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.