Right Side of the Rainbow

Ralph Peters explains well the nature of the American dilemma in Iraq:

The administration and Congress have to face a fundamental question: Which result is more important — preserving Iraq as a unified state with a facade of democratic government, or protecting our own national security interests?

The two priorities now conflict. Really taking on our enemies — not least Moqtada al-Sadr and his legion of thugs — would require us to defy the elected Baghdad government we sponsored. To kill those who need killing to pacify Iraq and re-establish our ascendancy would mean that we would again become an outright occupying power.

Not that it really matters, but doing what it would take to win would also tear up our permission slip from the United Nations.

On the other hand, the prospect of endlessly shoring up a corrupt, divided Iraqi government unwilling to protect its own citizens, and to do so at a cost in American blood, would be a far more immoral course than ordering our troops to kill the butchers who’ve been assassinating them and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Let’s hope that President Bush will make it hurt-so-bad-he-can’t-sit-down clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at their meeting in Jordan today that Allah helps those who help themselves. Our soldiers and Marines can’t continue to serve as human shields for a corrupt, feckless government. [Emphasis added.]

So did the president make that clear to al-Maliki? MSNBC:

Bush pledged Thursday that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to strengthen the authority of [the] embattled prime minister and said the two agreed to speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces.

“One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we’ve been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people,” Bush said. “Today we had a meeting that will accelerate the capacity for the prime minister to do the hard work necessary to help stop this violence.”

The two also agreed in high-stakes talks here Thursday that Iraq should not be partitioned into separate, semiautonomous zones.

“The prime minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence,” Bush said after he and the Iraqi prime minister met for nearly two and a half hours.

“I agree,” Bush said. [Emphasis added.]

So, unless I’m missing something, the president just committed us to support 1) a unified Iraq, which seems … unlikely and 2) Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government, which is beholden to Muqtada al-Sadr, who is the leading instigator of the sectarian violence in Iraq.

I suppose the plan is to get al-Maliki in a position, eventually, to confront al-Sadr and others. al-Maliki himself says his forces will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security by June 2007. Does anybody believe that?

The consequences of American failure in Iraq would be profound, even catastrophic. And yet, it seems the president is still flailing about.

Technorati tags: Iraq, war+in+Iraq, al-Maliki

Posted by Paul at 7:10 PM | Permalink

Why give up a $2 parking space when you can buy a $600 transmission instead?

Posted by Paul at 5:05 PM | Permalink

New York Times:

The United States Supreme Court refused today to stop a federal prosecutor from reviewing the telephone records of two reporters for The New York Times. The records, the paper said, include information about many of the reporters’ confidential sources.

In a one-sentence order offering no reasoning and noting no dissenting votes, the Supreme Court rejected a request from The Times to stay a lower court’s decision while the paper tried to persuade the high court to review the case.

Today’s order effectively allows the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, to begin reviewing the records, which he has already obtained from phone companies, as early as this week.

…

[A] grand jury, in Chicago, is looking into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take in December 2001 against two Islamic charities in Illinois and Texas. The disclosures to the reporters, the government lawyers wrote Friday, may have amounted to obstruction of justice.

According to the Government, the “charities” — Global Relief Foundation and the Holy Land Foundation — fund terror. Prosecutors say Miller and Shenon tipped off the “charities” to the impending actions against them. The Times denies it.

The Supreme Court’s order in The New York Times Company v. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. is here. It reads:

The application for stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court, is denied.

Justice Ginsburg, who’s been known to power nap while on the bench, is the justice assigned to the Second Circuit, which includes New York.

Technorati tags: New+York+Times, US+Supreme+Court

Posted by Paul at 10:10 PM | Permalink

According to Political Wire, “a new CNN poll for the GOP nomination race shows Rudy Giuliani (R) leading the pack with 33%, followed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) at 30% and Newt Gingrich (R) and Mitt Romney (R) with 9% each.”

Here’s hoping that Mitt Romney a) continues to talk smack and b) siphons votes from McCain doing it. That way, Rudy can keep his plurality when the actual voting starts!

Technorati tags: Rudy+Giuliani, John+McCain, Mitt+Romney, 2008+elections, Republicans

Posted by Paul at 7:35 PM | Permalink

Pace the predictions of Mark Steyn and others that for Europe demography is destiny, Ralph Peters says it’s the Muslims who should worry. Continental Europeans, Peters says, are “world-champion haters:”

The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened — even when the threat’s concocted nonsense — they don’t just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.

And Europeans won’t even need to re-write “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” with an Islamist theme — real Muslims zealots provide Europe’s bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe’s Muslims. Europe hasn’t broken free of its historical addictions — we’re going to see Europe’s history reprised on meth.

I myself think Mark Steyn’s case is unassailably cogent. (In brief, Steyn argues that Europe as we know it — liberal, secular, democratic — is in rapid descent and destined to be replaced by the caliphate — illiberal, Muslim, authoritarian. See this, for example.)

But I’ll agree that Ralph Peters has a point. When it comes to barbarity, nobody outclasses the Europeans. And in a violent, winner-take-all clash between the “religious right” and the secular left, I’d bet on the latter to be more thorough and more ruthless.

Posted by Paul at 12:50 PM | Permalink

Matt Welch, writing in the Los Angeles Times, explains why John McCain won’t be president. If you’re any kind of libertarian or limited government conservative, Welch’s piece also explains why you don’t want McCain elected president.

To McCain’s defining view that “national pride will not survive the people’s contempt for government,” I say hogwash. Culture is more important than politics, and it is part of the pride of our culture to hold the government in contempt. Indeed, since the earliest days of our republic, contempt for government has been the quintessentially American ideal.

Posted by Paul at 11:30 AM | Permalink

“It’s an abhorrent double standard:”

When people like Kathryn Johnston or Cory Maye understandably mistake raiding police officers for criminal intruders, police and prosecutors are rather unforgiving, particularly if the warrant was “legal.” People like Maye and Johnston are supposed to show remarkable poise and judgment, despite the fact that armed men are breaking into their homes.

When police make mistakes, however, they’re nearly always forgiven. Because we’re supposed to understand how an officer in such a volatile situation might misjudge an everyday object for a gun, or shoot a completely innocent, unarmed man — all perfectly understandable, given the volatile, confrontational circumstances surrounding SWAT raids. Such deaths — while tragic — are mere collateral damage. We have to keep fighting the war on drugs. And we have to protect our police officers by allowing them to break down doors while people are sleeping. The deaths of a few innocent people are the price we pay for the privilege of having the government tell us what we are and aren’t allowed to put into our bodies.

Radley Balko shares the stories of children killed; of innocent people held at gunpoint, handcuffed and forced to stand only partially clothed on their porch; of a man shot in the chest whose only crime was that he asleep on the sofa; of a man shot in the head whose only crime was stepping outside; of a homeowner with no criminal record convicted of capital murder because he fired at the front door, having no expectation that it would be the police battering it down; of a sleeping house guest mistakenly shot by drug warriors and then told that his injuries were his own fault; of … well, you get the idea.

If you think the only people paying the price for the war on drugs are people whose conduct you disapprove of, you’re wrong. Hopefully, you’ll never be dead wrong.

Technorati tags: War+on+drugs

Posted by Paul at 10:20 AM | Permalink

And invite your friends, won’t you?

(The circumstances being what they are and all, the Druckers just couldn’t build that “dream ski house in Vermont.” Life is so fucking brutal.)

Technorati tags: Bat+shit+crazy+limousine+liberals

Posted by Paul at 9:35 AM | Permalink

Australian country music star Beccy Cole has come under fire for her support of the Diggers serving in Iraq. (Diggers is slang for Australian soldiers.)

Beccy Cole’s newest video, Poster Girl, is now No. 1 on the Downunder’s country music charts. Watch and see why. (Hint: It will make you proud of our Aussie allies.)

(HT: Pajamas Media)

Posted by Paul at 12:01 AM | Permalink

Umm, hmm:

America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public. (Link)

I note in passing that if the Texas legislature up and approved same-sex marriage, the New York Times would applaud that, strong public disapproval notwithstanding.

Three questions for the Times’ editorial board:

• As even you would concede, all other guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply to the individual. Why would the Framers have placed a lone collective right in a list of rights otherwise applicable to the individual?

• Suppose the Second Amendment said, “A well stocked library, being necessary to the literacy of a democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” To whom would the right to keep and read books belong?

• The Second Amendment provides, in part, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But nowhere does the Constitution expressly provide for the right to abortion, as held either individually or collectively. Would you describe the principles of constitutional interpretation that compel recognition of an individual right to abortion while eschewing an individual right to bear arms?

Technorati tags: Gun+rights, Second+Amendment, US+Constitution, New+York+Times

Posted by Paul at 10:40 PM | Permalink

News briefs for the South Park Republican

• On the ground with U.S. troops in Ramadi, Michael Fumento says America is winning the war in Iraq.

• Democrat Patricia Madrid has conceded to Republican Heather Wilson in one of this year’s closest congressional elections. Wilson, the incumbent, won re-election to New Mexico 1 by 875 votes out of more than 210,000 cast.

• Most Americans favor a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, according to a poll by Quinnipiac University. “But Americans also want to close the borders to keep out illegal immigrants in the future,” according to the poll’s director.

• In a bid to draw attention to the “worst form of bigotry confronting America today,” Republicans at Boston University are offering a scholarship to applicants who are at least 25% Caucasian.

• The American Family Association (AFA), an organization of Christian conservatives, is urging a boycott of Wal-Mart, the Nation’s largest retailer. Among other things, AFA is unhappy with Wal-Mart’s decision to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

• According to the Associated Press, Senate Democrats are unlikely to block the confirmation of Robert Gates as defense secretary.

• Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is being “disingenuous” on gay marriage. Relatedly, “National Journal’s Hotline, a compendium of insider political analysis, predicted Monday that ‘Romney will run squarely to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in what’s fast become a three-man GOP race.’”

• Rep. Alcee Hastings, impeached as a federal judge for bribery, subsequently elected to Congress and now facing millions of dollars in legal debt, is drawing tepid support in his bid to become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

• The Freedom of Information Act does not require the National Security Agency to release details of its terrorist surveillance program, a federal judge has ruled.

• Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas says he will decide next month whether to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Posted by Paul at 10:20 PM | Permalink

• If the state’s legislature fails to act, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says he will ask the state’s highest court to force a public vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

• Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, claiming that President Bush would have never invaded Iraq with a conscripted army, has renewed his call for a military draft. Presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says a draft is not on her agenda.

• According to the Associated Press, “Rep. Steny Hoyer acknowledged Sunday he was seeking assurances from incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would not retaliate against his supporters after he won the No. 2 House leadership post.”

• Two weeks after the election, four U.S. House races remain in dispute. Republicans lead in all four.

• President Bush says he has not yet made any decision about U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

• “When Democrats take over the Senate in January, the party’s bare two-vote majority will include three senators whose history shows they heed their own views more than those of any political leader,” USA Today reports.

Posted by Paul at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

CBS News:

Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.

Are the Republicans being petty or lazy in leaving behind their unfinished work? No. For once, they’re being smart:

Driving the decision to quit and go home rather than finish the remaining budget work is a determined effort by a group of conservative Republicans to prevent putting a GOP stamp on spending bills covering 13 Cabinet Departments — and loaded with thousands of homestate projects derided as “pork” by critics.

…

Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies. “Other stuff may get pushed off the table,” said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. “It kills (Democrats’) message.”

When the new Congress meets in January, the Democrats will have something else to deal with as well — something likely to strain their party’s unity. In early 2007, President Bush will send Congress a $130 billion appropriation for the war in Iraq.

Game on.

Technorati tags: Congress, Democrats, Republicans, politics

Posted by Paul at 9:20 PM | Permalink

And then there’s Mary Matalin’s question, “Do you want this race to be about my past or your future?:”

American voters have become extremely sophisticated. They know that the men and women who put themselves forward to serve in public office did not previously live as hermits atop Mount Marcy in the Adirondacks.

Posted by Paul at 1:00 PM | Permalink

After all, you’re in the clear on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which John McCain also opposed, and on gun control, which McCain has also supported:

You can’t switch on everything. So surrender to the far right on one issue: abortion. But the only way to do it is whole hog. Use your trump card: 9/11. Tell them the death you saw that day gave you a greater appreciation for the sanctity of life. You’re Saul on the road to Damascus. Praise the Lord and pass the delegates.

Posted by Paul at 12:35 PM | Permalink

Yes it does:

… he did some things that I don’t know how he’s going to overcome with conservatives. You know, he voted against all the Bush tax cuts. He voted for, was the architect of campaign finance reform, which, you know, drives a lot of conservatives crazy.

Posted by Paul at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is the early leader in the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, according to Rasmussen.

Giuliani won the support of 24% of 1,050 Republicans and 203 unaffiliated voters who said they would vote in the GOP primary. U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-John McCain, touted by liberal media as the Republican frontrunner, came in third behind U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a non-candidate.

The press adores John McCain, who in the service of his prodigious ego has stabbed the president and other Republicans — and Republican values — in the back. Old Media will try in the coming months to demoralize Republican regulars by claiming that McCain’s nomination is inevitable. This is false. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While it’s far too soon to say that Rudy will be the nominee, it’s not too soon to say that McCain won’t be.

I’ll stake my blog on it. I love my little blog, but if McCain ends up with the GOP nomination, I’ll shut this site down. I will have proven myself so disconnected from Republican sensibilities as to be undeserving to comment on them. That’s my “he-knows-what-he’s talking-about-or-he-shuts-up” guarantee. I expect to still be blogging in November 2008.

Rudy Giuliani is favored for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination by a plurality of Republican voters.

From the salons of elite opinion, we hear often that the GOP’s base will not tolerate Rudy’s views on social policy.* That’s wrong. But even were it right, it does not follow that Republicans will reward John McCain’s profound betrayals.

Relatedly, this from the Washington Post:

Republican Rudy Giuliani has assembled a group of high-powered business executives, including billionaire Texas oil mogul T. Boone Pickens, to raise money as the former New York City mayor weighs a full-blown presidential bid.

…

Other members of Giuliani’s finance committee include Barry Wynn, former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and the finance chair of Bush’s re-election campaign. The South Carolina primary is a key early contest in the presidential nominating process.

Another committee member is Tom Hicks, a Dallas billionaire and owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

…

Anne Dickerson, a veteran Bush fundraiser who has been attached to Giuliani’s political action committee, Solutions America, will be the committee’s national fundraising director.

Formidable, yes?

Deroy Murdock at Human Events:

With his exploratory committee now prospecting for 2008, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP’s White House hopefuls. His standing atop numerous polls remains unchallenged. Also, his recent endorsement by some former critics suggests that social conservatives who explore his record might embrace him as president of the United States.

Surveys consistently demonstrate that Giuliani, not Arizona Senator John McCain, is this race’s front-runner. It’s not even close.

…

“If we assume Rice is not running and allocate her votes,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen, “Giuliani would top McCain 32 percent to 22 percent in the November 4-7 study.”

…

“Giuliani has the highest net-favorable ratings of any candidate on whom we’ve been polling,” he says. “Giuliani’s higher than McCain and higher than Hillary Clinton. He’s even higher than Bill Clinton.”

Of a November 6 poll by Strategic Vision, a Republican firm, Murdock writes:

… Giuliani outran McCain by nine points in Georgia (33 percent to 24); 19 in Florida (46 percent to 27) and Washington State (42 percent to 23); 22 in New Jersey (47 percent to 25); and 23 points in Pennsylvania (47 percent to 24).

My fellow Giuliani Republicans: Do not bridle your enthusiasm. If our man runs, we can do this.

*A note of caution to both Giuliani’s supporters and detractors: We do not yet know whether and how Giuliani might “reframe” his positions on gun control, abortion and gay rights. (We do know that he highlights none of them.) But the notion that he’ll run as an unabashed social liberal is likely to be proven wrong.

By the way, on the question of gun control, I’m a social conservative. I own several firearms, I’m a member of the NRA and I hold a license to carry a handgun. And I support Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by Paul at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Mitch McConnell’s selection as Senate Republican leader was the one happy moment in the otherwise doleful GOP leadership elections. Here’s one reason why:

The Senate’s next Republican leader issued a veiled threat to block action on legislation if Democrats refuse to allow confirmation votes on President Bush’s troubled judicial nominations.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become minority leader Jan. 4, told the conservative Federalist Society Friday not to feel bad about the Senate election results because Republicans will hold 49 seats in a body that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and bring legislation or presidential nominees to a final vote.

If the “Democrats want our cooperation, they’ll give the president’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote,” McConnell said.

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, incoming GOP leader: Don’t let the smile fool you.

What’s more, with McConnell in charge, even Sen. Trent Lott may yet be of use to Republican principles. Although I deplore his election as minority whip, Lott is a master parliamentarian and eager flesh presser. If McConnell can keep Lott’s appetite for pork in check, the two of them could make the GOP proud.

As note elsewhere, McConnell has now made confirmation of the president’s judicial nominees the sine qua non of Republican cooperation in the Senate. This is both substantively correct and politically shrewd. The GOP has long and rightly insisted that judges respect their modest role in our constitutional order, and that the president’s judicial nominees receive up-or-down votes. These views not only unite Republicans of every ideological hue, they are also shared by a solid majority of the American people.

Raise the colors.

Technorati tags: US+Senate, Republicans, judges, judicial+nominations, Mitch+McConnell

Posted by Paul at 10:10 AM | Permalink

Bonkers:

Cookies mailed to the U.S. Supreme Court last year contained enough rat poison to kill all nine justices, retired member Sandra Day O’Connor said at a conference last week.

Barbara Joan March, a 60-year-old Connecticut woman, was sentenced last month to 15 years in prison. She sent 14 threatening letters in April 2005 — each with a baked good or piece of candy laced with rat poison — to a variety of federal officials: the nine Supreme Court justices; FBI Director Robert Mueller; his deputy; the chief of naval operations; the Air Force chief of staff and the chief of staff of the Army.

March pleaded guilty in March to 14 counts of mailing injurious articles.

March’s plea received little public attention until O’Connor discussed it last week.

“Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don’t know why, (but) the staff decided to analyze them,” the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted O’Connor as saying at the legal conference November 10 in the Dallas area. “Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”

The letters did not seem to pose much of a real danger since the threatening note told the recipients the food was poisoned.

I was curious to know two things: 1) What was Ms. March’s beef? Specifically, why did she want to, uh, “reverse and remand” every member of the Court — left, right and center? That struck me as oddly fair and balanced. And 2) Why did she announce that the cookies were poisoned? Is there a code of honor among the tiny subset of assassins who snare their quarry with deadly baked goods?

I Googled these pressing questions and found this:

A Connecticut woman picked a frightening and potentially deadly way to strike back at friends and family members who, she felt, had slighted her. Barbara Joan March sent cookies and candy laced with rat poison to Supreme Court justices and top FBI and Pentagon officials.

…

The letters seemingly were mailed by acquaintances of March, leading prosecutors to conclude that she was motivated by misplaced anger toward the purported senders rather than a desire to harm the intended recipients.

An FBI investigation found that March sent all the letters, including some that she typed at a public library near her home.

Posted by Paul at 9:45 PM | Permalink

Yes, I’m disappointed:

Republicans Friday chose Rep. John Boehner as minority leader, succeeding Speaker Dennis Hastert in the top GOP leadership post for the Democratic-controlled House that convenes in January.

Boehner defeated Indiana conservative Mike Pence. The vote tally was 168-27 with one vote for Texas Rep. Joe Barton. Boehner’s election cements the Ohio conservative’s resurrection within GOP leadership ranks. His elevation to succeed Hastert as the party’s front line leader came despite unrest within the rank and file and a spirited campaign by Pence.

The other reformer, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, also lost. In the race for minority whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri won on a vote of 137-57.

Rob of Say Anything:

Whatever else the election may have been, I think it was clearly a message from voters that they were tired of voting for “limited government” candidates who have done nothing to actually limit government. Yet Republicans don’t seem to have gotten that message because the leadership they’ve now chosen in the House and Senate (where Trent “There’s No Pork I Don’t Like” Lott will be Minority Whip) is the same leadership that was wholly ineffective in advancing a conservative agenda in Congress.

Mary Katharine Ham:

Three cheers for an undefeated streak of political tin-earism! Well done, guys. What better way to improve yourselves than to ignore every single one of your current problems, and spurn new leadership?

Ragnar Danneskjold of The Jawa Report:

The House Dems had the good sense to snub Nancy Pelosi and elect Steny Hoyer over John Murtha as their House Leader. Score one for the Dems on strategy.

Our guys decided on business as usual in the House. Score two more for the Dems.

Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator:

The election of the same two top Republican leaders in the House is as short-sighted and indeed asinine a reaction to a devastating election defeat as has been seen in modern political history. Clearly, the Republican solons have no clue what the country wants, no clue how institutionally corrupt they look, and no clue how badly they have betrayed the rank and file of their party, not to mention how badly they have insulted the conservative movement.

Yes. But I suppose fairness requires that we now give Rep. Boehner the opportunity to redeem himself. And he is at least saying the right things: “We need to start by rebuilding the Republican brand. Republicans need to get back to our core principles and rededicate ourselves to the reform mind-set that put us in the majority 12 years ago.” But you have to wonder: Why didn’t that occur to him in February when he was first elected to replace Tom DeLay?

Finally, this from Dean Barnett on the inability of the Republican blogosphere — the “entire weight and heft” of which “stood behind a campaign to change the House leadership” — to move Republican politicians as successfully as the Democratic blogosphere moves its politicians:

… all we do is opine, and often in an annoyingly independent way. While all of us root for the Republican Party, we’re also pretty expressive when members of the party let us down. We might carry a little water, but as a group, I bet the Republican establishment thought of us more as a pain in the neck than an asset during the last campaign season.

Technorati tags: Congressional+Republicans, Republicans, Republican+blogosphere

Posted by Paul at 6:15 PM | Permalink

Defying the wishes of their new leader, congressional Democrats make a smart choice:

House Democrats picked Rep. Steny Hoyer to be majority leader on Thursday, spurning Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s handpicked choice moments after unanimously backing her election as speaker when Congress convenes in January.

A Marylander and 25-year veteran of Congress, Hoyer defeated Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania in a vote of 149-86.

…

Murtha, a Pennsylvanian, is a powerful lawmaker on defense matters, and he gained national prominence last year when he called for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

…

Murtha, 74, was a problematic candidate because of his penchant for trading votes for pork projects and his ties to the Abscam bribery sting in 1980, the only lawmaker involved who wasn’t charged.

The race dredged up Murtha’s involvement in the Abscam scandal. FBI agents pretending to represent an Arab sheik wanting to reside in the United States and seeking investment opportunities offered bribes to several lawmakers. When offered $50,000, Murtha was recorded as saying, “I’m not interested … at this point.”

Had Mr. Murtha won, how many times would congressional Democrats have had to endure the playing of this video?

In addition to his ethically suspect past, to which the media would have returned in the wake of his ascendancy, Mr. Murtha is prone to ill-advised remarks. His defeat is a loss to Republican bloggers, who would have had great fun chronicling the antics of a Murthafucker. Congressional Democrats wisely choose not to embarrass themselves.

The size of Mr. Murtha’s loss suggests that ally Nancy Pelosi either can’t count or can’t command her caucus or both. Why in the first test of her leadership would she put such weakness on display? The Washington Post answers:

… the unspoken story is the long-simmering rivalry between Pelosi and Hoyer. The two have known each other more than 40 years — since, as young, ambitious Maryland natives, they interned for then-Sen. Daniel B. Brewster.

At one time they were friends, but their ambitions eventually put them on a collision course. Pelosi nominated Hoyer in a 1991 House leadership race and was one of his lieutenants. But in 2001, the two ran against each other in a protracted and nasty race for minority whip. Pelosi won handily, but her allies charge that Hoyer never stopped running for the next prize and along the way tried to undercut her authority. Hoyer has said he has never been anything but supportive of Pelosi.

For the most part, lawmakers, Hill aides and some outside advisers — even some close to her — say they are at a loss to explain why Pelosi has held a grudge for so long, because she clearly has the upper hand as leader of the House Democrats. They suggest that part of what rankles her is that Hoyer is not beholden to her and feels no compulsion to publicly agree with her on every issue. This, allies say, she sees as a sign of disloyalty.

As Mickey Kaus asks, what then of the one hundred forty-nine Democrats who just disagreed with her?

Do you think we’ve seen the last of Ms. Pelosi’s self-defeating vindictiveness? Me neither.

Technorati tags: Democrats, Nancy+Pelosi, John+Murtha, Steny Hoyer

Posted by Paul at 9:55 PM | Permalink

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line defends the selection of Mel Martinez as RNC chairman and the election of Trent Lott as Senate Republican whip. Fair enough. But this bit is just disingenuous:

Many conservative bloggers seem unwilling to entertain the thought that it may be reasonable to have an Hispanic Senator be a public face of the party, while politicos at the RNC do the nuts-and-bolts work. Or that the advantages of having a procedural wizard in the number two Senate minority job may outweigh a few bad headlines and a little digust two years before the next election.

“A few bad headlines”? Please. The objections to Trent Lott run deeper than that, don’t they? At least $700 million deeper.

If you want to defend Trent Lott, Mr. Mirengoff, on grounds of his procedural wizardry, do it without misrepresenting the critics’ criticism, um k?

Posted by Paul at 10:00 PM | Permalink

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, whose vote could give Republicans control of the Senate, says the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be a “very serious mistake.”

Relatedly, “The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rejecting the arguments of resurgent Democrats who are pressing President Bush to start pulling out.”

Posted by Paul at 7:45 PM | Permalink

Senate Republicans have already screwed the pooch; but it’s not too late for House Republicans to do the right thing.

Have you called your GOP congressman?

Dial 202-224-3121.

Posted by Paul at 7:30 PM | Permalink

WaPo’s Ruth Marcus is devastating.

ADDED —

Judas Priest! Sen. Trent Lott, R-Pork, has won election as minority whip.

Evidently, both sides of the aisle want to prove themselves eat up with the dumb ass.

Posted by Paul at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

• Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum “says a new Palestinian government will not recognize Israel or accept a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict,” VOA News reports.

• The international community is caving in to Tehran’s demand for a nuclear program, claims Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad hopes to celebrate Iran’s “full nuclearization” by March 20.

• Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel’s Likud party, says Ahmadinejad “is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.” It’s 1938, Netanyahu says, and Iran is Germany.

• According to the London Times, Iran will be offered “the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East” under a “partnership” envisioned by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for an international conference on the war in Iraq; the conference, Biden says, should include Iran.

Technorati tags: Israel, Iran, Iraq, Hamas

Posted by Paul at 10:25 PM | Permalink

Another voice for reform:

John Boehner and Roy Blunt have been loyal Republican Congressmen. However, as the Club for Growth has noted, both men have been part of the efforts that have separated the GOP majority from its 1994 reformist roots. When Jeff Flake offered a score of anti-pork amendments in this session, both men voted to defeat all of them. Both men voted to approve the pork-laden Highway and Energy bills.

…

Captain’s Quarters endorses Mike Pence and John Shadegg for Minority Leader and Minority Whip. Both men voted for Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments, and both men have a long track record of courageous defense of conservative principles. Both men opposed pork-laden appropriations, a stance that could have saved billions of dollars had the rest of the caucus followed suit. They will provide a new direction in leadership, one that leaves the failed and flawed leadership of the past behind and provide a new passion for reform in the Republican minority. [Emphasis added.]

Call your Republican congressman and urge him to vote for Mike Pence of Indiana for minority leader and John Shadegg of Arizona for minority whip.

Dial 202-224-3121. Tell the operator the name of your representative and ask to be connected.

Posted by Paul at 4:30 PM | Permalink

UPDATES BELOW

Washington Post:

U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-FL

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a close White House ally and a Cuban American, has agreed to become the next general chairman of the Republican National Committee, GOP officials said, an appointment that comes in the wake of an election that yielded shrinking GOP support from Hispanic voters.

Martinez, a first-term senator, will remain in office and serve as the party’s chief spokesman and fundraiser heading into the 2008 elections. Mike Duncan, the RNC’s current general counsel and a former party treasurer, will manage day-to-day operations …

…

The selection of Martinez was a setback for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R), who last week lost a Senate race and who has expressed interest in the job.

…

The only Hispanic Republican in the Senate, Martinez, 60, is expected to focus mostly on speaking out for GOP candidates, raising money and pushing the party to broaden its reach. Duncan will be the nuts-and-bolts leader. The dual-leadership model is fairly common for modern party committees. It allows high-profile party officials to lend their experience to the committee without being consumed by managing a large organization.

ADDED —

Let’s just say Republican bloggers are, uh, underwhelmed …

ADDED II —

Doesn’t Sen. Martinez know that Michael Steele would be a far, far better spokesman for the Republican Party? If Martinez knows that and took the job anyway, what does this say about his judgment? And if Martinez doesn’t know that, what does this say about his … judgment?

Posted by Paul at 9:50 PM | Permalink

If you want meaningful change among Republicans in Congress — if you want them to a) clean up their act and b) return to core GOP values — you must raise your voice now. Call your Republican congressman and tell him to support Mike Pence of Indiana for minority leader and John Shadegg of Arizona for minority whip.

Read more here and here.

Congressional Republicans will hold their leadership elections this Friday (November 17). So please, pick up the phone and call now.

ADDED —

The leadership elections present congressional Republicans with this question: Do you get it?

If the answer is yes, Mike Pence and John Shadegg will win. And the GOP will get leadership that’s honest, that ably challenges the Democrats and that restores the party’s commitment to its traditional principles.

If even they know these elections are occurring, average Americans won’t follow them and will know little of their importance. But people who read political blogs aren’t average Americans. You and I know what’s going on, and that means we have a special responsibility to make our voices heard.

For Republicans who want change and who care about the future of our party, now is the time to act. Pick up the phone and call. If you aren’t represented in Congress by a Republican, call a Republican congressman in a neighboring district or state. What’s important now is that Republicans in Congress hear from the people who support them.

In last Tuesday’s vote, Americans didn’t embrace the Democrats; they rejected a corruption-tolerating, power-seeking majority that forgot it values. We Republicans once deserved to win, and we can again:

I am running for Republican leader because we didn’t just lose our majority, I believe we lost our way …

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn’t quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters …

Only by making a dramatic turn in the direction of the agenda of the Republican Revolution can we hope to attain majority status again … We must again embrace the notion the Republicans seek power not simply to govern but change government. We are the agents of change and we must return to that reformist vision …

I believe we must confront this moment with new leadership and new voices. We must take a page from the playbook of President Ronald Reagan who taught us that it is not enough to believe great things, we must effectively communicate great things to the American people …

Dial 202-224-3121.

Posted by Paul at 6:30 PM | Permalink

President Clinton instructed us on the art of triangulation. Did the GOP congressional leadership learn the lesson? If so, the question will be put presently to freshman Heath Shuler of North Carolina and to other conservative Democrats: What say you?

Speak up, please, so those in the back row can hear.

Posted by Paul at 5:45 PM | Permalink

Mark Steyn writes what is, I think, his most dire column ever. Key graphs:

What does it mean when the world’s hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet’s military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it “redeployment” or “exit strategy” or “peace with honor” but, by the time it’s announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation. Likewise, when it’s announced on “Good Morning Pyongyang” and the Khartoum Network and, come to that, the BBC.

…

As it is, we’re in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can’t muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.

It doesn’t work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can’t win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That’s how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. “These Colors Don’t Run” is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. … To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.

ADDED —

And there’s this from Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald:

Tell me I’m wrong about this. I remain optimistic … that the Democratic leadership will recognize America’s place in the world and stiffen its spine. Barring that, that Bush will remember he is still president, develop a robust strategy for Iraq and give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves in 2008.

How many times can a great nation retreat from inferior forces and remain great?America is unique in history, a world power that spent precious blood and treasure not to subjugate but to liberate. The United States is the standard bearer of liberty, democracy and free enterprise — the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

How many times can a great nation retreat from inferior forces and remain great? If its people won’t fight for what they believe in, then of what worth are that nation’s values?

Saigon. Who rules that place now, with what values? Teheran. Beirut. Mogadishu. What lesson did the world learn from those places? Whose values dominate there today? Baghdad. Islamofascists everywhere are waiting for us to lose there. Not even to lose, but to quit.

When the United States surrenders its place in the world, who, with what values, will step forward? Brutal, dictatorial China is actively engaged, obstructing efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program and buying favor in the Third World — a model of cut-rate economic success admired for thumbing its nose at us.

Islamic extremists are ascendant among the world’s 1 billion Muslims thanks to their successes, which are nothing more than our failures. American voters, whether they realize it or not, have chosen the path of Europe, of Canada — wealthy, smug democracies that profess concern for the oppressed but will do little for them, little even in their own defense.

Posted by Paul at 4:00 PM | Permalink

An Army of 1 in 10, run by an anonymous, gay American soldier, names Right Side of the Rainbow blog of the week.

Thanks for the link, bud. But more importantly, thank you for your service to our country. I look forward to the day when you no longer have to serve in “unsilence.”

Go now, please, and visit our soldier.

Posted by Paul at 1:00 PM | Permalink