Congressional Rematches

Politico reviews a bunch of Congressional rematch races - both Democrats who didn't quite make it last time, and Republicans who got sloppy and didn't put up a big enough fight. I agree with the general sentiment - that for Democrats, it's over; if they couldn't win last cycle under almost ideal circumstances, they probably can't win next year. Anyways, many of them have drawn primary challengers for exactly that reason.

Of course this doesn't mean that narrowly-victorious Republican incumbents should breathe easy, but should instead get ready for a fight. And can the defeated Republicans make a comeback? Probably not.

This Really and Truly Galls Me

Michelle Malkin caught a story that truly sticks in my craw: in Britain, education bureaucrats have proposed striking from the curriculum the requirement that students be taught about Sir Winston Churchill; they also proposed that more "relevant" topics such as global-warming be taught. Needless to say, Churchill's grandson, Tory MP Nicholas Soames, was furious; he said that “It’s total madness. The teaching of history is incredibly important. If people do not seem to care about the country in which they live, the reason is that they don’t know much about it.” I entirely agree with you, sir.

According to the Sun, though, Winny isn't the only figure of historical import facing the axe: off the mandatory list are Stalin, Hitler, Gandhi, MLK, the War of the Roses (probably an unheard-of event to my American readers), Elizabeth I, and Henry VIII. So perhaps facing the axe was a bad pun.

This simply forces the question of what will students be taught in their history classes? All of these figures (save perhaps MLK) are crucial in the development of modern Britain, and one would think indispensable components of a true education. The Sun doesn't highlight exactly why WSC should be cut, I'd be interested to know. Perhaps because tenacious fighters who doggedly insisted that Britain never never never give up, or noted that "an appeaser is one that feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last," or who rightly said that a fanatic is one who "won't stop talking and won't change the subject" might complicate the process of British submission to Islam. You know, restore their stiff upper lip and all. I'm truly aghast.

I Agree with Susan Estrich

And subsequently, pigs fly. Estrich makes an argument that screwed-up actress Lindsay Lohan should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, both for driving while drunk on a suspended license and for possession of coke (which she claims wasn't hers). This means jail time. I entirely agree - Lohan should be put away for as long as the law allows, given no preferential treatment, and generally reminded that she isn't above the laws of the rest of society. Don't like it? Too bad, your own decisions got you there.

Oh and can we find a way to make celebrity prisoners like Paris and Lindsay pay for their jail time rather than burden the state with it?

And one other thing: no doubt many of these "stars" spill to their publicists when they get on the wrong side of the law. I doubt many of these publicists are lawyers, and thus (I think) could be forced to testify without any claim of any sort of attorney-client privilege. If those clowns who cover for their messed-up bosses want to illegally cover for them, hey, we can always find more room in jail.

South Dakota Senate

Last night, I ran through the top 10 Senate races, including South Dakota's, where incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson's recent medical emergency has created some unique challenges for Republicans looking to run against him. Politico's got the story as well as some updates on his rehabilitation.

An Open Seat in Illinois

The Crypt reports that seven-term Republican incumbent Ray Lahood of Illinois will not seek reelection. Despite its giving Bush 58% of the vote in '04, the D-Trip has already expressed interest. They'll need a good bit of luck, including Obama as the nominee. Though personally speaking, I'm not sure if I buy into the conventional wisdom that Obama's clinching the nomination will radically affect the state's political dynamics. In Obama's only statewide race, he admittedly garnered 70% of the vote - but he was running against Alan Keyes! I think a lot depends on who the GOP's nominee is - if it's Giuliani, the Obama Effect may be muted.

So far this is the only open-seat race in Illinois, and I don't think any others are likely to arise.

Badge of Honor

Malkin also reports that CAIR's going after Rudy for his use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism." Bravo to him for speaking the truth and bollocks to the grievance-mongering clowns of CAIR.

More Food for Thought

Now that we have a Muslim member of Congress, how long before we find a new term for pork projects, for fear of offending Keith "9/11 = Reichstag Fire" Ellison? I say offend away.

Brownback Gets Dirty

Michelle Malkin reports that Kansas Senator and long-shot presidential candidate Sam Brownback has gotten nasty of late, attacking Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo for their records on abortion. First of all, I'd nearly forgotten that Brownback was running. Second of all, when he's lashing out at nonentity like Tancredo, you know his goose is cooked. Oh and he used robocalls, a widely-despised tactic, to do so, meaning it probably had an even more negative impact than is presently apparent.

I agree with Michelle: end the agony, Sam.

Barbarism Bites Back

A heartening bit of news: Iraqi associates of al-Qaeda, disgusted by the organization's brutality, are turning against it, informing on its activities to Coalition troops. While this still seems somewhat anecdotal, it is heartening. I also think that it's probably also being affected by the surge (and the article almost says as much). The presence of US troops and the increasing desperation of AQ's measures, means that those who have become disenchanted have a way out. I really do think things are looking up, but we have to give our armed forces the time they need.

"A binge diet of junk social science"

So say two academics disgusted at the sort of biased "studies" being peddled to Congress. Check it out. I mean I don't even have my undergraduate degree, let alone a PhD, and I've already had it drilled into me that you cannot manipulate your data to produce a desired outcome. Apparently that rule doesn't apply to Harvard professors?
[h/t: the Corner]

It was the Best of Decisions, It was the Worst of Decisions

Two months ago or so, I finally got around to subscribing to a news aggregator (if you're interested, I use BlogLines); but things are beginning to get out of control. I'm currently subscribed to 50 feeds. I currently have 2,110 unread articles. While I now never lack for material, I do lack for time to digest all of this. It just makes me wonder how the giants of the blogosphere - Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson, Ed Morrissey - find the time to do anything else. It also explains why I go silent during the school year (though I'm determined to block out time for blogging in the morning and evening - call it productive procrastination).

Iraq: Slightly Less Unpopular

Or so says a pair of recent NYT/CBS polls. Yes, it took two polls to be certain - when the first set of numbers came out, the Times and CBS were apparently in such shock that they had to make sure. Janet Elder noted that they looked for other explanations, that perhaps the ordering of the questions had influenced the results; while this is good statistical practice, I wonder if there weren't other motives.

Anyways, the second poll found that 42% of respondents believed that we did the right thing in going into Iraq and that 51% think we should have stayed out; it also found that "only" 66% think the war is going badly, though that's notably down from 76% in May.

Another analysis from the Times sifts through responses to other questions (such as whether we'll be safer if we stay out of the Middle East - not likely), but is worth a read.

Elder also claims that these findings were an aberration, that at the same time no other metric on the war including the president's approval numbers showed any change. While that may be true, over at Political Arithmetikic Professor Franklin notes an up-tick in the President's approval numbers. As always, the Professor's insightful analysis is well worth reading; I don't know of anyone else out there who does such interesting work with polling data.

Chavez: Silencia!

Comrade Hugo is getting irritated - people dare criticize him. For this sin, they'll be expelled from the country. Captain's Quarters has the story and some dire predictions for the country's future.

Food for thought: if the country's returning to authoritarianism, why don't we do it our way? One cruise missile and we'll install an SOB who will at least be our SOB. Call me an imperialist pig if you like, but if South Americans are going to submit meekly to dictatorships, we might as well ensure our interests are represented.

More food for thought: why wasn't this problem nipped in the bud? We could have turned up the diplomatic heat on Caracas, or the economic heat (say an embargo on Venezuelan oil). Instead, we let it fester and now it's been exported to other parts of continent. It is now also cozying up to Russia and others, attempting to become a regional power-broker and buying arms at a disturbing pace.

And a historical note: during TR's presidency, the US and Germany almost came to blows over Venezuela, when the country defaulted on its debts and Germans demanded compensation. Admittedly that's what happens when you have a petulant kaiser with the temperament of a child and a desire to show off his military might. But now the Venezuelans pull a similar stunt and our reaction is...still waiting...

The "Debates"

The other night, we the people blundered into the age of the YouTube debate. I didn't watch. Why not? First of all because I was busy; but also because the entire concept disappointed me. Oh and I didn't care.

But let's return to the second (and perhaps most substantive) reason: the concept disappoints me. Really perhaps I'm wrong in saying this; perhaps it's a relief. Because instead of inane questions asked by "pundits" such as Chris Matthews ("Raise your hand..."), we get questions asked by snowmen (or this being a Democratic debate, snowpeople). This "debate" just serves to prove how hollow the entire "debate" concept has become - worthless questions asked by people sorely lacking in intellect or the necessary gravitas (which is why the GOP's Fox News debate was one of the only substantive ones to date) or questions asked by equally clueless average-joe voters. Instead, let's put candidates to a real test - throw them in front of Thomas Sowell or Dennis Miller (or their Democratic equivalents) and force them to answer questions of depth and substance. It may turn off voters, but that's a risk we should be willing to take. In fact, who is to say that if the level of debate is raised, voters won't follow along? Soundbytes and shallow debates are what's wrong with politics, and also I think what turns many people off of politics. If instead there was some honest, meaningful discussion of depth, voters might respond and the whole country would be better off. Though if we try to do so (such as the Democrats Iraq-only forum at SAIS), the candidates may flee rather than be exposed (at that forum, only Biden and other equally low-tier candidates showed up).

A YouTube debate has also been announced for the Republican field, but thankfully they may not be playing along. Giuliani's campaign has suggested that he's got a scheduling conflict September 17th, and Romney's unhappy with the format. If they choose not to show up, it could quickly become a debate filled with meaningless questions answered by meaningless candidates - sort of like the Ames Straw Poll for the digital age. Though I imagine Ron Paul would have fun with it.

But why the difference in reaction? In part, I think it's that Democrats are desperate to appear "hip" and win the mythical youth vote (though the "vote or die" campaign of 2004 was dead on arrival); Republicans frankly don't give a damn.

And while we're on the topic, if debates are entirely pointless (they are), can we at least make them truly entertaining? Have Colbert and Stewart co-host. That I would watch.

My First Musings on Turkey's Elections

Not really - made you look! I'm still trying to locate my Turkish correspondent, who is part of Citigroup's summer slave labor ("associate") program and thus incommunicado. In the meantime, while I pool my own thoughts and those of the blogosphere, check out Derb's view of the Turkish national psyche. I'd agree with both points, especially the former, and he fails to mention at all Turkey's hostility to Greece (manifested most recently in the tensions over Cyprus) which may perhaps be more a characteristic of Turks from the western part of the country, especially Istanbul. Further, my sense is that among the nation's elite, secularism is still deeply ingrained.

So maybe this is my first Turkish musing; there will be more (and in honor of that, note the new Turkey tag).

NYT: Court-Packing is Cool!

Brendan Nyhan rightfully slaps around NYT op-ed contributor Jean Edward Smith for suggesting that a Democratic president would need only a simple majority to increase the number of Supreme Court justices ("court-packing"), but he gives her a pass on the absurdity underlying her argument.

Now to begin with, prior to reading Smith's op-ed, I was unaware that the practice of court-packing has a long history (though I suppose I shouldn't be shocked). But let's just look at the opening and closing paragraphs:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.
[snip]
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

I don't know whether to vomit or to laugh, though I suspect the two together would be highly unpleasant. Put more bluntly, Smith says "We the coastal liberals don't agree with the Supreme Court. We used to, but now that we don't, we should find ways around them." It also pays no attention to the fact that this court doesn't have a "manifestly ideological agenda" any more than any previous court did (and significantly less so than the Warren Court). Her claim that the "five-man majority" is "thumbing its nose at popular values" is also absurd. Let's consider one decision that has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left, Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that outlawed partial birth abortion. In doing so, was the Roberts Court "thumbing its nose at popular values?" Well if polls are to be believed, not exactly: a May Gallup poll found that 72% of respondents believed the partial-birth abortion procedure should be illegal. Popular values, perhaps, if you poll only Greenwich Village, Beacon Hill, Chapel Hill, and San Francisco.
It reminds me of Pauline Kael's infamous distress in 1976 - "No one I know voted for Nixon!" Times change, liberals don't.

But let's also look at this hare-brained scheme in the bigger picture. What other recent Democratic caper does this remind you of? If you guessed the "fairness" doctrine, you're right! In both cases, Democrats are throwing temper tantrums that they aren't getting their way - whether it's being blasted on talk radio or having their glorious social engineering projects judicially neutered - and they're determined to change the rules. And why does this happen? It may be tritely stated, but it's because liberal ideals aren't popular values, but rather the values of an insular elite - the academe, the media, etc. - which cannot be enacted through the usual channels. Thus they have to use other means, such as the courts. And when people call them on their BS, they'd rather muzzle the opposition rather than try and win an honest debate.

This thing ain't going anywhere, much to the dismay of the Upper East Side, but in his critique, Nyhan really missed the boat.

A Couple of Technical Notes

So in addition to adding a headlines link to the Victory Caucus, I've made a couple of other minor technical tweaks; the most notable of these is that posts are now archived weekly. This should reduce the size of the main page, which with only monthly archiving was getting large; this in turn means that the page should load quicker. Also hopefully makes it easier to find stuff (on that front, I'm still trying to get a Technorati cloud up, wish me luck).

The Source for All Things Iraq

The Victory Caucus is relaunched and should become your one-stop shop for anything related to Iraq: news, statistics, reports, maps, etc. It's run by a rather august group of individuals - Frank Gaffney, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, et. al, and they have a mission and set of beliefs that should be common to all Americans. Oh and just to make things easy, you can find the latest headlines on the right sidebar of my humble blog.

John Doe Immunity Lives?

I, along with the rest of the conservative blogosphere, bemoaned last week's apparent demise of language that would shield citizens reporting suspicious activity from lawsuits. Except it turns out that it may have been a Hamas funeral - the dearly departed may not have been dead after all. Captain Ed has the tentative good news.

Oh and while we're at it, this may be as good a time as any to note that "dead" in Washington-ese isn't an absolute term as it is for the rest of the world. This can be good (John Doe immunity shield) or bad (immigration bill) - but either way it's worth noting.

My Third Russian Post of the Day

Captain Ed caught something I missed, namely that within the Russian expulsion of four British diplomats last week (which at the time he called a controlled escalation) was an act of brinkmanship, an attempt to force Britain's hand through economic pressures. However he notes that this may backfire, leaving Russia worse off than before. Putin may be crazier than most of us gave him credit for.

Oh and speaking of tonight's theme, "colonial mindsets," a century ago, few nations would have been impudent enough to use Britain's commercial interests against her. For one related example, read up on the Opium Wars.

Oh the Irony

In a follow-up to my previous post, some group of geniuses in the UK have decided that youths are more likely to become yobs if they drop out of school early; to prevent this they recommend more funding. Typical answer. Instead, I've got some suggestions. First off, make these kids want to stay in school. Stop teaching them politically correct, multicultural tripe; rather give them a hearty dose of British history in all its glory. Remind them of the greatness of Britain, built upon the blood and toil of their ancestors. Second of all, funding is the overall problem. As the New Criterion noted, part of the problem is that there is no incentive to get a job - or by extension to staying in school. Start cutting the welfare net out from under them and kids will realize that they actually have to get an education to get a paycheck; staying in school and getting a job means they won't have time to loiter on the street corners in hoodies.

If only Britain had Hell's Grannies to deal with, instead of yobs...

Another Reason to Love the New Criterion

I had a little fun with British terminology yesterday, specifically 'yob.' Now someone at the New Criterion (one of their interns I believe), takes aim at the root cause of all this, the British welfare state. A curt, but interesting read.

Speaking of Colonial Mindsets...

The Kremlin Krazies are now attempting to claim a bigger chunk of the Arctic, in hopes that global warming will provide access to oil, gas, and other natural resources reputed to be there. This is of course a blatant land grab (sans land) for the purpose of access to natural resources. Also known as colonialism. Oh and the tactic, basically "showing the flag" is also straight out of Colonialism 101.

But here's the real irony: Russians are intent on grabbing more natural resources, but given current demographic trends, in a couple of decades, there won't be any Ruskies left to take advantage of said natural resources. That's the issue they should be addressing, instead of some foolish pursuit of national glory.

Vlad Putin, meet Melanie Phillips

In the latest round of the Russo-British extradition spat, Vlad Putin blasted Britain's demands for the extradition of ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi in light of long-term British opposition to the extradition of some thirty individuals taking refuge in London whom the Kremlin would like to speak to. No doubt these include some of the plutocrats accused of plotting the overthrow of the Putin regime.

British columnist-turned-author (most recently of the invaluable Londonistan) Melanie Phillips also noted that phenomenon, though in the context of repeated British refusals to extradite terror suspects not only to Middle Eastern countries but also to other nations such as France.

Both Putin and Phillips, an unlikely pair of commentators on two variations of the same theme, both have their reasoning; one is convincing, one is diametrically opposed (and incorrect). Putin attributes the British refusal to extradite anyone within their own country to a "colonial mindset;" in reality, he couldn't be more wrong. This refusal, as Phillips convincingly documents in Londonistan (specifically its second chapter, "The Human Rights Jihad"), is based in a muddleheaded attachment to "human rights law," one symptom of the intellectual and moral rot that has begun consuming the UK from within. I won't attempt to replicate Phillips' explanation in depth, read it yourself. But I'll try and give some of the highlights. First of all, the British refuse to extradite a suspect to any country where they may be subjected to torture or "degrading treatment," as well as opening refugee status to anyone who might be at risk of "harm" in their home country - the equivalent of hanging out a "Terrorists Welcome" sign. Phillips goes into far greater depth, but as I said, read it yourself.

What all of this really means is that Putin's explanation couldn't be more wrong; this isn't a colonial mindset so much as a post-colonial mindset, the antithesis of a colonial mindset.

What's Newt Up To?

Earlier this week, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich went absolutely ballistic on the Republican presidential field, comparing them to pygmies, as well as blasting the "debates" that have become a de rigeur component of the political process without providing anything substantive. Despite all of that, he continued to play coy on the possibility of his seeking the nomination, though the likelihood of him entering the race has been seen to diminish in recent months.

And now in what's truly an intriguing development, it emerges that at least one member of his inner circle has departed to work for Fred Thompson, and that Gingrich and his (third wife) Callista recently had a policy-fueled double date with the Senator and his wife Jeri. The ladies aren't as imposed upon as one might expect (and indeed have a lot in common), given that Callista was a Hill staffer when she met Gingrich and that Jeri is a reputable media consultant in her own right. So what's going on here? Politico's Jonathan Martin suggests that Gingrich may endorse Thompson, though not until October (remember that the possibility of a Thompson endorsement from McCain is also possible, if the Arizona Senator withdraws from the race).

This to me is a very appealing pairing (though never in a formal setting - Gingrich as VP would sink the ticket), given that Newt really is the "ideas man" of the GOP, a title he's never relinquished since the Contract with America, and Fred seems to be the favorite among conservatives. Mr. Popular and Mr. Brains - is this the start of (some sort of) beautiful friendship?

Senate Race Notes

Chris Cillizza (second post referencing him - any guess where I am on my bloglines?) has another excellent roundup and ranking of next year's Senate contests, with a couple of surprises. The first one that hits you is Mitch McConnell's presence, even without a serious challenger (though check out CC's later post for a potential emergence of one); I'm not discounting the possibility of McConnell being in hot water for all the reasons he lists (Kentucky GOP and governor besieged, McConnell as the face of an unpopular party, etc.), but he's also an extraordinarily strong campaigner. So was Daschle - just saying.

Speaking of South Dakota, does Governor Mike Rounds run even if Senator Tim Johnson decides to seek reelection despite his recent brain surgery (from which he hasn't yet returned to work)? I dunno about that one, primarily because South Dakotans may be inclined to give Johnson the sympathy vote, even if Rounds may be more in line with many of their views (though the presidential dynamic may change things, as it likely did in Thune's victory over Daschle in 04). Talking to my sole friend from South Dakota, I get the sense that no one there wants another nasty, brutish, and overly-long race like the 04 contest, with an absurd amount of money spent by both candidates in a state with dirt cheap advertising. Everyone got sick of it pretty quick, and that's the sort of race Rounds may have to run to win.

Cilizza's got Nebraska too low on the list (#8) for my taste. Why? Because Hagel looks unlikely to seek reelection, even if he does, there's a credible Republican challenger in Jon Bruning (who also raised credible sums last quarter), and it's a very red state in a presidential year. There's also no serious Democratic contender at present, though Cillizza is the first credible source I've seen to note the rumors of Bob Kerrey coming back to run. I'd put this higher on the list, maybe replacing Oregon at #7, given that Democrats haven't got an announced, credible candidate yet.

His #6, Virginia, deserves to be higher, especially as the rumors of John Warner's retirement grow. If John Warner retires, Virginia Democrat friends tell me Mark Warner will run, and likely win (especially if ex-presidential nominee Jim Gilmore and Rep Tom Davis start attacking each other).

His #3 is Louisiana, but given the state's topsy-turvy politics, Mary Landrieu may not be in too much trouble, dropping this one a spot or two. We've got a Democrat-turned-Republican looking to run against her and (if I'm not mistaken) a Republican-turned-Democrat running for governor. Assuming that Rep Bobby Jindal wins this year's gubernatorial contest (seems likely), he won't run against her; he might be the GOP's best hope. On top of all of this is the Vitter mess, and the fact that he seems determined to tough it out, further muddying the waters (though if Jindal runs, I think the chances of Vitter resigning increase noticeably). I haven't recently talked to my Louisiana source, so maybe her insights will change my thinking.

Given what he says, I'd flip his #2 and #1 races, especially due to that New Hampshire poll showing Jeanne Shaheen just walloping John Sununu (not surprising since the state went left in a big way last year).

So let's sum it up; my ten:
1) New Hampshire
2) Colorado
3) Maine (blue state, not a good time for a Republican, even if she's a moderate)
4) Virginia
5) Minnesota (see logic on #3, but change pronoun)
6) Lousiana (I know, gasps of protest that it's dropped this far; also sad that this the Republicans' best pick-up opportunity)
7) Oregon
8) Nebraska (if we're sticking with CC's formula of likely to change parties, this may go RINO to R)
9) South Dakota
10) Kentucky

At present, I see no reason to put Dole on this list; the Democrats can't find anyone credible to run against her (best shot Mike Easley is a no-go, as are a lot of less-notable others), Dole's savvy and tough (and can always trot out Viagra Bob), and it's a presidential year.

But it's an overall bad picture for the GOP: I don't see them picking up a seat unless Landrieu blunders or Louisiana politics get a little more straightforward (ha!) or unless Johnson announces he's not running again, or something crazy happens elsewhere (still think Dick Durbin's more vulnerable than is acknowledged for all the crap he spews). Democrats stand to pick up some combination of at least two (VA if J.Warner backs out or NH if Shaheen gets in are my most likely). But again, a lot can change and if the environment for Republicans improves, they may be able to hold steady (and even if it doesn't, Warner's repositioned himself on the war to a degree that if he chooses to run again, he may be okay - and may help the Republican presidential nominee carry Virginia, a less surefire proposition than in 04). Sorry this is so lengthy and convoluted, hope it was at least somewhat insightful.

Clinton and the War

Conventional wisdom holds that among members of the Democratic Party's base, Hillary Clinton's "support" for the Iraq war (or at least her refusal to apologize to the wild-eyed peaceniks for her vote for it) is something of an albatross. Conventional wisdom and polls collide. Hard data crushes fuzzy conventional wisdom. Both Chris Cillizza and Ben Smith responded to the findings in the latest WaPo/ABC poll, which suggests that HRC is the favored candidate among respondents who favore immediate withdrawal. Cillizza has the more substantive analysis, including an intriguing paragraph which notes that

when presented with potential negative consquences of that withdrawal they become more circumspect. Seventy-Three percent say they would support legislaton to set a deadline of next spring for withdrawing combat forces, but that number falls to 65 percent when an "increased chance of Iraq going into full-scale civil war" is floated and down to 60 percent if withdrawal "increased the chance that Al Qaeda could establish terrorist bases in Iraq."

That is to say when people stop and think about it, more realize what a dumb idea a withdrawal is. Put it another way: Washington shouldn't be listening to the fickle mob.

Smith also has this to say, which itself shatters conventional wisdom: Clinton "does better the farther left you go, and that the Democrats with the most doubts about her are the ones in the middle." This despite her attempts to reposition herself as a moderate, suggesting that the only ones buying into that farce are the media, who would like voters to believe in her moderation. Of course I find Smith's argument contradicted by those damned polls again (though of the less scientific variety) at places like DailyKos, where Edwards is always the favorite. In any case, if Smith is right, two conclusions can be drawn: first off, it helps explain why 52% of respondents in another recent poll said they could never vote for Hillary and second of all it suggests that the Edwards love-fest at places like DKos are aberrations, that Hillary's lefty credentials (however un-trumpeted) are what's putting her in first in almost all primary polls.

Supreme Court: Who Next?

As I alluded to in my previous post, regardless of the next President's political affiliation (save for the slim possibility of a Bloomberg victory), he or she will face a nasty fight to confirm any Supreme Court nominee. This is almost purely the product of abominable Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominees in the past (Bork, anyone?); it's enlightening to compare the confirmation votes for, say Ginsburg, compared to say, Alito (the former passed almost without opposition, the latter was nearly party-line).

But who will the next nominee be? Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog has given it some consideration; he's come up with two very worthwhile posts (original and follow-up) on potential Democratic picks, and one on those a Republican might tap. Especially noteworthy in the first of the three is his explanation of the logic underlying any nominee. Much of this isn't new, but making age a serious consideration is; no doubt this partially informed the relatively youthful nominations of Alito and Roberts (and serves to support Goldstein's suggestion that Republicans understand and take more seriously the importance of judicial nominees). As the time between vacancies increases, no doubt everyone will be looking to get more miles out of their picks. But take time to read the bios and the comments if you're interested in this stuff, Sb attracts a well-informed crowd of readers and so their reactions have some credibility.

For better or worse, Goldstein also notes that many of the brightest minds (often in the academe) haven't got a shot of nomination because of their superhighway-wide paper trails. In this category I'd add Erwin Chemerinsky who Clinton briefly considered for the 9th Circuit but who Republicans warned would be DOA (and to be DOA for that crazy court is saying something!), but whose views are too well-known and too controversial for appointment.

Oh, and if Democrats truly don't understand the importance of judicial nominees, they will if a Republican wins next year. Some scenarios posited by readers have the Republican president getting as many as three picks. Needless to say that might restore a measure of judicial sanity!

The Many Faces of Arlen Specter

If you haven't felt the urge to rip your hair out over some antic or another by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), I don't think you're really a Republican. Specter's always been a subject of some controversy within the party, alternately infuriating, and, well, infuriating, most often in his role as ranking member (formerly chair) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Several of my truly conservative friends from Pennsylvania continue to rue Specter's narrow victory over challenger Pat Toomey in 2004's primary (even though a Toomey victory likely would have cost the GOP the seat).

All of the reasons for that widespread ambivalence (at best) have recently been on display. To begin with there was today's non-story story that he was planning on investigating any dissonance between statements Roberts and Alito made in their confirmation hearings and their opinions to date. That turned out to be overblown, as NRO noted with relief. That was the ugly which turned out to be not as ugly as was feared.

Then there was the good news a few days back that Specter had finally had enough of Democrats holding up Bush's nominees. The man is among the Senate's more irascible members
and thus him getting angry might actually accomplish something; more substantively, as is noted, he's got a long history of moderation and working across party lines. He's no steadfast friend of the White House nor a conservative ideologue, meaning there's merit to his complaints. At the center of the storm is the stalled nomination of Leslie Southwick of Mississippi, among other things a veteran of Iraq. In their attacks on a highly qualified nominee (especially Durbin, noted here, with more general stuff here and here), Democrats have succeeded in reaching new highs (lows?) of absurdity; I especially liked Dick Durbin's quote:

At Judge Southwick's nomination hearing, I wanted to be fair to him and I asked him maybe one of the easiest questions you could ask of a nominee. I asked him to name a single time in his career or in his life when he took an unpopular point of view on behalf of the voiceless or powerless. Mr. President, he couldn't name a single instance. And I thought perhaps that wasn't fair. The judge should be allowed to reflect on that question. I will send it to him in writing, ask him, was there a time in your life when you sided, for example, with a civil rights plaintiff when your court was split? He couldn't name a single case in his judicial career.

In the first of three parenthetical links above, Wendy Long demolishes this, so I won't bother to recap. Suffice to say, if this doesn't stick in your craw, you're probably on the wrong blog. Oh and it's worth pointing out that unlike at least one sitting Senator (Democrat Robert Byrd), no one's suggesting that Southwick has been riding around in a white hood burning crosses. No, just that he's never knee-jerk sided with a civil rights plaintiff.

The second article from Politico also notes the ridiculous claims from Democrats that more nominees have been approved under Leahy than under Specter. While I can't comment with any certainty on why that is, I have some guesses. Among other things, Democrats need to get something accomplished and to do so they've likely let some more "questionable" nominees (i.e. those that don't view Das Kapital as a serious economic text worthy of legal codification) through without serious "scrutiny," otherwise known as character assassination. On the off-chance that someone from their loony bin of presidential candidates actually wins next November, they should expect to sleep in the bed they've made when it comes to judicial nominations (something I'll touch on in a later post).

One final note in closing: I have been ambivalent about Specter in the past. But I wrote a nasty letter to the National Review when they wanted him stripped of his Judiciary Chairmanship in 2004. I think that opposition is vindicated: he's a maverick, but he knows who his team is and he has his limits. Reminding ourselves that we are a big tent and not alienating Specter seems to have been a wise move, as the moderate has become the focal point for activists while simultaneously being immune to Democratic slander (doesn't mean Durbin won't try).

Cindy the Crazy

Brendan Nyhan notes Dana Milbank's article on the antics of Cindy ("Momma Moonbat") Sheehan, which seem to be approaching the realm of clinical dementia. I hadn't realized that even the Kossacks had disowned her for challenging Sheehan...yikes.

Quick Thought on British Hooliganism

In Britain, much as in France, there is a not-insignificant problem of youthful hooliganism (the Brits just released a new report on it). In both countries, the problem is often associated (though only rarely publicly linked) to Muslim youths.

In Britain, this whole thing is called the "yob culture," "yob" being an inversion of boy. It could also arguably be an acronym, much as "wog" may have come from "wily oriental gentleman" (though it's now considered derogatory). In that spirit, I propose that yob become an acronym as well, for "young oriental brute." I think it fits.

Patton Returns

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."