Arrogant and Nonsensical

This particular combination often takes talent, and seems to be exclusively the purview of elected Democrats (see: Obama, Barack: Gaffes: "bitter"). This morning, a rank-and-file Obamamaniac got in on the act with this letter to the editor:

I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind voters choosing Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot in order to defeat Barack Obama.

Voting is a privilege and if voters can't take the process seriously, I wish they would stay away from the voting booth.

Republicans should be embarrassed by this fiasco and so should all the talk show hosts who have encouraged it.

If Clinton wins the election, the same voters will have themselves to blame, but it will be too late to do anything about it. I find Obama a refreshing voice in this election and a man I can support to be president. I find Clinton a woman who will say and do anything to win the election. I find her disingenuous and untrustworthy.

I feel Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has contributed to this mess because of his ego and his legacy will be forever tarnished.

I am proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of how little some Americans value the election process.

—Gloria Loehr

Ummm...? Choosing to defeat Barack Obama? They can't choose to support a candidate they believe better supports their values? Voting for a candidate with less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination isn't taking voting seriously? Hordes of college students flocking to the polls and voting for "Change" is taking voting seriously?

The arrogance is overwhelming. The cogency is utterly absent. It's possible that Ms. Loehr is venting primarily at those Republicans who crossed the aisle to keep Hillary in the race, but she fails to make that distinction thus portraying herself as a raging ignoramus. I imagine the Tribune was having some fun when they chose to print this one.

Media Scrutinizes Obama

What do CNN, Fox News, the Baltimore Sun (admittedly using a Trib blog), LA Times and CBS News all have in common? They're all talking about the absurd and reprehensible comments made by Obama's religious adviser and pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright has alleged, among other things, that the US created AIDS; his sermons have also invoked at least once the evils of Zionism. Starting around the :45 mark, Wright also goes off on the US, proclaiming "God damn America," claiming that the US is ruled by the KKK, and essentially claiming the US deserved the 9/11 attacks in language reminiscent of Ward Churchill. I'm surprised to see this damning a report on the man from ABC (who I guess I should also credit up above). I'm also sad to hear a woman call it "not radical" but instead "being black in America." Really?

Let's clear some things up: Wright's radicalism wasn't hidden from Obama. As I noted last March, Trinity UCC's 12 precepts are all about black power; presumably Obama read these? Wright's history of controversial comments also meant that at the last moment he was asked not to speak at Obama's campaign kickoff in Springfield. So it shows a serious lapse of judgment, after all of that, to get him back into the campaign.

So the campaign has done what it can to minimize the damage. Obama, in an interview with the Tribune ed board yesterday, ascribed Wright's comments - and those of Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro - to the 1960s. So Ferraro makes comments widely derided as racist, and that's flower power for you? Wright goes off on America, and that certainly is the sixties, or at least the Black Panther version of it. Seems like a stretch, Barack.

He also repudiated Wright, and offered a three-part defense. Part two, the "I didn't know," flies in the face of what I said previously. Again, why pull him from the campaign kickoff if not for fear that he'd go off on America in front of national TV? Amusingly, and fittingly, his statement of repudiation was first posted of Huffington Post...real critical audience, that one.

But finally, the campaign corrected a mistake they never should have made: they showed Wright the door, cutting all official ties to him. Now someone needs to ask Obama whether he'll quit attending Trinity UCC, seeing as it was Wright's church embodying his principles, or whether he'll continue to seek the Holy Spirit there. Quick tip: try being an Episcopal. Nothing says establishment WASP quite so clearly!

Finally, let's put this in perspective. This is the second week in a row where the Obama campaign has had to play defense, thrown violently off message by campaign advisers who don't know when to keep their traps shut. Difference being, of course, that Samantha Power didn't seem to understand "on the record," while Wright was so on the record that he never should have been allowed near the campaign to begin with. Combined with the fact that the Rezko trial may be picking up steam, one has to wonder whether Obama's window of opportunity is closing fast. In light of all of this, will voters in the remaining states give Hillary a fresh look? Will we, in retrospect, understand Hillary's wins in Ohio and Texas (where Obama actually won more delegates) as the beginning of the end of "Yes we can?"

PS: Wright was apparently also Oprah's spiritual adviser. Why am I not all that surprised? Will this tarnish Oprah's star power too? We can only hope!

"Fair and Balanced"

CNN distributed a series of talking points to its anchors in the wake of Fidel Castro's "resignation" - talking points that bring a whole new meaning to fair and balanced (a slogan liberals love to hate) and once again reveal the media's inescapable bias. They're just too good, I'll post them in their entirety.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS)
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba’s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba’s economic problems are due to Cuba’s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Allison

I'm really kind of surprised that the US isn't denounced as being a nation of baby-killers for the embargo. Anyone else think that the sentence about "being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech" was a later addition to the whole piece? Finally, I would suggest that he's probably also seen as a revolutionary hero at CNN.

Lessig for Congress?

One of the more interesting books I've read for a class recently was Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. It's a book about creativity and copyrights, and despite sound like something only a wonk could love, Lessig succeeds in making it accessible, even pleasant, for the lay reader. As such, I strongly recommend it. Besides being an author, Lessig's also a professor out at Stanford Law and a blogger. Busy man. He may also be looking for a new day job.

Lessig lives in (or at least near) California's 12th Congressional District, until recently represented by the late (and sorely missed) Tom Lantos. I didn't always agree with Lantos - indeed the man often drove me up the wall - but I respected him (as Congress's only Holocaust survivor, he deserved at least that much) and found myself agreeing with him more than I might have thought likely. Now there's a Draft Lessig movement afoot, looking to him to replace Lantos. The 12th is a district in which the primary is essentially the ball game - no Republican has gotten more than 43% since 1982 - and more recently most have been held south of 30. Looking at the map such poor performance shouldn't come as much of a surprise - we're talking deep Bay Area here.

I imagine that we can do much worse than Lessig (more on this later). In recent years, Congress's track-record on matters of intellectual property has continually been somewhere between ludicrous and unconstitutional; debate has been minimal at best (the infamous Mickey Mouse Act, properly the Copyright Terms Extension Act, passed by voice vote leaving no record of those few who stood in opposition). Lessig would certainly change all of that, sparking a serious debate on an important and neglected area of policy. Of course it's not all peaches and creme - he's a vociferous Obama supporter and has also stood up for Net Neutrality (on which I remain neutral). But as I said, I imagine we can do much worse.

What's also interesting is the nature of his still-unofficial campaign: it started with a "Draft Lessig for Congress" Facebook group. The movement has gone from there to draftlessig.org website and has gone so far as to have established an Actblue page for the candidate (through which he's already garnered $24,240). Lessig officially remains coy; on his blog, he's said he'll decide soon whether or not to run. Making this whole thing more intriguing is the fact that, in his words, "A bunch of people have asked (and some in the strongest way possible) that I not run because somehow, as a progressive (the pc word for "liberal"), it is wrong to challenge another established progressive."

"Another established progressive" refers to Jackie Speier, who presumably was the establishment candidate to replace Lantos (who had already planned on retiring). Speier looks like Pelosi - which is reason enough to support Lessig over her. She also sounds like Pelosi - cut and run on Iraq, "bring the troops home to fix the economy," yadda yadda yadda (though interestingly, her positions on the Environment and Health Care are "Coming soon...").

If they're both progressives, I presume Lessig feels much the same way on the issues. Given the choice between the two, I have to say that Lessig is the lesser of two evils - in fact he'd be a fine addition to Congress (remember, we're not getting anything that smells like a Republican elected out here). Check out his blog and some of the other links; I encourage you to read Free Culture. This special election may be one worth watching.

Daily Kos Stupidity

I'm a regular reader at DailyKos, though I never know whether I'll get my fair share of chuckles or an urge to up-chuck. I recently had a reaction that was somewhere between the two as I read a diary entitled "A Gift You Can Give Yourself: A Democratic Cabinet."

First off, talk about counting your chickens before you hatch, even as a motivational tool. That was a chuckle.

Some of the diarist's nominations then provoked an up-chuck. Russ Feingold for AG? Jim Webb for SecDef? Joe Biden for Secretary of State is somewhere between the two; I imagine we'd soon find our ambassador to New Delhi expelled after a crack about Indian being a country of more than a billion potential 7-11 managers.

And then I hit the writer's suggestion for Secretary of the Treasury, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I knew that I had to quote it in full:

Denise Nappier (CT)

Why always someone from Wall Street? Denise Nappier has been Connecticut's State Treasurer since 1998 and has more experience than most of Wall Street (and would maybe be a little more independent from Wall Street, just saying).

Why always someone from Wall Street? Because when the economy's behaving like a sick puppy, you need a Wall Streeter to convince Wall Street that the sky isn't falling. Because the job of the Treasury Secretary is basically to be a liaison to Wall Street and an outsider isn't going to do a good job of it. Mine is a poor explanation, but it's one of those that if you don't get it, there's no helping you. While we're at it, I'm sure my town manager would be a great pick for Fed Chairman when Bernanke steps down.

But you know what's also remarkable? Not a single Republican in the lot - not even a Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel ("R"). Hell even a Republican would find one or two Dems for his cabinet - Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller obviously jump to mind first, but it'd be difficult to get a non-Democratic HUD Secretary through Congress, to name one example. Which of course will be a whole new can of worms; if a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will ensure that he's got no Cabinet to govern with.

Rush a Stalking Horse?

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers" brouhaha - which, by the way, Rush said nothing close to what the Left alleges - is merely a Democratic stalking horse for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, Rush is Talk Radio, that evil menace to democracy that needs to be policed by the FCC. Michelle Malkin and I are on the same page; The Hill also agrees.

"Ideological Agitprop"

Or so runs Brendan Nyhan's assessment of one of Kos-founder Markos Moulitsas's (many) logically fallacious arguments this morning on Meet the Press. I haven't watched his "debate" with DLC Chair/Archenemy Harold Ford just yet, but given the arrogance of his column in yesterday's WaPo, I'm not sure I can stomach it. His overall argument is that the DLC is bad, that the netroots are good, and that Americans are all a bunch of peacenik socialists in denial. [The state of journalism is reflected in the fact that pompous clowns such as him get inches on the op-ed page of a "respectable" rag like the Post]

UPDATE: I'm not going to bother embedding it, but Allahpundit has had some fun with today's debate, interspersing it with clips from an interview with Kos at last weekend's YearlyKos; watch it here. And he just sounds condescending, in the worst stereotype of a liberal.

Feinstein's Vote for Justice?

As I'd previously noted, Democratic opposition to judicial nominee Leslie Southwick was appearing both absurd and insurmountable; it didn't look like the impeccably-credentialed Iraq veteran would ever make it to the Senate floor, that Democrats would keep him bottled in Judiciary.

Then Dianne Feinstein did something inexplicable: she voted honestly, refusing to kowtow to the loons in her party. And boy oh boy, the loons are angry - especially the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The bloggers over at Bench Memos have sampled some of the venom, including one pundit who slanderously labeled Southwick both "archconservative" and "neoconfederate." BM also highlights an interesting article from the SF Chronicle, which reports the threats of retaliation from Feinstein's left (hard as it is to believe that such a place exists).

So let's review: a judge with impeccable credentials (including the highest marks from the left-leaning ABA) squeaks through the Judiciary Committee on a largely party-line vote, despite strident opposition from a coalition of left-wing interest groups. I think we call that obstructionism. Now my question is this: how many Democratic Senators will bow to that pressure and try and scuttle this nomination? Will they be dumb enough to filibuster? Do they understand that by no stretch of the imagination (and their reality is more fantastical than anything else) can Southwick be maligned as a judicial extremist? This'll be interesting to watch. It's also endlessly amusing that Democrats continue to fuel the flames of judiciary battles, one of the few topics which still excites the Republican base.

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.

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.

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.

"John Doe" Amendment Dead

The John Doe amendment, which would shield citizens who report suspicious activity from lawsuits, died yesterday in both the House and Senate. Michelle Malkin's got a roundup on it, including votes. Hopefully the bill this is attached to will suffer at the hand of the president's veto pen, though we'll see. What is certain is that Democrats have shown that they value political correctness more than national security.

Of course liberals will get really and truly steamed when the public wises up to the fact that potentially the greatest domestic Islamic terror threat isn't your stereotypical Arab but rather black Muslims, oftentimes converted (and radicalized) in prison. Then people will start reporting suspicious African-Americans and the NAACP and Al Sharpton will get in on the act.

One final thought on the matter: if I'm not mistaken, Republicans could offer this as a separate bill in either chamber, because it was merely an amendment when it was struck down last night. The Senate Homeland Security Committee is chaired by Joe Lieberman, who was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor last night. As a separate bill, it might also garner more attention and thus force Democratic Senators to listen up for once.

Congressional Democrats Get Really Serious About Surrender

Seventy Congressional Democrats have said enough is enough, they really want to surrender; or as they euphemistically state, they "will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

It would seem to me that in the space of two paragraphs, Politico succeeds in contradicting itself; they first cite the last fight over Iraq appropriations, in which a defeatist revolt almost undercut Pelosi. They then claim that this sets the stage for a battle royale between them and the President. Sorry but I think it's one or the other. If Pelosi offers a bill similar to the one she offered last time, and they rebel again, it's a battle between factions of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Pelosi follows her heart and supports them. But if reports from Iraq continue to improve, she may be hard-pressed to do so. This could be fun...

Keith Ellison: 9/11 = Reichstag Fire?

And thus Bush = Hitler? Or so says former (?) Nation of Islam member-turned-Congressman Keith Ellison. I've been sort of ignoring this story, mostly because the rest of the blogosphere has been doing a great job covering it. But now I thought I'd provide some roundup. First of all, check out the video (it's long and painful, I'm sorry)

This is, mind you, an elected member of the United States Congress (and one whose own party apparently views him as something of a loose cannon). When Ellison first uttered this garbage, the media continued to blather away about their usual nonsense. The first time I saw the story picked up was a column in the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Unsurprisingly, the STrib edit board later ran a piece saying "okay, he was hyperbolic - but he had a point." The MSM as a whole, however, ignored the story - perhaps their silence was tacit agreement with his outrageous comments? But when Ellison starts feeling the heat and issues the de rigeur kinda/sorta/wishy-washy apology, the media notices.

This whole incident is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there's no chance that Ellison's constituents will return his sorry ass to the Land of a Thousand Lakes in 2008. They're just that crazy (Cindy Sheehan might do well there). On the other hand, this whole brouhaha again underlines the power of the blogosphere: without the internet and the new media, this would have been a non-story and Ellison would have gotten away with peddling this drivel. Instead, he sort of apologizes. If only we could get a real apology out of him.

This Actually Infuriates Me

Ted Rall is a vile human being; that, I think, is widely accepted. Except now he's managed to hit a new low. As NewsBusters so succintly puts it, "[i]n one fell swoop, Rall has offended our military, their families, religion, patriotism, our educational system, our president, and our very way of life." He has also just proven every stereotype about the left. Oh and he continues to push the discredit "poverty causes terror" meme.

(h/t LGF)

UPDATE: Apparently Rall has a blog of his own, and its bile-flecked and venom-filled response to those who can't believe his assault on our troops is here. For those with strong stomachs, it's almost worth reading.

Keith Ellison, 9/11, the US Government...

He's not saying 9/11 was a government plot, he's just saying that if you say that they call you crazy...

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

I was uncomfortable with Ellison as soon as he was elected not because he was a Muslim but because he's a member of the Nation of Islam. Now this. I'm hoping Minnesotans get their stupid "dontcha know" grins off their faces before next fall and elect someone slightly less crazy.

Oh, and he said all of this in front of a receptive bunch of atheists looking to rebuild the reputation of atheists. They think this helps?

(h/t LGF)

McGovern Weighs In

And Mr. "Come Home America" doesn't know if an anti-war Democrat can win. Check it out.

This is Getting Absurd...

I've remarked previously that the Democratic Party isn't so much a party as a disparate group of interest groups that can hardly tolerate one another and are often willing to subvert the party's interests to those of their particular group. And because of their 'party' composition, Democratic presidential candidates have been pandering away. There was a forum discussing Spanish issues in Miami. There was supposed to be a debate co-sponsored by the CBC and focused on black issues - except that the nutroots couldn't stand Fox asking real questions. And now there's going to be a gay debate.

I find it bizarre to think that there's enough issues to keep them pandering away: aren't blacks, Hispanics and gays all concerned about jobs, national security, etc.? I also think these debates might be counterproductive for Democrats: if they don't sufficiently pander to the "concerns" of the interest group in question, the activists get pissed; if they actually say anything of substance, Republicans may have material for attack ads. Pretty absurd.

Cindy Sheehan (again)

More on crazy "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan's threat to run against "San Fran Nan" Pelosi. What's unclear, as far as I can tell, is whether Sheehan will run as a Democrat or a third-party candidate; I'm hoping it's the latter, which may be the more likely given the fact that she's publicly quit the Democratic Party. If so, she doesn't have to worry about winning a primary, and can run against Pelosi from now until next November.

I don't have a horse in this race (honestly I'd sell San Francisco to Canada or any other willing buyer for a buck fifty), but I hope Sheehan can run a quasi-credible campaign. If so, she might succeed in keeping Pelosi at home, rather than campaigning for Democrats across the country. It might also (if sufficiently threatening) cause the DNC and DCCC to pour resources into the district, resources that might otherwise be directed against Republicans. If Sheehan actually does have a shot, I wonder: will anti-war ultra-Leftists (Maxine Waters, Kucinich, et. al) who have publicly clashed with Pelosi endorse Sheehan? This could be a lot of fun.