One more "what does this mean" thing

The Schwarzenegger re-election victory in California may be signal to Republicans that California could be in play for the 2008 presidential election. I am not entirely convinced of that (after all, McClintock, the conservative candidate for lt. governor, had a good showing but still lost and Feinstein won another landslide), but if California could be added to the potential column for Republicans, this would be a major shake-up in electoral college math. Republicans may need this shake-up in view of the likely uphill challenges in Missouri, Ohio and perhaps even Colorado.

Here's the problem for Republicans: the only candidates that could put California in play are the candidates that are likely to be the most unappealable to conservative primary voters, especially in the South. Those candidates are Giuliani and McCain.

Giuliani and McCain will undoubtedly seize on the California potential (and in the case of Giuliani in particular, the New York potential as well) as an additional rationale for their candidacies during the primaries. Each of them could stake out this ground now much the same way George Bush staked out the "Compassionate Conservative" ground soon after the 1998 elections. All other candidates would then have to deal with the "California question" or show how their candidacies will have the broad appeal necessary to win the now-difficult states of Missouri and Ohio and perhaps Colorado.

UPDATE: John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics sees a McCain/Pawlenty ticket, in part based on the 2006 midterm results and the location of the 2008 GOP convention (Minneapolis-St. Paul).

Ten things to note from yesterday’s elections (and to be weary of for 2008)

1. Hatred of Bush and Republicans is sufficient for a campaign platform.

2. Republicans who act and vote and like Democrats will eventually be replaced by actual Democrats (see Lincoln Chafee and the northeast Republicans voted out of the House).

3. Democrats will ignore a candidate’s actual positions and history as long as he or she is willing to run as a Democrat (see Webb, Casey and the Southern conservatives elected to the House).

4. For blacks, party identification has become an indelible trait stronger than race or ethnicity and Democrats no longer need to pander to get their votes (see Cardin vs. Steele, Strickland vs. Blackwell and Rendell vs. Swann).

5. With the help of Democrats and the MSM, Hispanic voters are getting close to ignoring the word “illegal” when they hear or read about policies to combat illegal immigration.

6. There is no ascertainable disqualifying level of corruption for a New Jersey Democrat politician (see Toricelli, McGreevey and Menendez).

7. Republicans need to reconsider their resignation reflex (see Delay and Foley vs. Jefferson, Studds and, of course, Clinton).

8. Scandal issues work best when the MSM lends a helping hand (see the coverage of Foley and Allen in contrast to Jefferson and Webb).

9. To Democrats and, at least for now, a majority of voters, ending a war is preferable to winning a war (see Vietnam, and now, perhaps, the GWOT).

10. Blogs can have an outsized role in pushing and funding candidates, but the blog’s most incendiary comments can still be dismissed as not representative of the candidate (see DailyKos, firedoglake, HuffingtonPost).

UPDATE: A new number 11, related to number 8:

11. Dirty tricks, last minute outings and disclosures and negative campaigning are effective, but rather than the MSM helping hand referred to in number 8, Republicans using these tactics have to be prepared to deal with MSM criticism.

The Feingold Paradox

From the Opinion Journal, Sen. Feingold introduces us to his latest argument for cutting and running:

Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American "occupiers." (emphasis added)

. . . .

A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability (emphasis added).

Opinion Journal points out the weakness of the Feingold doctrine, but there is a neat paradox in Sen. Feingold's argument: If the U.S. abandons Iraq to the terrorists and Saddam loyalists in accordance with the Feingold doctrine, is it more or less likely that Iraq would become a "failed state"? Or is Sen. Feingold arguing the inconceivable, namely that if the U.S. cuts and runs, Iraq would become a thriving democracy? So, according to the Feingold paradox, U.S. presence and cooperation are "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks" and "failed states" (which is what Iraq would be if the U.S. followed the Feingold's cut-and-run doctrine) "are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability." Got it: stay and cause terrorists recruitment and development or leave and cause terrorists breeding and instability. Only from the mind of a Democrat . . . .

RAGGED THOTS: Mighty White Of You, Pat

RAGGED THOTS nails Patrick Kennedy for his hypocrisy.

What I found most interesting was this: when Patrick Kennedy, Democrat, thought of and wanted to share an example of a common criminal, he thought and shared "African American in Anacostia." Is this ethnic stereotyping, racism or both? Could Tom Delay have used that example when he was booked, without getting lectured by the MSM and eventually explaining what he really meant?

Thank you Patrick K, for once again showing how liberal condescension breeds contempt.

UPDATE: I don't think I would categorize Kennedy's comments as racism, but I do think it highlights for the gazillionth time that (1) lefties are held to a different standard on comments such as these (e.g., if he were a righty, the MSM and other lefties would not hesitate to look into his heart and ascribe his comments to patent or latent racism); and (2) lefties do not feel the need to think about the underlying meaning of these sorts of stupid comments because they consider their ethnic/racial bona fides to be well established by their membership in the lefty class (e.g., Hollywood engages in more racial stereotyping in movies and television on a regular basis than practically any current institution on the planet, but Hollywood stills feels it can lecture the rest of America about how "progressive" and "enlightened" it is.)

Why ask "Y"?

Are first names starting with “Y” all the rage in Cuba? Maybe. Look below at the roster of Cuban players with names starting with “Y.”

Yosvani Fonseca, LHP, Matanzas
Yulieski Gonzalez, LHP, La Habana
Yadel Marti, RHP, Industriales
Yunieski Maya, RHP, Pinar del Rio
Yadier Pedroso, RHP, La Habana
Yosvany Perez, LHP, Cienfuegos
Yulexis La Rosa, Villa Clara
Yorbis Borroto, SS, Ciego de Avila
Yorelvis Charles, 2B, Ciego de Avila
Yulieski Gourriel, 3B, Sancti Spiritus
Yoennis Cedpedes, Granma
Yoandy Garlobo, Matanzas
Yoandry Urgelles, Industriales

For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 13 out of the 42 players listed on the preliminary roster--and that’s without Yudelvis Hernandez and Yudelvis Rodriguez! Here is what this looks like in a real box score:

I am guessing it was the Soviet Union’s sponsorship of and relationship with Cuba that is responsible for this glut of obviously-not-Spanish “Y” names.

Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed

At first blush, it is easy to be against this port deal, but I think there may be some underlying reasons involved that are not public. First, let's remember that port security remains with the DHS, not the UAE company, regardless of who takes over the port.

Secondly, what if this port deal provides U.S. intelligence with a new UAE asset to monitor cargo activities before the cargo reaches port? Wouldn't it be worth having the willing cooperation of an stable Arab country to monitor activities in what the terrorist probably view as a friendly country because of its stability? Would it be worth having an inside view in a country where Aljazeera is headquartered and regularly receives communications from al Qaeda? Maybe there are some "big picture" strategic considerations at work with this port deal, and perhaps that is the reason for the strong veto threat.

UPDATE 2/22/2006: From Drudge:

Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale required a Dubai company to cooperate with future U.S. investigations and disclose internal operations records on demand... Developing...

Correction: Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, not UAE

"My job is to tell the truth slowly"

As the MSM, and particularly the Washington press core, continues its over-the-top frenzy about the untimely disclosure of the Cheney shooting by the White House, it would do them good to research the quote above, which press secretary said it and whether there was press outrage about it.

First Bush Wins, Now This: More Reasons for Seattle to Whine

Seattle will no doubt spend a great deal of time wallowing in the self-pity and perceived superiority that only a moonbat-laden city could conjure, but I am glad that some people outside of Seattle can write about the Super Bowl officiating with some objectivity:

No one can deny there were questionable calls during the game. But before Holmgren and Latte Nation start whining about playing "the guys in the striped shirts as well,'' perhaps a history lesson is in order.

The striped shirts didn't cause tight end Jerramy Stevens to drop four passes. The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up a Steelers first down on a third-and-28 situation (which later led to the Roethlisberger disputed TD). The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up the longest touchdown run in Super Bowl history. They also didn't cause Etric Pruitt to sprint up from his safety position, only to be fooled by the trick play that resulted in Randle El's 43-yard TD pass to Ward (and by the way, if everyone knows the Steelers like to run gadget plays near midfield, don't you think the Seahawks knew it too?). Or cause Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to throw a killer interception with nearly 11 minutes left in the game and Seattle trailing by only four points.

Enough already with the whining. The Seahawks had their chances. Plenty of them to overcome the Steelers and, if they insist, the refs, too.

Thanks. Couldn't have said it better. Whenever I have to tolerate the whir of the whinners, I'll think back to this column by Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.

Is it just me, or is this another typically bad Seattle gesture?

I was at the Stevens School in Seattle today and saw on their large, outdoor announcement board the following:

February 8 - African American Parent Day

This seemed like an odd announcement to me, so I went to the Stevens School's website. There I found a more complete listing, which is reproduced below in its entirety:

Feb. 8: African American Parent Involvement Day (we celebrate on the 8th, not the 6th which is the official National A.A. Parent Involvement Day). Event includes a presentation from 9:30 – 10:30 (Topic: helping your child with math), classroom visitations and lunch.

The Seattle Schools website has a review of last year's "celebration":

National African-American Parent Involvement Day Celebration
. . . . This national day of recognition honors and celebrates the involvement of African-American parents in the education of their children. . . . School events included workshops for parents on how to support their children's learning, a day in which parents were invited to visit their children's classes and have lunch with the school principal, and a luncheon where parents received special recognition from their children for their support.

This strikes me as another example of liberal condescension toward minorities disguised as a goodwill gesture. After all, does the Seattle School district (or any other school district, for that matter) feel the need to have a day to "honor and celebrate the involvement of [white] parents in the education of their children"? It would be hard to argue about the value of having a parents day at school to honor and celebrate the involvement of ALL parents in the education of their children, but I remain puzzled as to why the Seattle Schools believe it is appropriate to single out one ethnic group in this fashion.

Further, the Stevens School states on its website that its student body is 53% minorities. There is no further breakdown of minorities, but based on the demographics of the neighborhood, it is unlikely that all 53% are black students. In any event, at least 47% of the students at Stevens will spend the day seeing the parents of black students, but not their own, "honored and celebrated" for their involvement in the education of their children. What should those children make of that situation? Will the teachers tell the non-black children that this day "is designed to address the serious achievement gap facing African American students, who continue to lag behind other ethnic and minority groups." If so, will these non-black children continue to see their black classmates as equals?

UPDATE I - 1/31/06: I contacted the principal at Stevens School by e-mail and he was kind enough to reply. I expected to get some answers to my questions about the program, but alas it was not to be. He merely stated that this day "is a National Event and the Seattle Public Schools has asked all schools to observe this" and he pointed me to the Director of Equity and Race Relations. I included my questions above and the following question:

Are there celebrations and special activities specifically for non-black parents and their children on another school day (for example, "Asian American Parent Involvement Day")? If so, what are the advantages of this segregated approach to celebrating parents and their children? If not, are these parents being told subtly that their efforts, while perhaps laudable, are expected and therefore not worthy of special recognition?

I guess I will have to continue to wonder.

UPDATE II - 1/31/06: I received a response from the Director of Equity and Race Relations. Although it is a very thoughtful and lengthy exposition on the need to celebrate our racial differences and reject the notion of assimilation and sameness, it does not answer any of the questions posed in my e-mail message. I wrote back to the Director thanking her for response, but insisting that, "I do not think that the absence of other ethnicity-specific days necessarily invalidates the purposes of African American Parent Involvement Day, but I do see some paradoxical tension in [singling] out one ethnic group for this public recognition and acknowledgement."

For example, the Director stated, "I think that we continue to perpetuate racism when we do not acknowledge that group identity has its own special uniqueness." My response:

If it is true that we perpetuate racism by failing to "acknowledge that group identity has is own special uniqueness," it is equally true that racism is based on a belief that group identity has its own special negative uniqueness. That is why I wonder what the other students are told and whether they are being asked to believe that black students need special help, but all are equal nonetheless. Those students may not grow up to be racists, but they could just as reasonably grow up to think that blacks have a special negative uniqueness that requires them to need special help to "address the serious achievement gap facing African American students, who continue to lag behind other ethnic and minority groups."

I appreciate the thoughtful and earnest response, but I wish it just answered my few specific questions.

Hillary Clinton's View of Life on a Plantation

Does anyone on the left (and blacks in particular) feel that the statement below seriously trivializes "run like a plantation"?

When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about . . . .

It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.

After all, does anyone remember this song being sung by slaves on the plantation?

Massa don't allow nobody with a contrary view
No, he don't give us a chance to present legislation
We can't make an argument and we can't be heard
Oh, no, Massa don't brook dissent

Me neither.

A New Attack on Alito?

Via Drudge:

Senate Democrats intend to zero in on Alito’s alleged enthusiastic
membership to an organization, they will charge, that was sexist and racist!
. . . .
Democrats hope to tie Alito to Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.
. . . .
THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAP’s PROSPECT magazine titled “Smearing The Class Of 1957” that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination!

In the article written by then PROSPECT editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: “The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks.”

Senate Democrats expect excerpts like this written by other Princeton graduates will be enough to torpedo the Alito nomination.

One Democrat Hill staffer involved in their strategy declared, “Put a fork in Scalito. It doesn’t matter that Alito didn’t write it, it doesn’t matter that Alito wasn’t that active in the group, Foote wrote it in CAP’s magazine and we are going to make Alito own it.”

On the surface, and with a potential assist from the MSM, this is not a bad tactic, namely, guilt (or in this case, smear) by association. Hopefully, GOP Senators will be ready to respond to this move.

Maybe the Democrats will bring in Sen. Robert Byrd (D-KKK) to question Judge Alito on his membership in a "racist" group. In fact, maybe Republicans should insist on it.

This smear is unlikely to stop Alito, but the GOP needs to attack any smear of this type head on rather than assume that the facts speak for themselves.