Quick Hit #2: Surprise! Corzine to Raise Taxes

On December 8th, I wrote, "Perhaps Corzine will make it even more interesting by taking the time-honored NJ Dem route of raising taxes in his first year." I expected him to wait at least until he was sworn in, but he just couldn't wait to take the route: "Corzine ends his vow to leave gas tax alone." Will NJ voters ever learn (see past NJ Governors Byrne, Florio and McGreevey and now Governor-elect Corzine)?

Quick Hit #1: WA Dems "Sorry" for Anti-Christian Symbol Sold on its Website

The Chairman of the Washington State Democratic Party has finally apologized for an anti-Christian car magnet sold on the party's website. Chairman Berendt said "he wasn't sure what the fish symbol is supposed to mean but said he thinks it is aimed at 'people who claim to be pro-life but are for the death penalty.'" Doesn't sound so apologetic after all. BTW, previously and unrelated to this incident, Mr. Berendt resigned for the WA State party to go to work for Moveon.org.

Below is a picture of the offending magnet.

Good Tookie Analysis @ Galley Slaves

There is a good analysis of the Tookie execution issues over at Galley Slaves. There are also links to an excellent article by Joseph Bottum. As an anti-death penalty conservative and a Catholic, I often find myself making the same case as Bottum. It is the rare occasion in which I find myself sharing the same position as the left, although it is clearly for different reasons. The left, however, still has some serious problems on this issue.

First, the Hollywood and left supporters of Tookie Williams defended a brutal murderer while uttering hardly a word about the victims of his heinous crimes (not only the four murder victims, but also all of those families affected by gang participation and violence). Further, the argument made by many of the Williams supporters, namely "what would be gained by killing Tookie?" is almost word-for-word the argument made by many on the right in favor of sparing Terry Schiavo from death by starvation. When that argument was made on behalf of Schiavo, however, very few, if any, of the Williams supporters were there to support Schiavo.

Now contrast these two persons: Williams, a gang leader and criminal responsible for much death and destruction, and Schiavo, a helpless woman who committed no crime. Which is used by Hollywood and the left to advance the "what would be gained by killing him/her?" argument? The convicted killer and gang leader. This is just another example of what is wrong with the left.

Waiving the White Flag

From Drudge:

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks.

Let the myrth and magic begin . . . .

UPDATE: The video.

Menendez to be Named NJ Senator

The AP reports:

New Jersey will be represented for the first time by a minority U.S. senator when Gov.-elect Jon Corzine announces his decision to name Democratic Rep. Robert Menendez to fill the remaining year of his Senate term.

This sets up a Menendez vs. Kean, Jr. race in 2006. Assuming the NJ GOP is smart enough to keep Shundler and Forrester on the bench, NJ is now in play for the GOP. Perhaps Corzine will make it even more interesting by taking the time-honored NJ Dem route of raising taxes in his first year.

Sun to Rise in East; Also, CBC to Oppose Alito

No surprise here: Congressional Black Caucus to Oppose Alito. From the article:

"The members of the CBC are concerned about Judge Alito's opinions, many in dissent, in race cases where his decisions have disproportionately affected African-Americans," said Rep. Mel Watt, D- N.C., the caucus chairman. [Ed.: I am going to assume that Rep. Watt means "disproportionately affected blacks in a negative manner," not just "disproportionately affected"].

"We are troubled by what appears to be a very conservative judicial philosophy that seems greatly at odds with much of 20th century constitutional jurisprudence," Watt said (emphasis added).

If this is true, according to the CBC, Judge Alito's opinions are so outside of the mainstream that they "seem greatly at odds with much of 20th century constitutional jurisprudence," yet his views would be in the majority on many divisive issues if he were on the Supreme Court today (which is, after all, why they are opposing him). Does this mean that when Judge Alito is on the Supremes, the views of Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens (and O'Connor when she voted with them) will then be seen by the CBC as greatly at odds with 21st century constitutional jurisprudence?

Glad to See Others Agree

Excellent discussions are ongoing in the blogosphere on the Dems's new position (surrender and retreat). Good reading material at Discriminations, JustOneMinute, GOP Bloggers and the BOTW.

It's Now Official: Dems and Terrorists See the War the Same Way

The White House and GOP response to Chairman YEEAAARGHHHHH's latest remarks ("the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong") has been fairly muted, but it may be because, as Scott McClennan said, "I think those are remarks for [Chairman YEEAAARGHHHHH] to clarify." Nonetheless, Republicans should challenge Democrats on the Chairman's assertion that, "the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years." If this is true, then the Democratic party has now taken the position most favored and advocated most notably by the terrorists and Baathist loyalists in Iraq, namely, that the U.S. will lose this war and should therefore surrender now before it gets worse. When Senator Kennedy proposed his own timeline for surrender in January 2005, I wrote:

It may be unremarkable that Senator Kennedy is advocating a leave-and-let-them-drown strategy, but if other Democrats get into the car with Senator Kennedy (note: yes, I know these are cheap metaphors at the expense of Senator Kennedy), then this will be a significant moment for the Democrats. It may mark the beginning of a Democrat party that takes an until-now unimaginable position: Let's go home and let the terrorists win this one. If this becomes a widespread Democrat position, this may mark the start of the long-term marginalization of the Democrat party.

The marginalization, of course, did not take hold because the party is divided on the surrender issue (also, to be fair, the Dems do have the MSM on their side, which makes it difficult for them to become marginalized). If the Chairman's statements are true, then maybe he has succeeded in getting the party to rally around the surrender position, and perhaps the marginalization can now begin.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker at Powerline sees it the same way. So does Jim Geraghty at TKS.

FOX News Poll Gives Interesting Insights

The latest Opinion Dymics poll commissioned by FOX News has some good news for President Bush, but more importantly the details in the poll provide some insight into the political opposition in America.

The poll shows that 52% of those polled responded that the world would be worse off and 59% responded that Iraq would be worse off if Saddam were still in power. Look into the numbers, however, and a startling number jumps out: 41% of Democrats believe the world would be BETTER OFF with Saddam in power (interestingly, only 29% of Democrats believe that Iraq would be better off). The time has come for Republicans and supporters of this military action to challenge Democrats on this belief. If (1) Saddam did not possess WMD, (2) the U.S. was unjustified in going into Iraq to remove Saddam, and (3) the world would be better off with Saddam in power, then the people who believe this should be called on to demand the only logical remedy: the U.S. should leave Iraq and reinstate Saddam to power immediately. Perhaps a vote on a Congressional resolution is now in order:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives and the Senate that (1) the Iraqi government under the regime of Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD, (2) the United States was mistaken and unjustified in taking military action against the Iraqi regime and (3) the world would be better off with the regime of Saddam Hussein in power, and therefore, the deployment of United States forces in Iraq should be terminated and the regime of Saddam Hussein reinstated to power as soon as practical.

With Saddam's continued insistence on his rightful claim to the Iraqi presidency and the constant complaints from the left about the justifications for and consequences of the war, this should be an easy vote for Congress.

UPDATE: I suggest we replace number (3), which is only supported by 41% of Dems, with "80% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq."

Jimmy Breslin to Hillary: Send Your Daughter to Iraq

Okay, I admit that this drives me crazy.

Jimmy Breslin has a column in New York Newsday in which he attacks Hillary Clinton (rightly) from the left, but the points he makes are surely familiar to us on the right (e.g., she is avoiding staking out a clear position or trying to have it both ways on Iraq). Breslin, like so many others on the left, cannot help tossing in the usual nonsensical, anti-war challenge: "If Hillary Clinton wants this war to go on, then she should send her daughter to fight in Iraq."

Once again, I ask, how would Hillary Clinton go about doing this, anyway? As I and many others have previously pointed out, Breslin's challenge is patently ridiculous:

The left seems to have missed that post-draft we have an all-volunteer armed force, so I do not have the ability to send my son or anyone else anywhere. Nor does any other parent. My son can decide to go or not go by volunteering for service, but I cannot send him or stop him from going if he so chooses. That is what an all-volunteer armed force means. All persons wishing to test this should try thinking about how they would "send" or "take" their adult son or daughter ANYWHERE (e.g., college, a concert or even the barber) against their will. Is that really so hard to understand for Mrs. Sheehan and the left? Perhaps they prefer the old mentality that people in the army are forced to be there, and those who are not were saved from forced conscription by their families. A large portion of the left appears to be unable to side with those in the military unless they are first reduced to victim status. I do not believe that most enlisted men and women see themselves as victims.

Perhaps one day, someone will be able to explain this to the left.

More on the Seattle Soldier Beatings

The story continues to unfold here. The Seattle Times reports the Seattle PD now disputes a claim by a relative of one of the victims that a police officer watched the attack but did not intervene. The claim was first reported in an interview on KOMO-TV. The police did not immediately dispute the claim in the KOMO-TV interview:

The victim's family says there was one police officer very close by while the beating was in progress. They claim that officer did not try to help.

Pruitt did not address that claim specifically, but he did say it's up to an officer to decide if he/she feels safe confronting an angry crowd alone.

"If the crowd is large, if they can't see beyond the outer crowd and see what's happening, there may be some instances where an officer doesn't necessarily want to go running into a crowd and possibly make conditions worse," he said. "We didn't know if weapons were involved and we didn't know the conditions of anybody inside that crowd," Pruitt explained.

Meanwhile, Seattle P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. comments on what he seems to view as some good news: not only were the assailants black, but so were the victims! From Mr. Jamieson:

But the beating victims and their female companions are -- surprise! -- black as well, police tell me. News reports failed to mention the race of the beating victims or the women.

. . . .

Police say race was not a factor in the July assaults, and point out that race should never come into play unless it is part of a crime, such as a hate crime.

That last quoted sentence is a neat piece of tautology: race should not be mentioned as a factor unless it is a race crime, which is a crime in which race is a factor. This should highlight once again the silliness of such a designation: would this be a more serious or heinous assault if the victims had been white? Do the victims feel some relief that their assailants were of the same race and were not attacking them because of their race? Did the attack feel less hateful? Was it a "dislike crime" rather than a "hate crime"?

This Time, A Good Seattle Story

After the story about the two soldiers beaten in Seattle, it is good to see a story of about decency and kindness toward the a soldier in the same city:

When Chris Yanez wanted to take his girlfriend out for a special dinner to celebrate their one-year anniversary, he chose the venerable restaurant Canlis [Ed: a very expensive local restaurant], perched high above Lake Union.

Yanez, a soldier returning from Iraq, knew the dinner would be pricey. What he didn't expect is that it would be free. And he also didn't expect that when he walked out, the place would be in tears.

. . . .

By the end of the night several patrons had, unknown to Yanez, offered to pay for the young couple's meal. With Canlis also sharing the costs, the $150 bill evaporated.

. . . .

"I knew Canlis was expensive, but this is a one-of-a-kind restaurant and this was a special occasion," [Yanez] said. "It was the greatest thing ever. It makes me feel like people appreciate the troops and they care about people in the community. I was in shock and my girlfriend started to cry. It was really emotional."

Hopefully, this story will inspire similar acts of kindness towards our returning soldiers in Seattle.

The AL East Pennant Race Is NOT Over

The AL East pennant race is still going strong and the Yankees are only 2.5 games behind the Red Sux. This is not where I expected the Yanks to be at this stage, but somehow they have underperformed preseason expectations and overperformed early season expectations. After this weekend's series against the Royals, the Yanks head here to Seattle to play 3 against the Mariners. The Blogero family will be there for 2 out of the 3 games to show support for the Yankees. Let's hope the Yanks have a good week and the Red Sux a bad one.

Gov. Richardson Advocates Razing Mexican Town

How is this for triangulation on the immigration issue?:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will use a meeting with his Chihuahuan counterpart this week to press for the demolition of Las Chepas, the semi-abandoned Mexican hamlet used as a staging area for hundreds of undocumented immigrants who cross daily into the United States west of Columbus.

Republicans are ignoring this important issue while astute politicians such as Gov. Richardson stake out a position. Admittedly, pushing for the razing of a Mexican town would be reported a little differently if it came from a Republican politician, but Republicans must to learn to tackle this issue by making a clear distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. There is a tendency in the press to use "immigration" and "immigrant" interchangeably with "illegal immigration" and "illegal immigrant" and Republicans must resist this construct and call the press on it when they use it.

Soldiers Beaten in Seattle

Two soldiers were badly beaten here in Seattle on July 31st. The police have now released a videotape of the beatings after failing to get any leads. The video is available from KOMO-TV.

This is an unfortunate incident, and hopefully eyewitnesses to the beatings and anyone who knows these assailants will come forward.

UPDATE: The Seattle Police claim that the release of the videotape has yielded some leads. There is, however, something missing from this story and the previous story. Specifically, when did the police obtain this videotape (the incident occurred on July 31st) and how soon after that did they release it? There is some indication from local reports that the Seattle Police received the videotape one day after the incident. If this is true, this means the police delayed the release of the videotape showing the attack and the assailants for more than three weeks. The reason for the delay has not been explained.

UPDATE: KING5-TV also has an update and Michelle Malkin is following the story as well.

Bring Me the Head of "El Loco"

I am betting this (Robertson Calls for Chavez's Assassination) will get muchisimo ink and airtime in the MSM because it follows the MSM's favored script (religious right nutjob makes an outrageous statement). Does Robertson speak for the administration or even for the Republican Party? No, but it will not matter. This story will be played as if it was made by a senior member of the administration.

UPDATE: The MRC notes the same phenomenon on its NewsBusters blog.

UPDATE: Is this really necessary (U.S. Dodges Robertson Comments on Chavez)? Are Democrat leaders forced to "dodge" any of the loony comments or actions by Rev. Jackson?

Worth Dying For?

One of the most quoted sentences of late (at least in the blogosphere and conservative opinion pieces) is "This country is not worth dying for." Here is a evidence of a contrary opinion:

FT. LAUDERDALE -- The U.S. Coast Guard on Monday searched for as many as 31 Cubans who may have been on a speedboat that capsized while crossing the Florida Straits.
. . . .
U.S. officials don't know where this past weekend's boat was headed, but "34 people in one boat is usually an indication that they were trying to enter the United States illegally," Coast Guard Petty Officer Ryan Doss said.
. . . .
This summer, at least two Cubans have died while trying to reach the United States. In June, a man was pronounced dead on arrival at Florida's Lower Keys Medical Center after the Coast Guard found him onboard a boat off of Key West. On July 31, Joel Agustin Llamas Rodriguez died of head injuries he sustained on his way to the U.S. aboard a speedboat.

This is a tragic reminder that many who are not in this country disagree with the quoted statement and are willing to show their disagreement by risking, and in some cases losing, their lives to show their disagreement.

Some Questions About Voting and Photo Id

From Discriminations.us:

The Degradation Of Liberal Rhetoric

No, I'm not referring to Cindy Sheehan's calling President Bush the world's greatest terrorist, but rather to the charge that this or that proposal in the racial arena -- often, oddly, the call for colorblind equal treatment -- would result, as an OpEd in today's Washington Post puts it, in "Reviving Jim Crow." (I do not regard the question mark that follows the title to be a large enough fig leaf to cover the underlying charge.) The author, David Becker, identified as "a voting rights attorney and election consultant," begins his Chicken Little ("The sky is falling!" for those of you who don't recall) with the following sentence:

Any day now the Justice Department will render judgment on one of the single most discriminatory pieces of voting legislation of recent years: a Georgia state law requiring voters to present one of only six forms of photo identification before they can exercise their right to vote.

This is just the latest example of the running gag on liberal headlines: "World to End Tomorrow; Women and Minorities Hardest Hit."

Even if the premise that minorities, and blacks specifically, are unlikely to have photo id (oh, and congrats to the left for giving life to a new stereotype—minorities don't have photo id), is it really advancing the interests of those without identification to ensure that there is no possible reason for them to get photo id? After all, many normal activities in life require some form of photo id (renting an apartment, a car or even a video; admission to certain government buildings; boarding an airplane, writing a check, etc.). Wouldn't anyone, regardless of race, benefit from getting photo identification for use in not just voting but in these other activities? Shouldn't the efforts of these so-called rights advocates be on empowering people by helping them get these everyday tools rather than once again stereotyping minorities as helpless victims who cannot be expected to have photo id?

To add some context here, the Georgia Driver Services department issues FREE voter identification cards to poor, registered voters without any other acceptable proof of identity. Oh, and by the way, the closest Driver Services office from Downtown Atlanta is less than 8 miles away (not exactly an insurmountable distance, is it?).

New features on El Blogero

• Chris Muir's excellent Day by Day comic strip is now featured daily.
• The comments feature has been turned on.

Shark Jumping in Crawford

Time-warp summer continues in Crawford:

CRAWFORD, Texas - Iraq war protesters camping out near President
Bush's ranch got some support Sunday night from a prominent figure in the
anti-Vietnam war movement: folk singer Joan Baez.

The Sheehan Commune has now jumped the shark.

This is a Parody, I Presume

The Seattle P-I has an editorial in which it laments that Seattle is not ranked higher on a list of most liberal cities ("Cleveland . . . whupped us") and argues that the city is not liberal enough ("Seattle is an essentially prudish and, at times, provincial town"). I can only presume that the Seattle P-I in engaging in a bit of parody. If not, exactly how freakishly liberal does this town have to get to satisfy that editorial board?

Take Your Son to Canada Day?

Cindy Sheehan's declaration that she "would have taken [her enlisted son] to Canada" if she had known than what she purportedly knows now once again shows how time-warped the left is. This desire to take a son to Canada may have made some sense when there was a draft and the object of such a move was to protect a young man from the draft at all cost and at all consequences, but it is nonsensical in the context of an all-volunteer armed force. What Mrs. Sheehan is saying in essence is that she would have somehow "taken" a 24-year-old Army Spc. (one who enlisted voluntarily) away to Canada to live as an Army deserter and face prosecution as such.

How would Mrs. Sheehan have "taken" this adult enlistee to Canada? Note that there is no mention of Army Spc. Sheehan wanting to desert nor of Mrs. Sheehan's confidence in her ability to convince him to desert. Was she going to kidnap this adult and move him to Canada against his will? Or maybe she was going to move him to Canada BEFORE he enlisted, which of course would be even sillier because he would not be in line to go to war unless he in fact had enlisted.

This is a common theme among the left. Whenever I hear the tired, 1960s-inspired question, "Would you send your son/daughter to fight there?" I always ask the same question: Just how would I go about doing that, anyway? The left seems to have missed that post-draft we have an all-volunteer armed force, so I do not have the ability to send my son or anyone else anywhere. Nor does any other parent. My son can decide to go or not go by volunteering for service, but I cannot send him or stop him from going if he so chooses. That is what an all-volunteer armed force means. All persons wishing to test this should try thinking about how they would "send" or "take" their adult son or daughter ANYWHERE (e.g., college, a concert or even the barber) against their will.

Is that really so hard to understand for Mrs. Sheehan and the left? Perhaps they prefer the old mentality that people in the army are forced to be there, and those who are not were saved from forced conscription by their families. A large portion of the left appears to be unable to side with those in the military unless they first reduced to victim status. I do not believe that most enlisted men and women see themselves as victims.

Back after a long absence . . .

. . . and, hopefully, will be posting more regularly. There is lots out there, but it is being covered quite well by the blogosphere and the non-MSM. I will just pipe in when warranted.

Pope John Paul II, RIP

Pope John Paul II (1920 - 2005)

New Seinfeld Show? Not bloody likely . . .

Considering that Friday is April 1st, this "contest" being run by a local Seattle station has all of the markings of an April Fool's Day hoax.

The premise of this contest is that Jerry Seinfeld is back at NBC and casting a new show that has been called both a sitcom and a reality show during the on-the-air promotion of the contest. The show is "looking for new talent to cast in the show & they have partnered with [the radio station] to find 5 of Seattle's 'best' to audition for Jerry this Saturday at an undisclosed hotel . . . . Jerry will pick his favorite 5 of all the people that come in to audition." The contest appears to have the cooperation of Jerry Seinfeld.

Here are some markers that this a hoax:

1. Has anyone read about or heard about this show other than on this station? Wouldn't Seinfeld's return to TV, and his return with Larry David to NBC in particular (as "Casting director Michael Dunlop" let "slip" on the air on Tuesday morning), be among the biggest entertainment news of the day? If you run a Internet search, you will find no information about this project.

2. The project is apparently secret, yet it is being broadcast over the radio and on the Internet at the morning host's website (note that the station's website does not mention the contest at all).

3. The name of the show is "Jerry," which just happens to be the name of the show that the Jerry and George characters created for NBC on the Seinfeld show.

4. The date that the aspiring performers are to line up at the radio station's studios for their auditions is Friday, April 1st.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

UPDATE
Andy Savage, the morning host running the contest on the station in question (Seattle's KRQI-FM, 96.5 K-Rock) had Seinfeld on the air talking about the contest, which indicates, as stated above, that Seinfeld is in on the hoax.

Back after a long absence

Lots to catch up on, but for now, I'll start with a fun item . . . .

Boxer: 60 Votes to Approve Federal Judges

Power Line and others have noted Senator Boxer's comments regarding her proposed standard for approving federal judges:

So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote.

Power Line, however, makes one error. It states Senator Boxer "is widely regarded as the least intellectually gifted member of the Senate." With all due respect to Power Line, that title has been held by the pride and joy of Washington state, Sen. Patty Murray, since 1993 (see here, here and here). According to The New Republic, Senator Murray "made Washingtonian's 2000 'Best and Worst' list, as both the Senate's number-one dimmest bulb and its number-three 'weakest spine.'" Senator Boxer will have to work a little harder to earn that title.

At least One Cuban Is Benefiting From Castro's Reign: Castro

According to Forbes, Fidel Castro ranks among the richest people in the world. The Forbes list has been greeted with outrage by Castro:

"Once again, they have committed the infamy of speaking about Castro's fortune, placing me almost above the queen of England," Castro said in a speech on Thursday to top officials of Cuba's ruling Communist Party, military and police.

Note that the infamy, according to Castro, is "speaking about Castro's fortune." For many in and out of Cuba, the infamy is that Castro has a fortune to be spoken about. Castro is apparently considering suing Forbes. I wonder where he will get the money for the legal fees.

Seeing Red

I suspect that many people in Seattle could identify with this story ("Bush-Cheney sticker touches off Fla. road rage"). Unfortunately, most of them would identify with the road-raged, moonbat driver. Here is the best part of the story:

Fernandez [the driver who was chased and harassed because of her Bush-Cheney bumper sticker] also said that she is a registered Democrat who voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.

We must learn to tolerate our diverse views . . . .

Discussion Thread on Affirmative Action

Interesting thread on affirmative action at Discriminations, instigated by a report on another affirmative action bake sale, this time countered by an unwittingly self-revealing counter-sale by campus Democrats.

My take on it is that there may be entirely good reasons for AA today, such as to repair actual, identified harms to individuals (as opposed to entire groups). King's statement seems to be a recognition that blacks as a group at that time were substantially disadvantaged and unable to compete with whites (at the very least, this was almost universally true in the South).

Nonetheless, supporters of group AA, however well-intentioned they may be, have to acknowledge that the underpinning of their position is that blacks and latinos are unable to compete academically with whites and Asians today. Set aside for now the debate on why; this is the essential underpinning (it is in fact the premise of Dr. King's statement quoted above). It is not a remedy to address slavery because if it is, the inclusion of latinos is inexplicable. If it is a remedy to address past discrimination, then the exclusion of other minority groups that suffered past discrimination in the U.S., including Asians and Jews, is equally inexplicable. Once this is acknowledged, the debate on why begins, but it still starts off with a rather odious premise.

Those who disagree with the concept of group AA, including this commenter, reject this premise today and instead believe that to the extent the "why" debate points to factors such as poverty or lack of access, etc., then AA programs could be targeted to individuals for whom these factors apply without the reference to race. This would likely be acceptable to many persons opposed to AA, but likely not to those invested in the notion of AA as a group right.

Diversity, As Redefined by the Left

Opinion Journal points us to another definition of diversity, right here in the Pacific NW. From the home page of Ocean Haven lodge: "WE WELCOME DIVERSITY. Respecting the interdependence & diversity of all life." This welcome is accompanied by a un-welcome mat for some diverse people:

FOR REASONS OF HEALTH & SAFETY
OCEAN HAVEN CANNOT ACCOMMODATE SMOKERS,
PETS, FOLKS TRAVELING IN A HUMMER, OR
FOLKS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH & HIS NATURE DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES

Take that Bush voters! You cannot stay at out lame lodge, eat our Instant Organic Oatmeal for breakfast or buy our Maggie's Organic Tie Dyed Socks to warm your cold feet. You will just have to give your money to someone else.

Is this really a "scoop"?

Chris Matthews reports that Al Gore will NOT be running for president in 2008, just as he did NOT run in 2004. Tomorrow's big scoop from Matthews will likely be an update on Francisco Franco's continuing death.

Here is the reason for the scoop:

I've been given this scoop from a perfect source who informed me that the purpose of this disclosure at this time is to end speculation about a campaign that will never occur.

Where has this speculation been so heated that it required this leak by the Gore team? My guess is within the elite media cocoon and nowhere else.

GOP Jewish Group?

From an AP story:

A pair of Jewish groups accused Sen. Robert Byrd on Wednesday of making an outrageous and reprehensible comparison between Adolf Hitler's Nazis and a Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering. A GOP senator called for Byrd to retract his remarks.

Among the pair of Jewish groups is the Anti-Defamation League, which is, as far as I know, an independent, nonpartisan group. The headline over this story?: GOP Jewish Group criticizes Byrd's Remarks. That's right: the ADL and a Republican Jewish group criticize Sen. Byrd (D-WV/KKK), and the headline chosen by the AP is one meant to imply only partisan criticism of Byrd.

Weisbergasm?

The Volokh Conspiracy is once again showing how useless Slate's Bushisms column is by pointing out "Slatisms." Instapundit also weighs in.

Personally, I prefer "Weisbergasm" (which is the premature jubilation the columnist feels when he believes he has discovered a Bush gaffe). This feeling seems to affect the writer's ability to fact-check or to judge statements based on context, such as the recent misattribution of EC President Juncker's quote to Bush (now corrected on Slate).

Chairman Dean Finally Recognizes Evil

As reported by the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World:

And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, [DNC Chairman Howard Dean] added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Thankfully, Chairman Yeeaaarrghhhh clarified who is good and who is evil. Let us not forget that Dean famously counseled other Democrats during the presidential primary season to keep their focus on "the real enemy," George Bush.

As far as I can gather, Chairman Yeeaarrghhhh has no trouble using words such as "enemy," "hate" and "evil" when discussing Republicans, but cannot bring himself to use the same words when discussing terrorists or Usama bin Ladin. For that matter, it would be refreshing if Dean used the phrase "we're the good" when describing the U.S., but that seems unlikely as well.

Presidential Eligibility Amendments

The San Jose Mercury News Service reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will back an amendment allowing naturalized citizens to serve as president:

The new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday that he supports a constitutional amendment allowing U.S. citizens born overseas to run for president, a boost for those hoping to open the White House door to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Despite the language in this paragraph, I presume that (1) all foreign-born U.S. citizens, not just those born overseas, would be eligible under the proposed amendment (I doubt that Sen. Specter is trying to continue to bar from eligibility those born in Mexico, Canada and the rest of the Americas); and (2) the amendment actually allows such persons to serve, not just run, for president (the constitutional provision in question makes foreign born persons ineligible to serve as president, but it says nothing about running for president).

Separately, but related, could a grand comprise leading to a Bush 43 v. Clinton race be in the works?

UPDATE: Yes, the Clinton in the potential race referred to above could be either Bill or Hillary.

L.A. May be About to Elect a Hispanic Mayor

Political Wire reports on a SurveyUSA poll that gives Antonio Villaraigosa a 17 point lead over the incumbent mayor James K. Hahn in the upcoming mayoral primary in L.A. This is a rematch of the 2001 L.A. mayoral race. Villaraigosa's strength is among Hispanics, young voters and liberals. Former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg is the choice of Republicans and Conservatives, but in L.A., that does not provide much in terms of ballot box strength.

Aside from the historic significance of Villaraigosa's election, should it occur, there are two things to watch in this race. First, Hahn won in 2001 largely on the strength of the black vote. The black vote is no longer in Hahn's camp due to a combination of police corruption cases, allegations of police brutality and Hahn's support of the ouster of police chief Bernard Parks, who is black (ironically, Parks is now a candidate for mayor and is picking up about 57% of the black vote that is so crucial to Hahn). Demographic changes have also diminished the impact of the black vote and increased that of the Hispanic vote overall in L.A. This means that this will be the first opportunity for Hispanic voters in L.A. to show their political ascendancy.

Second, if Villaraigosa wins, he will quickly be crowned as a leading Democrat to run against Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006. This will then test Hispanic political ascendancy statewide (Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamente's silly and somnambulic "vote no on recall, but yes for me" campaign does not count).

Now all that is needed is a Hispanic conservative to add to the mix. Election Day is March 8th.

Puerto Rico as the 51st State?

In his end-of-show commentary on Monday, Neil Cavuto opined on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood. His commentary is mostly tongue-in-cheek (example: "Let's say Puerto Rico becomes our 51st state. Where do we put that 51st star on our flag? Go ahead, figure that out."), but it does hit the big issue: "It's got to decide: Either become a state of this country, or a self-sustaining republic. Nothing in-between, which is kind of what this commonwealth enjoys now."

As the husband of Puerto Rican, I have had many discussions with members of my wife's family about Puerto Rican statehood. My conclusion is that commonwealth is akin to limbo. I would prefer to see the island choose. It should choose to be either a state (and follow either the resource-rich model of Alaska or the tourist-driven model of Hawaii) or an independent country (and follow the example of many Latin American democracies, with all of the growing pain that comes with this step).

Either road entails great risks, but the current condition of limbo is hindering the full economic and political development of the island. I believe that in fifty years, Puerto Rico will be one or the other, but certainly not a commonwealth. Until the decision is made as to which one, the island will be half one and half the other, thereby delaying its inevitable development as a state or a country.

New Look, New Features

There is a new look for El Blogero. I have also (finally) added links to some of the blogs that I check regularly. This link list will certainly grow, so suggestions are welcomed. The ads are also a new and hopefully unobtrusive feature.

It's a c-o-n. . .spiracy

At least one Democrat apparently believes that Dan Rather was set up by the Republicans and Powerline and TKS make a good point about Democratic tolerance for even the fringe elements of the party. From Powerline:

It's easy to write off this kind of thing as limited to the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party, but here's the thing: when is the last time you heard any Democrat criticize this kind of nonsense, or try to distance himself from it?

And from TKS:

Perhaps the most extraordinary change in American politics over the last few years is how comments that once would have seemed ridiculous, or silly, or way out there have now become fairly common sentiments in what was once mainstream circles.

It is a point that I have used, particularly during last year's election season, as one of those rhetorical questions I like to pose to Democrats to illustrate how much anger drives that party today, namely: Can you think of one anti-Bush or anti-American statement that someone on the left could make that would make the majority of lefties say, "Now you have gone too far"?

To their credit, Barney Frank (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) both challenged Eason Jordan (in Barney's case on the spot) when Jordan made the outrageous charge that American soldiers were targeting journalists in Iraq, but the majority of the left was predictably silent.

Along the same lines, soon after the election, I asked a Democrat friend of mine in New York the following, "Do you personally know anyone of the left who hates President Bush?" Of course, he did, and he did not need long to think to answer this question. I then said, "Good. Now do you know anyone on the left who hates Usama bin Laden?" This was greeted with silence. I said, "Well, for a majority of the country, that equation is flipped."

Chairman Yeeeaaarghhhhh: The Republican's Newest Best Friend

Republicans are understandably giddy over the selection of Howard Dean as Democratic Party Chairman, and comments like these may be why (as reported in the New York Newsday and picked-up by James Tarranto at Best of the Web Today:

No one expects Dean, famously outspoken, to completely muzzle himself. Dean jokes that the Washington insider's definition of a gaffe is "when you tell the truth and they think you shouldn't have."

During a meeting Friday with the Democratic black caucus, Dean praised black Democrats for their work for the party, then questioned Republicans' ability to rally support from minorities.

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

Do you think Chairman Yeeeaaarghhhhh was referring to the executive staff and management of the hotel? This comment has the charm of being condescending, stereotypical and insulting, all at the same time. I wonder what the crowd reaction was when he said this. Sadly, it is probably all too predictable.

UPDATE: Here is a report on the crowd reaction, from a Washington Times editorial:

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who was in attendance and didn't find Mr.Dean's comments offensive at all, told us the audience greeted Mr. Dean's punchline with a standing ovation.

Lt. Governor Michael Steele and former Rep. J.C. Watts have demanded and apology, but it is not likely given the reported reaction. Maybe it is a sign of progress that remarks such as these, which are usually denounced as racist or at least racially insensitive by Democrats, are now considered acceptable by the Democrats, but I doubt that this will be a universally applied standard.

Also, there is proof that the special Dean touch is already at work for the Democrats. At a debate in Portland, OR, a protester decided to make his or her views known in "Angry Dean Democrat" style:

Perle had just started his comments Thursday when a protester threw a shoe at him before being dragged away, screaming, "Liar! Liar!"

I get the feeling that if you do a Google search for "scream" and "Democrat" in the next four years, you will get an overwhelming number of hits. There is no mention in the article to the crowd reaction to this assault.

Lastly, for those who believe the media slants the news leftward, here is some evidence from the same AP article:

In his new role as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean has stressed that Democrats are stronger than Republicans on defense.

This could have been written factually as, "Dean has stressed his belief that Democrats are stronger than Republicans on defense," or "Dean has asserted that Democrats are stronger than Republicans on defense," but instead, the Chairman's view is presented in this article as a fact, not an opinion. Neat trick.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Powerline reports a more colorful scream by the shoe-thrower.

Is this the Modern Democrat Party?

This exchange is from a transcript of Sunday's Meet the Press:

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20th in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.
REP. RANGEL: By American troops?
SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.
REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

Put aside the 20th century wars in which the U.S. indeed did fight for other people's freedoms. Could Rep. Rangel be so myopic as to forget the Civil War and the Union soldiers who died in the struggle for "other people's freedom"? Certainly the Democrat party of the Civil War era would have agreed, to paraphrase Rep. Rangel, that no Union soldiers should die for the freedom of America's slaves, but is today's Democrat party prepared to take that position today?

Perhaps this is the persuasive case that the Democrats insist that Sen. Kerry would have made to convince the rest of the world to share the burden in Iraq: We are tired of having our children die for your freedom, so its your turn to die. If Rep. Rangel's view is the predominant foreign policy position of the modern Democrat party, not only does it represent a retro position, but it may once again put the Republicans in power for a long time.

Chairman Dean? Don't You Know it's Gonna Be . . . Alright

It is not official yet, but I for one look forward to referring to the leader of the Democratic Party as Chairman Dean (it has such an old-Democrat sound). I will enjoy reminding people that he may be popular with the activist left, but with respect to everyone else: ". . . if you go carrying pictures of Chairman [Dean]/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow" (perhaps it should be Chairman "How" to make it rhyme).

UPDATE: Okay, how about Chairman YEEAAARGHHHHH?

UPDATE: The reign of Chairman YEEAAARGHHHHH has begun.

A Different Take on the Gonzales Nomination from Hispanic Pundit

I hope that what Hispanic Pundit has posited, namely that perhaps this shows that support for minorities is trumped by core values, is correct. I, however, have my doubts. Read the first paragraph of Hispanic Pundit's post ("both of these people were confirmed with by far the most ‘nay’ votes against their respective position in United States history"). Was this because Senate Democrats were so staunchly opposed to the Bush Administration policies represented by these two individuals? The level of vitriol and opposition to these two nominees was several levels above normal for nominees to these positions (with the possible exception of John Ashcroft, who was opposed mainly because of his opposition to a black judicial nominee).

If Senate Democrats are opposed to the Bush Administrations policies as a whole, or specifically those related to war and peace, you have to wonder why every Bush nominee does not also merit the same level of opposition (see for example, Michael Chartoff, the nominee for Homeland Security). I sense there is a difference. Minorities are supposed to not only be Democrats, but also grateful and beholden to the Democrats. If a minority nominee breaks from that mold, then Democrats tend to oppose them more vehemently than white nominees with the same position because they have in essence "turned their backs" on the Democrats (remember that Democrats tend to view minority conservatives as misguided Democrats).

Rather than proving that core values are what matter for Democrats, the Gonzales and Rice cases seem to prove that Democrats still view minorities first through the prism of race and ethnicity and if the values expressed by such persons is not within orthodoxy, then all bets are off. For evidence of this, recall the mostly silent Democrat (including black Democrat) reaction to the many racist cartoons and comments by liberal whites regarding Rice and consider how that might have differed if the person being attacked was not a Republican.

UPDATE: Welcome Hispanic Pundit readers. Please see similar arguments made by Hispanic Pundit here, here, here and here.

It's Official: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Alberto Gonzales has been confirmed and sworn in as the nation's first Hispanic Attorney General. He achieved this with the support of 60 Senators, only six of which Democrats. To the delight of many Republicans, the Democrats stuck to their "be kind to terrorists" strategy.

Of the five red-state Democrats running for re-election in 2006, two voted "yes" (Ben Nelson (NE) and Bill Nelson (FL)); two voted "no" (Bingaman (NM) and Byrd (WV/KKK)); and one did not vote (Conrad (NV)). The remaining thirteen Democrat Senators who are up for re-election in blue states all voted "no." Notably, Joseph Lieberman (CT) voted "yes," thereby inching closer to exile in the Zell Miller annex of the Democrat caucus.

Social Security Puts Democrats in Different Role

The current debate on Social Security reform and race (see here, here and here), has put Democrats in an unusual position.

The Bush administration and supporters of private accounts have argued, among other things, that blacks are cheated generally by the current social security system because they have a lower life expectancy than whites, therefore providing less post-retirement years to receive the benefits they have paid into the system. Democrats and hysterical, Bush-hater Paul Krugman disagree, and have claimed that blacks and Hispanics are not victimized, but may in fact benefit disproportionately from the current system.

Whatever the facts may be (and they appear to be solidly on the side of the supporters of private accounts), this may mark one of the few times that Democrats and Paul Krugman have argued that blacks and Hispanics should NOT be viewed as victims. Maybe this is progress.

No Delay on Gonzales, But the Dem Strategy Continues

There was talk during the day that Democrats might launch a filibuster against the Gonzales nomination, but that seems to be dead. The Democrats apparently counted "no" votes and came up short of the 41 they needed for a filibuster:

The minority Democrats briefly considered but quickly abandoned procedural delays to prevent a vote on Gonzales. Instead, they railed against President Bush's top lawyer for his role in administration legal policies that they said allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq.

. . . .

Ultimately, Democrats concluded they had neither the votes nor the political stomach to block confirmation of Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic to hold the nation's highest law enforcement office.

The distribution of the votes against Gonzales may be more interesting than the number of votes against. It will be interesting to see how many Democrats who are up for re-election in 2006, especially in "red" states, vote against Gonzales. These "no" votes may prove to be a double-albatross for the "no" voters in their general elections: (1) in favor of the "be kind to terrorists" policy; and (2) against the nomination of the first Hispanic Attorney General.

It will also be noteworthy to see if the potential 2008 Democrat Presidential candidates all vote "no" on Gonzales as they did on Rice.

. . . but that was the easy part

I look forward to multiple utterances and writings claiming that with respect to the elections in Iraq, "that was the easy part." I have grown used to hearing and seeing the "easy part" analysis after each milestone (the invasion, the march to Baghdad, the toppling of the Saddam regime, the capture of Saddam, the hand-over to the Iraqi government). I do not expect this milestone to be any different. Before these milestones, however, no one ever claims that it will be easy.

UPDATE: Look also for the corollary, "but now comes the hard part."

UPDATE: True to form, MSNBC/AP: With elections over, the hard part remains ("Now comes the hard part").

UPDATE: More Bangor Daily News: Now Comes the Hard Part
Venture County Star: Who Won, Who Lost in Iraqi Elections

GOP Retreat Features Talk on Blogs, Hispanic Outreach

According to an NYT article, the GOP is starting to take blogging seriously:

Senator John Thune of South Dakota introduced senators to the meaning of "blogging," explaining the basics of self-published online political commentary and arguing that it can affect public opinion.

My advice to the Republican National Committee and the 2008 Presidential campaigns: resist the temptation to make their blogs more interactive by allowing readers to post comments.

The 2004 Bush-Cheney blog was criticized for being little more than a list of events and press releases. Such criticism is fair and constructive. The complaint that the blog should have allowed readers to post comments, however, was neither.

The DNC site serves as a warning for what can happen when others are allowed to post comments to your blog. Through much of the 2004 campaign, the official DNC site and other DNC-sympathetic sites contained some of the most vitriolic, bilious and inane rantings of the year. This is precisely what would happen to the GOP blog if it were opened for posted comments. Readers who wish to share their opinions can be given the opportunity to e-mail comments to the blog rather than posting.

The GOP also discussed the 2004 campaign and how to reach various groups, including Hispanics:

In a possible sign of what to expect in 2006, Republican senators heard presentations about the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Bush's presidential campaign and about how to reach blacks, Hispanics, Jews and blue-collar workers, groups not traditionally drawn to the Republican Party, people present said. The sessions were closed to journalists.

The presentations underscored the effectiveness of Mr. Bush's appeals to those groups on public expressions of faith, traditional values and especially the issue of marriage, including opposition to same-sex marriage, aides said.

The GOP should expect to have some success reaching Hispanics with those issues because it is becoming increasingly difficult for Hispanics to vote for candidates who do not support, and in some cases mock, their values. How long will Hispanic voters continue to vote for Democrats when Democrats tell them that observant Christians are ignorant zealots; that those who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots; and that poor children should stay in failing public schools rather than be given school choice through vouchers? Can Democrats continue to count on the Hispanic vote with those positions and with obstructionist tactics on Hispanic nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales? The 2006 mid-term elections present an excellent opportunity for the GOP to try to get the answers to these questions.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Hews Party Line

Drudge and Roll Call are reporting that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which, despite its name, is composed entirely of Democrats in the House, has declined to endorse Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. This has also been picked up by Knight Ridder.

Coupled with the unanimous opposition to Gonzales by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, this indicates that Democrats are willing to pursue the "Be kind to terrorists" strategy after all and take their chances in opposing the first Hispanic Attorney General. Will this stop Gonzales? No. Will it hurt Democrats in the Hispanic community? Only future elections will tell.

Republicans have already made in-roads into the Democrat's advantage in the Hispanic vote at least in part because it has become increasing unpalatable for Hispanics to vote for a party that advocates positions that run counter to their values. This may just be more evidence of the Democrats missing a pulse.

UPDATE: Other Hispanic groups are supporting Gonzalez, so there is a clear split in the Hispanic community on this nomination. This is a good sign, namely it shows that unlike other reliable Democrat-voting groups, Hispanics are showing a fair amount of independence.

Potential Starting Point for the Marginalization of the Democrat Party

From the AP:

The American military's continued presence in Iraq is fanning the flames of conflict, and signals the need for a new detailed timeline to bring the troops home, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday.

Just three days before the Iraqi people go to the polls to elect a new government, the Massachusetts Democrat said America must give Iraq back to its people rather than continue an occupation that parallels the failed politics of the Vietnam war.

. . . .

"There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us, but there will be much more violence if we continue our present dangerous and destabilizing course," said Kennedy. "It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin."

. . . .

Now, Kennedy said, the United States and the insurgents are both battling for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and the U.S. is losing.

It may be unremarkable that Senator Kennedy is advocating a leave-and-let-them-drown strategy, but if other Democrats get into the car with Senator Kennedy (note: yes, I know these are cheap metaphors at the expense of Senator Kennedy), then this will be a significant moment for the Democrats. It may mark the beginning of a Democrat party that takes an until-now unimaginable position: Let's go home and let the terrorists win this one. If this becomes a widespread Democrat position, this may mark the start of the long-term marginalization of the Democrat party.

To be fair to Senator Kennedy, his solution involves having the U.S. withdraw and then having the United Nations come in to help the Iraqi government "take shape and draft a constitution." This seems well reasoned, except that a U.S. withdrawal would likely be followed not by a constitutional democracy, but by a tyrannical regime run by Saddam loyalist and terrorists. Would the U.N. help that government "take shape and draft a constitution"? Would it be a proud moment for Senator Kennedy and the Democrat party when the current Iraqi government is executed (constitutionally, of course) by the new, U.N.-supported Iraqi government?

There may be a more cynical reason for supporting the Kennedy Solution: the 2006 mid-term elections. Perhaps having the U.S. leave Iraq in defeat, as Senator Kennedy suggests, would hurt Republican candidates and help Democrats in the mid-term elections. The converse, however, may also apply. If the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq on Election Day 2006, advocates of the Kennedy Solution will have a difficult time explaining their support for a U.S. surrender.

Bad Math or Bad Use of Math?

Is the AP just bad at math? Here is a curious statement from the AP's article on Dr. Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State (second paragraph):

The tally, though one-sided at 85-13, was still the largest "no" vote against any secretary of state nominee since 1825.

This leaves a clear impression: this is the most opposition received by a nominee for Secretary of State in 180 years. That is, of course, if all things were equal. Paragraph 13 of the article, without much fanfare, provides the context:

Through history, no nominee for secretary of state has been defeated in the Senate. Many have had little or no opposition and were confirmed without recorded votes. Only one, Henry Clay in 1825, received more recorded no votes than Rice, according to the Senate Historian's office. Clay was confirmed by a vote of 27-14 (emphasis added).

Dr. Rice received 13 "no" votes (13% of the voting Senators) and Clay received 14 "no" votes (34% of the voting Senators), but the AP saw these two numbers as comparable without any regard to the total number of senators at the time of these votes. To match Clay's percentage of "no" votes, Dr. Rice would need 34 "no" votes in today's Senate. The AP's second-paragraph assertion is equivalent to asserting that John Kerry received more electoral college votes than George Washington (thereby making Kerry more popular than Washington). Presumably, the AP would realize that there were less people and electoral college votes in the country during Washington's time than now.

This means the AP either (a) purposely compared two not-so-comparable "no" votes or (b) purposely sought to make a point and ignored a fairly obvious mathematical distinction between the numbers. Let the readers decide.

Michael Moore Apparently Has Nuanced Position on Guns

Portly, leftist propagandist Michael Moore has argued in public and in his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary that guns are too easily obtained in America and that we need stricter gun control legislation.

Well, it appears that this position does not apply with regards to his armed bodyguard. Fox News is reporting that "Filmmaker [sic] Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."

Despite Moore's position on gun control, he apparently has no problem with having his bodyguard possess and carry a gun. Of course, most Americans cannot afford armed bodyguards, so they have to continue to carry their own guns.

Gonzales Vote Delayed

Democrats have decided to delay a vote on Alberto Gonzales's nomination. They are also holding up Rice's nomination. Two other administration nominees, however, are expected to be voted on and confirmed tomorrow.

Obviously, Democrats believe they have enough political capital to play these types of political games with the what will be the first Hispanic Attorney General and the first female black Secretary of State. Note, by the way, that if Republicans tried this they would wake up to a heaping serving of editorials and network news stories implying racism or "insensitivity."

Sound Politics

There are excellent posts on Sound Politics today, including a link to Sharkanky's op-ed article in today's Seattle Times.

Ruben Navarrette on Gonzales Hearings

Columnist Ruben Navarrette has a good take on the Gonzales hearings and the left's so-far feeble and futile attempt to derail him.

On the other side, and on the same page, the Washington Post runs a column from Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton titled "Questions for Gonzales . . ." The column is an example of the nuanced "be kind to terrorists" tact that Democrats are attempting to use, although in this article there is no nuance. There are, however, two noteworthy features about the article.

First, the article is written not by a member of the Senate, which has to vote on confirming Mr. Gonzales, but by a delegate member of the House. Additionally, Delegate Holmes Norton, as the representative from the District of Columbia, is in the safest of all districts. This may indicate a recognition by Democrats that a strident anti-Gonzales approach comes with more political dangers than advantages.

Secondly, despite the article's title, there is not a single question posed to Mr. Gonzales -- not one (in fact, there is not even a single question mark in the entire article). In all fairness to Delegate Holmes Norton, article titles are not created by the authors, but rather by the publication's headline writers. Nonetheless, I wonder why the Washington Post chose to use a clearly inaccurate headline for this op-ed. Maybe a more accurate headline would have once again exposed the Democrats on this issue. Or maybe, as Mr. Navarrette opined, Democrats got the message "offered up on behalf of a large portion of the Latino community: 'Hurt him, and we'll hurt you.'"

Is WMD Still an Issue?

Instapundit has a good post on the shutdown of the Iraq survey group, and I would add one more point.

The persons who are jumping up and down in glee because no WMD were found in Iraq (thereby, in their opinions, vindicating their position) conveniently omit one inconvenient bit of information. Those same people argued that Iraq should not be invaded and Saddam should not be removed even if Iraq possessed WMD. Thus, the full argument is that the U.S should not have invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam regardless of whether it had WMD.

Want to test this? Ask any anti-warn type or Bush-hater whether he or she would support the war or Bush if WMD were found in Iraq tomorrow.

Once Again, America Distinguishes Itself

This Reuters dispatch, titled "Key Figure in Iraq Prisoner Abuse Found Guilty," once again shows what distinguishes America from most of the rest of the world. Can anyone imagine a headline reading "Key Figure in Videotaped Iraq Beheadings Found Guilty"? Can anyone imagine terrorists, Saddam loyalists or their respective sympathizers conducting trials of those responsible for the vicious beheadings of Westerners and Arabs working with the coalition? How many Viet Cong soldiers faced such trials for their actions at the infamous Hanoi Hilton and other POW camps?

Yet, America is vilified for the actions of a few, while the reaction by the U.S. military, namely an investigation, trial, conviction, and imminent punishment, are ignored. Very few countries or governments would undertake this process. The terrorists, Saddam loyalist and their respective sympathizers certainly would not.

AP: Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration

This type of story is my favorite, mainly because of its self-righteousness, but mostly because it descends into self-parody.

The AP has a story in which it reports on "questions" regarding the propriety of holding an expensive inauguration at this particular time. Among the points made by the AP are comparisons of the cost of items that could be purchased with the inauguration funds (presumably the $40 million in private donations), FDR's decision not to hold a lavish a inauguration in 1945 and the views of Mark Cuban, owner of the NAB Mavericks.

The article wonders what could "that kind of money" buy? It then lists:

- 200 armored humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
- Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children
in regions devastated by the tsunami.
- A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.
- Two years' salary for the Mets' new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson's contract extension with the New York Yankees.

Considering that $40 million of these funds are from private donations, perhaps the AP could tell us how these private donors would go about purchasing armored humvees for the armed forces or reduce the deficit. With regard to the vaccinations and the newest signing by the Yankees and Mets, is anyone at the AP willing to write an article arguing that perhaps the Yankees and Mets could have used the salaries to be paid to Beltran and Johnson to buy vaccines for tsunami victims instead? Probably not, because each team would point out its large contributions to tsunami relief funds and other charities.

The AP then moves to the FDR example:

New York Rep. Anthony wiener, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Wiener and Rep. Jim McDermott.

Missing from this "precedent" are the facts that (1) FDR was seriously ill by January 1945 and would certainly have had reason to want a more low-key inauguration, which was probably the reason for the "short speech"; (2) the 1945 inauguration was his FOURTH, which, after 112 years in office, certainly would have been a "been there, done that three times" event; and (3) despite a war in Europe and Japanese aggression in Asia at the time of the 1941 inauguration, FDR did not tone down the 1941 inauguration.

Completing its closing argument, the AP resorts to citing Mark Cuban:

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush — twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

Cuban questioned spending all that money on the inaugural.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the ... devastation of the tsunami's," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

This is where the argument collapses for good. Mark Cuban, the host of a reality show in which he gave away $1 million dollars to contestants based on their performance in various challenges, including a game of "H-O-R-S-E," lectures the president, without a trace of irony, on the serious issues facing the country. Here is how Mr. Cuban approached the serious issue of giving away $1 million dollars: "Why has he agreed to give away such a large sum of money? Because he can't wait to see how America's applicants will prove to him that they deserve it!"

Quite an example, indeed. With so many people always in need, could there have been a better use for "The Benefactor's" $1 million? Sure, but maybe the recipients would have to "prove to him that they deserve it!"

The bottom line is that every dollar spent could always be spent on something better or more worthwhile, depending on one's point of view. If the argument advanced in the AP article is to be accepted, then we should be prepared to cancel all inaugurals, all ceremonial events and, in fact, all non-important spending from now on because there will always be better ways of spending money in the view of many. Somehow, I do not expect this approach to take hold.

Recall Reed? Not so fast . . .

Lots of talk on Sound Politics and in the news about a petition to recall Sam Reed. Everyone considering this path should realize this is not an easy task in Washington. Contrary to a comment on the Sound Politics blog ("Officials can only be recalled after they've been found guilty in court of 'malfeasance or misfeasance'"), recalls are not restricted to post-conviction malfeasance or misfeasance, but they still require court review and approval of the recall petition.

Working on some technical issues . . . and other items

The blog has been dormant while I have been working on some technical issues. El Blogero should be back up and posting by Wednesday of this week. In the meantime, kudos to El Blogerito for his correct prediction regarding the Seahawks.

In celebration of the gubernatorial inauguration on Wednesday, please pay a visit to RevoteWA. Thanks to the great work of some devoted bloggers (most notably SoundPolitics and Shark Blog) and talk-radio (the always-reliable duo of Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson), the fun is just beginning in this state. For those looking for a California-style recall, however, do not count on it (this op-ed article explains why). The article concludes, with some foresight:

Although the Legislature and the courts in Washington have erected safeguards to protect against abuses of the recall process, it is not inconceivable that one day policy disagreements will develop into the recall of a governor in this state. All that would be needed is the combustible combination of an unpopular governor, controversial policy decisions, tough economic times and an opening such as an error in judgment on a nondiscretionary matter.

Washington may not have to worry about a California-style recall drive today, but the very same empowerment that fuels the initiative and referendum process may one day fuel a recall drive or, more ironically, an initiative easing the legislative limitations and safeguards on recall in Washington. That day may be closer than we think.

Although that "combustible combination" may indeed be imminent, a recall under current law would make Lt. Governor Brad Owen the new governor. For now, a revote appears to be a sound strategy and sound politics.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry's Newest "Comic Book"

I am hoping this story turns out to be a hoax, but The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Mexican Foreign Ministry has published and is distributing a "colorful new comic book" providing advice to migrants on how to enter the U.S.

Dramatic drawings show undocumented immigrants wading into a river, running from the U.S. Border Patrol and crouching near a hole in a border fence. On other pages, they hike through a desert with rock formations reminiscent of Arizona and are caught by a stern-faced Border Patrol agent.

. . . .

The book is being distributed as a free supplement to El Libro Vaquero, a popular cowboy comic book, in five Mexican states that send many migrants to the United States: Zacatecas, Michoacán, Puebla, Oaxaca and Jalisco. The government plans to print 1.5 million copies.

The book comes with a yellow disclaimer saying it does not promote undocumented immigration, and it repeatedly warns against crossing illegally. But it gives no information about the steps for seeking a U.S. visa [emphasis added].

Despite the disclaimer, this book, which carries the innocuous title, "The Guide for the Mexican Migrant," appears to be a guide to illegal border crossings. Undoubtedly, it would be laudable if the Mexican government provided assistance to migrants on the visa application process and advice on adjusting to the U.S. once here. A comic book that provides advice such as, "Thick clothing increases your weight when wet, and this makes it difficult to swim or float," however, is not worthy of a government that is serious about reforming its political and economic system and eliminating incentives for its citizens to enter a neighboring country illegally.

As far as I know, the U.S. government has no plans to publish a French and English language comic book advising distraught Kerry voters on how to migrate to Canada illegally.

Democrats Plan to Rough-up, but not Stop Gonzales?

An article in Monday's NYT appears to lay out the left's plan for the Gonzales nomination. According to the author:

Even some of Mr. Gonzales's detractors say they do not expect to prevent him from becoming the nation's 80th attorney general, as well as the first Hispanic holder of the office. Instead, they say, they hope to lay down a record that will make it difficult for him to be confirmed to the Supreme
Court.

The article also has this nugget:

His critics, both on the committee and among witnesses testifying after Mr. Gonzales's own appearance on Thursday, will portray him as a lawyer who made colossal misjudgments in supervising the administration's legal strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats.

Are Democrats really willing to bash the first Hispanic nominee for Attorney General on behalf of mistreated Al Qaeda and other terrorists? Well, maybe. Note that there are few Democrat officeholders or policymakers quoted in this article as proponents of this strategy. The only such Democrats mentioned in the article are Senator Schumer, who predicts that Gonzalez will be confirmed with "broad Democratic support," and Senator Leahy, who has reportedly complained about the administration's unwillingness to disclose the extent of Gonzales's participation in the White House's terror memoranda. The rest of the article is based, apparently, on a letter to be released on Monday by Adm. John D. Hutson and "several military legal experts."

We will have to see if Democrats are willing to sign on to a "Be kind to terrorists" tact in an admittedly futile attempt to derail the first Hispanic Attorney General. My guess is that this strategy will have its most fervent support on the editorial pages of the NYT and the fax machines of some left-wing groups. Democrats, I assume, still have enough political judgment to know that this strategy will appeal to their base on the left and the press, but not to majority of Americans.

Drudge is also reporting that Democrats are considering using Abu Ghraib abuse footage at the Gonzales nomination hearings. This will require a lot of nuance, even for Democrats. It will be difficult to avoid the image of a party that is willing to score political points by taking the side of terrorists (even abused terrorist).

Whitman is the New Paul O'Neill

Drudge is reporting on Christine Todd Whitman's new Bush-bashing book. The book is set for release on January 27th, so this ought to provide at least two weeks of morning talk show and evening news coverage for the networks. Look for a 60 Minutes profile just before the inauguration.

The basic premise of the book seems to be that the GOP has moved too far to the right and has ignored moderates in the party. This seems like a tough argument to sustain when the party's stars include Rudy Giuliani and Governor Schwarzenegger, but I expect the mainstream media to provide her with plenty of cover while making this argument. The editorials will read, in essence, "Even Whitman, who is a loyal Republican, recognizes the extreme positions of the GOP." The GOP will hopefully ignore this and concentrate on the Inauguration and the second term agenda.

Good blogs that should be checked regularly

I am new to this whole blogging arena, but I have been reading many other blogs for some time. In the future, I will add a Blog Roll to this site, but for now, I have listed few that I check regularly:

Hispanic Pundit
Powerline
Instapundit
HughHewitt
RealClearPolitics

Other sites that I check regularly:

Drudge Report (the one that started a revolution in journalism and the Internet)
OpinionJournal (particularly the daily "Best of the Web" blog)
National Review Online (particularly the "Kerry Spot" blog, which should soon be renamed)
Weekly Standard

2005 Predictions, Part III

Here are Mrs. Blogero's predictions:

Politics: Fidel Castro dies and Cuba begins its return to capitalism and its introduction to democracy. John Kerry resigns his Senate seat.

Pop Culture: Martha Stewart comes back and is bigger and more successful than ever.

Wild Card: Unfortunately, another terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil (Mrs. Blogero is hoping to be wrong on this one).

2005 Predictions, Part II

Here are El Blogerito's (my almost-thirteen-year-old son's) predictions (all sports related):

• Eagles win Super Bowl, with Donovan McNabb as Super Bowl MVP (unless T.O. comes back and "gives 110%"). Seahawks lose in the first round of playoffs.
• Phoenix Suns vs. Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, with the Heat as champions and Shaq as Finals MVP. Sonics get to semifinals but lose.
• Matt Morris is replaced as the ace of the Cardinals pitching staff by Mark Mulder. Barry Bonds wins National League MVP award (no chance for anyone else). Jason Giambi has a difficult time earning the respect of New York fans, but has a good season nonetheless.

2005 Predictions, Part I

Everyone else begins the year with predictions, so why not El Blogero? I also solicited predictions from Mrs. Blogero and El Blogerito, my almost-thirteen-year-old son, and those predictions will follow in later posts. The predictions are limited to politics, sports, pop culture and a wild card.

Here are mine:

Politics: Christine Gregoire sets news records for lowest job approval and popularity for any governor in Washington State history. Tax reform and Social Security reform become the big, contentious political issues of the year, each of which brings good news to the stock market. At least two Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist and O'Connor) retire at the end of the session, and Scalia is elevated to Chief Justice. The nomination fight for O'Connor's replacement is as ugly and divisive as the Bork nomination, but the President's nominee gets confirmed. New York gets a Democrat mayor and New Jersey and Virginia get Republican governors. The left blames global warming, the U.S. and/or President Bush for every bad event in the world (okay, that one was easy). The stock market goes up on talk of tax reform and Social Security reform; Democrats become depressed.

Sports: Same prediction as always--Yankees win the World Series. Randy Johnson wins the American League Cy Young award and is a contender for MVP. Nothing else matters.

Pop Culture: The Passion of the Christ does not receive any major Oscar nominations and the winner for Best Picture at the Oscar is . . . who cares? (quick: what was the Best Picture winner in 2004?) Michael Jackson is acquitted, but pays millions to several accusers nonetheless. It will be a good year at the movies with Star Wars Episode III (big hit), War of the Worlds (big disappointment) and The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl (sleeper hit). The U2 tour becomes the hot ticket for the year. CBS finally releases its report on Memogate and Dan Rather is replaced by two co-anchors; no one notices either of these events. Reality TV's rise will be slowed by a scandal or a show-related fatality.

Wild Card: Usama bin Laden is apprehended; Democrats become even more depressed.