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.