because he thinks it would be for the common good, I suppose. Would Neil be one of GM's detractors? Because they killed the electric car?

All these years I've thought GM was sucking because they made undesirable and sloppily made cars. And that they misread the market and aren't nimble enough to shift product lines to adapt to rapidly changing consumer demands. To think, it's really because they killed the electric car.

Even in a feature article on the fifty worst cars ever, you can encounter liberal dogma. Can you see now why I decided to post a blog entry on a car article?

What media bias?

Hat tip: Autoblog

AlGoreacle: Eco Warrior Hypocrite

Just to add fuel to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmism of CCG's post (below), I have to point out the latest display of elitist global warming hypocrisy.

DRUDGE reports that the jet setting eco-warrior is caught on video utilizing a luxury private jet for transportation.

**Exclusive**

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

[...]

Developing...

Hannity is set to show the video this Sunday night (Sept 9, 2007).

Don't get me wrong. I personally don't care who flies what kind of airplane to where. I don't care if AlGoreacle wants to fly a private jumbo jet from Nashville to Knoxville, TN. If I had the means, I'd have my own Gulfstream, jetting me to where my little heart desired.

What I do care about is when AlGoreacle, or any of the other global warming alarmists and disciples, stands up and starts telling me what has to be done to save the planet from AGW. We shouldn't fly so much; we should drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars; we should do this; we should do that. Then they go jetting around the country in private, fuel guzzling jets or traveling around the country in a caravan with buses and tractor trailers to preach to us about saving the planet from global warming.

It's tough being an eco-warrior, especially when you're an elitest hypocrite. Besides that, I didn't like AlGore before his eco-warrior charade. This just gives me another reason to mock him.

It's Warming Over the Barbecue

Hot (no pun intended) on the heels of NASA announcing that they are "revising downward" a number of statistics that had been used to "prove" global warming comes another bombshell:

The importance of network standards and accuracy emerged as a concern after economics professor Ross McKitrick charted a dramatic, worldwide closure of fully one-half of the planet’s surface temperature measurement stations from 1989-91. Those closures -- and the limitation of data that resulted -- resulted in a statistical artifact -- the “hottest decade ever!” according to agenda-driven alarmists -- of an apparent jump in global surface temperatures in the 1990s. Not a warming trend, mind you, but a sudden shift upward. As it turns out this in all likelihood is simply a product of having closed thousands of cold-weather latitude stations, at a time when for example the Soviets/Russians found themselves with bigger things to worry about than maintaining Siberian thermometers, such as a collapsing empire.

So the enterprising Mr. Watts, a TV and radio meteorologist, began taking a closer look here at home. Watts put out a call for individuals to photograph each of America’s 1221 surface stations. As the first snaps came in Watts noticed a preponderance of ridiculously sited temperature apparatuses which common sense would dictate factored in a warming bias among the U.S. network (which, remember, is the world’s least unreliable).

It seems fair to conclude that siting thermometers in Arizona parking lots, overhanging black asphalt pads, near cell towers and hot-air blowing air conditioner exhausts or next to trash burn barrels has to result from either a complete breakdown of scientific discipline or an intent to skew the data to produce evidence of global warming.

But what can you say about setting one just away from a chimney directly above a Weber barbecue grill? That’s just what they did in Hopkinsville, KY. These practices would be hilarious if they didn’t result in large amounts of corrupted data upon which our policymakers desperately seek to base an energy scarcity regime.

Looks like Emperor Algore has no clothes... again!

United Church of Christ Invites Obama, Draws IRS Complaint

Looks like the United Church of Christ is in for a bunch of guys in dark suits going over their tax returns. A complaint has been filed with the IRS regarding Barack Obama's appearance at their General Synod on 23 June.

The complaint alleges the UCC "violated every single point outlined in the IRS guidelines," in sponsoring the Illinois Senator's appearance at the church's bi-annual national gathering, which this year was held in the Hartford Civic Center in the Connecticut capital. It charges:

* "The United Church of Christ selectively provided the convention facilities for Sen. Obama to speak in support of his campaign."

* "The United Church of Christ and Sen. Obama referenced his candidacy before and during the speech."

* "Clear and deliberate campaign activity occurred in connection with the [sic] Sen. Obama's attendance and speech."

Specifically the complaint references guidelines that an individual addressing the church does so "only in a non-candidate capacity," that the individual makes no "mention of his or her candidacy or the election," and that "no campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate's attendance." The complaint also cites a guideline that prohibits a church from mentioning an individual's political candidacy or the upcoming election in "the communications announcing the candidate's attendance at the event." Both a video and a transcript of Obama's speech are available on the UCC website and apparently will be present throughout the election.

The complaint is replete with citations and links directly to both the IRS guidelines themselves as well as the transcript of Obama's speech as presented on the UCC website. Also linked are communications from the UCC in the run-up to the event that focus on Obama's role not as a Senator but in his capacity as a presidential candidate.

Included with the complaint are photographs of tables set up by campaign volunteers for Obama at the entrance to the Civic Center. The tables are decorated with Obama campaign signs and literature. To further back up the charge of an IRS violation, the complaint links to stories covering the General Synod that were aired by New Haven's news channel WTNH-TV and written in Christian Century magazine. The news stories described Obama's UCC-sponsored appearance as a "political convention" and "political rally."

What is especially interesting about the actions of the UCC is the strong odor of hypocrisy.

The irony is that IRS complaints of this nature have been lovingly crafted into a science by left-wing activist -- and UCC minister -- Barry Lynn, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lynn, quite famously, has made much of his tangles with conservative Christians, filing numerous IRS complaints designed to effectively shut down conservative religious activists such as the late Jerry Falwell. The goal, and a very serious goal it is, is to remove the tax-exempt status that the IRS gives to churches.

With the news of the filing of this complaint, both Lynn's previous actions and his language are turning around to take a bite out of both Obama and the UCC, Lynn's own denomination. "Falwell is thumbing his nose at the IRS," Lynn said in September of 2004 as the Bush-Kerry race was heating up. Falwell, Lynn said, "must not be permitted to use a tax-exempt ministry to engage in partisan politics. The vast majority of America's institutions play by the rules. He should too." When charges arose that this time it was the liberal UCC and Obama which ran the risk of an IRS complaint, Lynn dismissed the possibility

Strikingly, the language in a Lynn complaint to the IRS against Falwell is close to that in the complaint filed against the UCC.

Lynn complaint language: "I believe this is intervention in a political campaign on behalf of a candidate in clear violation of federal tax law. I urge you to take appropriate action to correct this abuse of law."

UCC complaint language: "The evidence that the United Church of Christ violated IRS guidelines is clear and plain....I urge you to take action promptly to address this issue."

The Apostle Paul tells both the Romans and Titus to remember that Christians are to be subject to the laws of the nation in which they live (Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1), and the Apostle Peter makes the same point in his first epistle (1 Peter 2:13-14).

Seems that the UCC has run afoul of both America's law and God's.

The World Speaks, I Yawn

A BBC World Services survey of twenty two countries indicates they believe the United States should withdraw from Iraq within a year. How thoughtful of the BBC to provide this revealing sentiment of the world just as Congress begins to grapple with the burgeoning success in Iraq.

Most people across the world think American troops should withdraw from Iraq within a year, according to a BBC poll published today.

The BBC World Service survey, released just before Congress receives a landmark report on George Bush's "surge", underlined the unpopularity of the president's Iraq policy.

In the poll, 39% of people in 22 countries said troops should leave now, and 28% backed a gradual withdrawal. Only 23% wanted them to stay until Iraq is safe.

[...]

That's 67% of the world wants the United States out of Iraq, sooner the better. That settles it for me. We should just get out. Or, maybe not.

However, that's more favorable than the (just my SWAG) 90% of elected democratics who want us out of Iraq immediately or within one year. We're not listening to those fools either.

The leaders of the US, Australia and Britain have all in recent days said troops must stay until the country is safe. All three countries say they have a commitment to the Iraqi people to remain there until local forces can ensure security. But Doug Miller of Globescan, which carried out the research for the BBC, said the results showed "the weight of global public opinion" was against them.

The weight of public opinion being against our continued presence in Iraq is not surprising. Our media has been telling us since March 2003 the world was against our presence in Iraq. This isn't news.

But just where does the bulk of this opposition come from?

Muslim countries including Indonesia (65%), Turkey (64%) and Egypt (58%) were among those most in favour of immediate withdrawal.

Curious, three heavily Muslim countries want our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Three countries doing the fighting, training and rebuilding in Iraq have a slightly less strong opinion on immediate withdrawal.

But this was much less popular in Australia (22%), the US (24%) and the UK (27%), the countries with the most troops in Iraq.

The world speaks. I jeer.

C-C-G Adds: Just imagine the howling we'd hear if we pulled out of Iraq and the predicted bloodbath occurred. The US is in the unenviable position of being damned if we do and damned if we don't.

GOP Debate a Viewing Hit

GOP debate Wednesday night a big viewing hit says DRUDGE REPORT FLASH

Last night's New Hampshire debate on FOXNEWS was most watched debate of '07 election season..3.1 million viewers tuned in...

[...]

Debate blows out CNN's Bill Clinton appearance on KING which averaged just 1.4 million viewers...

Updated and bumped: Link to a real story on the FOX News debate ratings -

FNC's NH GOP Debate Highest Rated Yet

Glad to see a debate, any on any station, getting some interest. It means the people are getting involved, engaged and want to know the candidates. That's only a good thing for America.

It especially makes my Clinton despising soul happy to see that he didn't draw big numbers. Maybe it's because people realize that Larry King isn't actually alive.

When Fanboys Revolt

Fanboy or Fanboi is a term used to describe someone who is utterly devoted to a single subject or hobby, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. The term originated in comic book circles, to describe someone who was socially insecure and used comics as a shield from interaction, hence the disparaging connotations. Fanboys are often experts on minor details regarding their hobbies, and they take these details extremely seriously. ...

Add to that definition one who is utterly devoted to a certain brand name or product. Like Apple.

This week, Apple's Steve Jobs announced the price of iPhones would be slashed from $599 to $399, only weeks after the introduction of the immensely anticipated and lauded roll out.

The early adopters weren't happy.

The price cut - and the phaseout of the 4-gigabyte iPhone, which retailed for $499 - came less than 10 weeks after the two products hit the market June 29 and angered some early iPhone users, who were startled to have their prized gadgets plummet in value.

Initially, Jobs wasn't very sympathetic with the outcry from the early iPhone purchasers. However, it seems after some reflection he softened his tone, and moved to appease the Apple/iPhone base.

Immediately after the cuts were announced Wednesday, Jobs' tone was less conciliatory. He tartly rebuffed criticism about whether some of Apple's most die-hard fans would be miffed by the company's latest actions. IPhone owners who bought their device that morning, he said an interview with USA Today, "should go back to where they bought it and talk to them. If they bought it a month ago, well, that's what happens in technology."

Jobs then apparently had a change of heart. The company is making the right decision by lowering the iPhone price, he said in his letter, but needs to "do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers."

"(W)e need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price," he said. "Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these."

This price slash immediately worried investors, believing that Apple was not meeting sales goals for the new product. They took out their worry on Apple's stock price.

Investors were also rattled by the news, sending Apple's shares down a total of more than 6 percent over the past two days, a drop that has wiped out about $8 billion in shareholder wealth.

Some worry that Apple is cutting the price to make up for waning demand, a concern Apple countered by saying the device is now affordable to more people and has the potential to be a blowout seller this holiday season.

Apple has said it's on track to sell 1 million iPhones by the end of the current quarter.

Apple's stock, after falling 5 percent on the news of Wednesday's announcements, fell another 1.3 percent Thursday to close at $135.01, or $1.75 lower than Wednesday's close.

When I read this story, it just cracked me up. Apple makes a business and marketing decision. First by pricing the product at $599 for the initial introduction, when mobs of buyers were salivating to be the first to have this new Apple product and would do almost anything to get one. Then as sales level off and Apple looked to future sales and the holiday shopping season reduces the price to appeal to the judicious technology buyer.

Then the uproar from the fanboys and early adopters and Jobs backpedals and moves to appease them. Okay, that's a business decision also.Look, early adopters always get the price shaft, especially on new technology and uber products. This happens with Apple products all the time. Apple has a hugely loyal and enthusiastic base of fans. Apple knows that and takes full advantage of it when rolling out cutting edge products.

Early adopters play an important role in our economy. When early adopters pay premium prices for new technology and products, it provides an incentive for the manufacturer to continue offering the product. As the product cycle matures and more people purchase the product the price comes down, allowing more and more people to enjoy the product.

A prime example of this phenomenon is big screen plasma and hi-def televisions. Just imagine what an early adopter three years ago thinks when they see the significantly lower prices today than what they paid.

Were it not for the early adopters paying that price premium, some of the products we enjoy now may have never stayed around long enough for the price to drop to a level that all of us regular consumers are willing to pay.

As for me, I hope the early adopters never change. And the next time, Jobs needs to wait longer to slash prices so he doesn't have to give back money people have already paid to the company.

HamNation: Gets Grassroots

Conservababe Mary Kathering Ham's latest HamNation. Townhall and she go to the Texas GOP Straw Poll last weekend.

Again, no embed code, so follow the link to watch.

Not her best HamNation, but five minutes of watching Mary Katherine is always a good thing.

One guy in the video asks if he'll be in a HamNation, saying he's always wanted to be in a HamNation. I just want to be within a couple feet of her.

Fred!'s Leno Appearance

As noted in a previous entry, Fred! Announces, he made his candidacy announcement on Wednesday night's Leno show.

Updated - Found video of the whole Leno appearance. Hat tip to conservababe Mary Katherine Ham. These two vidclips seem to be the whole Fred! appearance, so I'm posting the whole thing, just because I can't get enough Fred!.





Pretty good appearance but why does Fred! keep slapping his thigh in the first segment? Very annoying.

During the interview period, Leno says he remembers when he was young, we had the Peace Corps and sent young Americans all over the world and the world loved the United States. He then adds, "Maybe I'm naive because I'm here in Hollywood..." Jay, there is no maybe about it, you are naive.

Leno has some funny Fred! bumper stickers at the beginning of the second clip. He didn't have my favorite -



Fred! '08 campaign website

Kucinich Strengthens Foreign Policy Creds

Dennis Kucinich went abroad to strengthen his foreign policy credentials in pursuit of his presidential ambitions. First stop, Syria, where Gazoo praised the chinless opthamologist, Bashar Assad, and got his digs in at President Bush and United States foreign policy.

US Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, on a Mideast visit that included a stop in Syria, said the country lambasted by the Bush administration deserves credit for taking in more than a million Iraqi refugees.

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

I wish Gazoo wouldn't bless the United States with his presence in the House of Representatives.

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

I bet Assad was receptive. He and several other countries in the world, Iran chief among them, would love to know there was a United States President who would eschew all military force in the pursuit of "peace" - at any cost.

He also praised Syria for taking in Iraqi refugees.

Well, that's the least Assad could do after allowing terrorists to muster in Syria and slip into Iraq, contributing to the chaos and mayhem that compels Iraqis to flee.

Like too many liberal whacko politicians, Kucinich bolsters his foreign policy credentials by running to a country that is a terrorist sponsor, a proxy of Iran, an enemy of Israel and kisses Assad's butt and bashes the United States.

The only thing Gazoo has going for him:



Elizabeth Kucinich. She's three decades younger than Kucinich. Have you read anywhere of her being a trophy wife? Didn't think so.

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

Nearly a dozen New Jersey elected officials were caught up in a FBI sting operation. Yeah, I know, it's hard to believe. In New Jersey of all places.

A sham company set up by the FBI paid bribes to nearly a dozen public officials -- including Passaic Mayor Sammy Rivera, city Councilman Marcellus Jackson and Assemblyman Alfred E. Steele -- who were arrested this morning in a widespread corruption sting, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

Jackson took $16,500, Steele took $15,500 and Rivera $5,000 in return for their influence in awarding public contracts, federal officials allege in criminal complaints. The government says its evidence includes conversations recorded secretly during the 18-month probe at a series of meetings in restaurants, parked cars and hotels.

[...]

Rivera also boasts of his influence after allegedly taking $5,000 in cash from a cooperator while parked in a car in Passaic, the complaints say.

“I make the [expletive] decision,” Rivera allegedly says during another conversation. “And believe me, I’ve got the four [expletive] votes on the council. So let’s stop [expletive] and let’s get this thing rolling.”

The defendants — a collection of mayors, state legislators, and school board officials from Atlantic, Essex and Passaic counties — are to appear in federal court early this afternoon in Trenton.

They include former Passaic city Councilman Jonathan Soto, who is accused of taking $12,500.

Those charged are accused of demanding and accepting cash bribes in return for their influence in awarding contracts for roofing services and insurance brokerage from school districts and municipalities, according to criminal complaints unsealed with the arrests.

What is missing from those opening paragraphs? Party affiliation, of course. My first guess is they are all Green Party members. My second is they are Republicans. Not really, without going to the fourteenth paragraph of the story, I already know they are democratics. One, because it's New Jersey. Two, because the article didn't mention they were Republicans in the opening grafs.

First mention of party affiliation in fourteenth paragraph:

John Currie, chair of the Passaic County Democratic Committee, said that he first got Steele involved in the party in the early 1990’s. Currie said that Steele stood out to him because of his community activism.

“He’s the straightest man I know,” Currie said. “This is a man who’s always thought of helping people within his community.”

Straightest man I know. What's that mean? He's not gay? Or the guy thought he was not corruptible?

I know, it's probably not fair to pick on New Jersey. I'm sure there's corruption in every state's political community. It lends itself to corruption, if there are corruptible people in those positions. But, if you hear about a sting operation in a state that nets elected officials, what states come to mind first? Louisiana, New Jersey and what other state?

And finally, we have that paragon of virtue from New Jersey, Senator Bob Menendez. Or, maybe not.

General Hillary

Senator and democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, addressed the 108^th Annual VFW Convention in Kansas City, Missouri on August 20, 2007.

Hillary gave a forty four minute speech addressing a variety of veteran's issues, the Iraq War and the future of the military. The full text of the speech is at Huffington Post. Notably, it was not available on Hillary's presidential campaign website, even though a speech from three days later, August 23, 2007, is available. Maybe she doesn't want her remarks at the VFW to be widely known, it might not help her with the anti-military crowd. After all, Hillary is trying to be all things to all people.

I blogged about four weeks ago in Bill Says Hillary Has Support Among Military and Soltz vs. Patterson on Hardball - Hillary, Hawk or Dove, on Hillary's campaign to remake herself as a hawk and military loving candidate.

If you've read Patterson's book, Dereliction of Duty, or any other accounts of Hillary when she was co-president, you'll know that Hillary loathes the military. Whatever face she's wearing now is just a facade to garner support. You won't get many votes from Americans if you're a known hater of the military.

At the VFW convention, Hillary touted a number of pieces of legislation she has helped write and sponsor that will benefit veterans and a number of things she will do as President to assist veterans. They all sound pretty good and I'm really happy that even Hillary sees the need and takes action. I wish I could trust her motives beyond just helping her image remake. Just don't think for a second that she really cares.

But, none of that is what I want to ridicule her about.

That begins with ensuring that America does have the world's strongest and smartest military force. We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.

We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.

And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.

If Hillary and some of her fellow travelers in Congress had gotten her way, we'd wouldn't have had the chance to see if a change of tactics worked. If Hillary and Harry and SanFranNan had their way, we'd be pulling out of Iraq and Hillary would be touting the fact that she was in the lead on that. Hillary has carefully navigated her way through the whole Iraq War debate, quickly shifting language and positions to make sure she is best positioned to take advantage of anything that happens.

And I'd like to know if Hillary thought we had the world's strongest and smartest military force when the co-presidents left the White House in January 2001. Is Hillary one of the many who have proclaimed that our Army is stretched too thin? What legislation has Hillary sponsored since 2003 that would increase the size of the Army, and when did she determine that was necessary? In 2001, did Hillary and her co-president husband think the Army was large enough to fight a war in two countries, requiring as few as 200,000 troops?

Finally, Hillary says "we must be preparing to fight the next war." General Hillary, what will the next war we fight look like and how do we need to adapt our military today to meet that possibility? When the co-presidents left the White House in January 2001, did they think the military force structure was such that it could fight a sustained counter insurgency in the Middle East? If so, then why are we stretched so thin? Didn't Hillary and her co-president foresee and prepare for that? If the military wasn't suitable for fighting that kind of war, then why didn't Hillary and her co-president foresee the need for that?

The fact is no one knows what the next war will be. No one knows where it's going to be nor what it will take and how long. In this day, in this world, we have to be able to fight a conventional war on land, air and on the high seas, on the China mainland or on the Korean peninsula; a war like we had when we took Baghdad and the ensuing occupation and stabilization; a preemptive strike at Iran to abort it's acquisition of deliverable nuclear weapons; freedom of navigation operations in sea lanes that are vital to our national security and economic prosperity.

Preparing to fight the next war is a platitude. It prepares us for nothing and does no good. If Hillary thought the stripped down, bare bones military she and her co-president left in 2001 was adequate to fight the next war, then their vision of the next war was very optimistic and unrealistic. Maybe they thought we could handle all our enemies as law enforcement matters.

In short, I wouldn't trust Hillary to prepare us for the next major military training exercise, let alone for the next war.

As a final note, all the things Hillary told the VFW about how great her co-president husband's VA was during their term, it wasn't all that great.

GOP Debate FOX News New Hampshire

Eight GOP presidential candidate were in New Hampshire Wednesday night for a FOX News hosted debate. Candidate participating were: Rudy, Mittney, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Huck, Tank Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.

It was a good debate, moderated by adults from FOX News: Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler. Wendell had on a ghastly tie. It looked like a Christmas wrapping paper pattern.

The biggest drawback was the absence of Fred! Thompson, although I wasn't very keen about the cutting away to go to the diner and interviewing and soliciting questions from the diners watching the debate. In a ninety minute debate and eight candidates, time is too valuable. If the debate sponsors want "questions from the public" they should solicit them before hand and have the moderators ask them.

As much as I'm not a Ron Paul fan, he probably gets ignored more than he deserves in these debates. He didn't get a question for thirty minutes after the initial introductory question.

I have started noticing a trend in the GOP debates. Some candidates are sure to get questions on certain issues. Especially the non-front runners. The front runners get enough questions they are likely to be asked a variety.

For instance, it's certain Paul is always going to get a question about Iraq or 9-11 or foreign policy. But, quick, what is Paul's position on abortion? Or earmarks? We think we know what his position would be, but if they asked Paul about earmarks, they could also ask him why he requested 400 million dollars in pork. Tancredo is always going to get a question about illegal immigration, but what is his position on Social Security.

I realize some of the candidates are asked those questions because it's going to cause a reaction with the audience. And those certain issues are their signature issues - one trick ponies, if you will. But if the purpose of the debates is to inform the voter, there needs to be some variation in the questions those second tier candidates are asked.

Possibly the most exciting part of the debate was Paul and Huck spending several minutes debating about the Iraq war. Totally unstructured and spontaneous.

A quick run down on my impressions of each candidate.

Mittney - wasn't as smooth as he has been. Thought he sort of rambled around on Iraq and illegal immigration. It seems he's trying too hard not to get himself pinned down on something he says if things change in the future.

Rudy - overall, pretty good. Continues to hit on what he has done and how it is going to translate into what he'll do as President.

McCain - he was as good in this debate as he has been in any. Looked alert and lively. Forceful on Iraq and WOT. As Larry Kudlow calls him on that issue, Mr. Backbone. No one is stronger on the war than McCain. Asked why he wouldn't sign a no new taxes pledge - and he explained it. And I think he's right. One thing about John McCain, he's going to stick by what he believes.

Huck - very good. Very polished. Never struggles for his answers. Was great in the Paul showdown. Maybe he realized the boost Rudy got a few debates back when he challenged Paul on 9-11. Not good enough to push him into front runner status.

Tank - He knows what he believes on immigration and fighting terrorists and doesn't back down from it. Sometimes it sounds like his passion for the subjects causes him to struggle for the right way to present them. Didn't hurt himself.

Brownback - Solid again on family. But other than that, why is he there? Totally unmemorable.

Hunter - I think of all the second tier candidates, Duncan makes the best use of the limited time he gets in these debates. Continued to hammer on the fence when the illegal immigration issue comes up. Needs to come up with some new material other than that scraggly piece of fence they show on TV and if they get over my fence, we sign them up for the Olympics. It was good the first few times but it's a bit stale now.

Paul - just what you'd expect from Paul. I don't know if anyone else caught it, but he invoked international law in one of his answers about the Iraq War. As in, it's against international law. Hmm, wonder how that squares with Ron Paul's Constitution.

If I had to kick one candidate off the debate stage, it would be Sam Brownback. Yeah, even before Ron Paul. Sam is good on abortion, family and values. But there are other candidates that can fill that slot and they have other appealing qualities. Sam brings nothing to the table. Plus, I'm still bent at him for his weather vane voting on the illegal immigrant amnesty bill.

One thing that has been in the news lately that was not asked about, the mortgage loan problem. I would have like to have seen that question just to hear all of them contrast so much with the democratics who want to save the people from their bad decisions.

McCain and Rudy have refused to sign a no new taxes pledge, all the other candidates have. McCain answered the question quite well, saying he has a record that speaks for itself stronger than any pledge does. Rudy answered that the President makes one pledge when he's sworn into office - to protect and defend the Constitution. He added that once you sign one pledge, then there are more pledges that other groups want you to sign, and he's not going there.

I thought they both had very good reasons for not signing the pledge. I'm surely not going to dock either of them any points for that position. If a candidate is willing to sign a no new taxes pledge, that's good. I'd much rather they have a record that supported that pledge.

Wonder how many democratics would sign a no new taxes pledge?

Fred! Announces

Fred Thompson finally announced his long anticipated presidential candidacy. Fred! made a guest appearance on Jay Leno to make the announcement. Later he webcast an announcement, introducing himself, why he's running, what he believes and what he hopes to do as President of the United States.

I think it's a good video. Fred! picked a good background and he was very comfortable and to the point.



Fred! has caught some flak the past few days for announcing his candidacy on the same night as the FOX News GOP debate in New Hampshire, and not participating in that debate. I would have liked to have seen Fred! in the debate. Those of us who have been waiting for him to jump in with both feet are ready to see him in action. However, I can see why he wouldn't want to be in a debate the same day he announced his candidacy. Besides, tomorrow, what will get the most media attention? The GOP candidates at the debate, or Fred! announcing his long anticipate candidacy?

From a PR and media perspective, Fred! probably made the right decision.

Fred '08 campaign site

GOP Debate Rumored

Yes, I say rumored. Because I've only heard about it through word of mouth, so to speak.

FOX News is hosting a GOP Presidential debate in New Hampshire, Wednesday, September 5, 2008, at 9:00 PM (Eastern). So I've heard.

I've read commentary during this campaign that people don't watch debates. That may be true. I have tried to watch them all. Or at least watch video of them on the 'net after the fact. Maybe one of the reasons some people who might be interested never know about them.

Just a few weeks ago, there was the surprise debate hosted by ABC's Steph Dog on a Sunday morning. I had heard about that one, but never once heard what time it would be. Who knew it would be at 7:00 AM on the West Coast.

I spent about ten minutes at the FOX News website trying to find something about the GOP debate tomorrow night. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If it's there, it's hidden. It's almost as if they are trying to keep it secret.

If these organizations, networks, whatever, want people to know about and watch these debates, they are going to have to do a better job getting the word out.

Just sayin'.

President Bush's Labor Day in Iraq

While most of the country was grilling (I had Bratwurst with cheese--yum!), President Bush was having a meeting with several top officials of both the US Armed Forces and the new government of Iraq... in, of all places, Anbar. Frederick W. Kagan explains why that is significant:

Anbar, as everyone knows, has been one of the hotbeds and the most important base for both the Sunni rejectionist insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq since 2003. It has been one of the most violent provinces in Iraq, and one of the most dangerous for American soldiers and Marines, until recently. Now it is one of the safest — safe enough for the war cabinet of the United States of America to meet there with the senior leadership of the government of Iraq to discuss strategy. Instead of talking about how to convince the Anbaris that the Sunni will not retake power in Iraq any time soon, Bush, [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al] Maliki, [General David] Petraeus, [Iraqi President Jalal] Talabani, and [Ambassador Ryan] Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency. In any other war, with any other president, this event would be recognized for what it is: the sign of a crucial victory over two challenges that had seemed both unconquerable and fatal. It should be recognized as at least the Gettysburg of this war, to the extent that counterinsurgencies can have such turning points. Less than a year ago, it was common wisdom and the conclusion of the Marine intelligence community in Anbar that the province and its people were hopelessly lost. Now the Anbaris are looking to the Americans and the government of Iraq for legitimacy, for protection, and for inclusion in a political process they have spurned for years. What is that if not a major victory in this war?

But you won't hear the Party of the Donkey proclaiming it a victory. Instead, they have already come up with their own talking points about why this isn't very important. Kagan's article (linked in the title) tears down these talking points one by one.

In short, it's well worth a read.

GOP Straw Poll - August 2007

I usually put up the Pajamas Media weekly straw poll - on the Mondays that I remember to do it. For instance, I completely space it last Monday.

But, this is my favorite straw poll on the 'net - GOP Straw Polls. Their downfall is they don't run it every month, so it falls off people's (mine) surfing habits. This is the straw poll for August, the previous one was put up in May. I don't know how long August's has been up, but it wasn't there a couple of weeks ago when I last checked. The polls are usually open for voting until the next one is started.

What makes this poll so good is you can filter the data to see what kind of voters are favoring one or the other candidate. Ron Paul is not included this time. Why not? Because the people who vote for him in these internet polls are not serious. The last poll had Paul with the most votes, but when you clicked on the filter to show who else his supporters found acceptable, well, not surprisingly, Paulbots found no other candidate acceptable.

Despite Paul's absence from the August GOP Straw Poll, they seem to be getting their whacks in. Click on the Ultra-Conservative (#10) filter and the leading votes are for none with only a couple of other candidates as acceptable. My guess is a lot of Paulbots, with their main man cast out, are voting for none.

Hillbilly White Trash has a reference to the Paulbot syndrome on the GOP Straw Poll:

Here is a statement by Matt Margolis on his decision to exclude ass-clown Ron Paul from this month's GOP straw poll:

UPDATE: Some of you may be wondering about the absence of Ron Paul from this months straw poll. Let me explain. After my decision to include Ron Paul in the previous poll, I monitored (to the best of my ability) the efforts by Paul's online supporters. With the help of other bloggers, we discovered a sophisticated coordinated effort to spam the poll, obfuscate their actions, and even cheat the poll.

[...]

Lem adds:

The fact that the Paul campaign was asking directly about the security measures indicates that the gaming of online polls is not just the work of overzealous supporters with lots of time on their hands (because the part-time jobs at McDonald's aren't very demanding). The attempt to create a distorted image of Paul's true level of support is apparently a deliberate strategy of the Paul campaign.

So much for Libertarians being "principled".

[...]

Craig to Resign

It's still in the stages where officials will only speak on the condition of anonymity, but...

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, four state GOP officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

His replacement has already been chosen, it appears:

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter appeared Friday to have already settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.

Rumor has it Risch was planning a run for Congress anyway, this just sort of gives him a running start.

Now, if only the Party of the Donkey would clean house as quickly and effectively.

All Religions are Equal, but Some are More Equal than Others

Here we go again...

A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

The installment did not appear in the Post's print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.

• Click here to see the Aug. 26 "Opus" strip about radical Islam.

The Washington Post Writers Group syndicates "Opus," and the Post is the cartoon's home newspaper. The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.

Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.

There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.

So, let's review.

• Poking fun at Jerry Falwell: just fine with that.
• Poking fun at radical Islam: no way.

Anyone besides me see a bit of a double standard there?