A Stunner in Georgia

You probably had never even heard of Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA); never knew he died either, I suspect. But now his replacement has been chosen by a special election, and it's not who anyone expected. There are some interesting lessons from the race, namely don't get sloppy!

Welcome to Washington, Mr. Broun.

[Georgia's delegation having four doctors is like Louisiana's having two Rhodes Scholars - entirely unexpected]

Duke's iPhone Headaches?

Apparently iPhones can kill wireless networks - or at least that's what it's doing to Duke's. A tech-heavy article here (h/t Instapundit) or a more layman-friendly article here. The latter notes a real concern, that we're seeing this problem with only 100-150 phones on campus right now - next month with everyone back, things could get absurdly overwhelmed. I won't even comment on the absurdity of as many as 150 iPhones (retailing at $499-$599 a pop) already being on campus in the midst of summer school.

Clearly Apple didn't think through all of the issues its little baby could cause; hopefully they'll continue their commitment to service and help defray the costs (perhaps not at Duke, but if it overwhelms municipal wireless services for example).

Hyperbolic Harry and Other Fun

I missed Majority Leader Harry Reid's absurd comments on the Democratic Senate blog yesterday, but Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House didn't - and now Harry's hearing about it. Check it out. Oh and Carl Levin rightfully gets an earful as well.

I'm reading this after watching Band of Brothers last night, specifically the episode where Easy Company is ordered to Bastogne with limited ammo, no winter clothing, etc.; would Harry have cried about them lacking the proper equipment? Probably, if he could have scored political points in doing so.

Bill Richardson: In a Hurry to Surrender

Bill Richardson's got a new ad out, calling for a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. On the one hand I have to give Richardson credit for being honest: while many of his competitors might agree with him, few have been so bold as to say it.

But it pains me to see him say this as well. Of all the Democratic candidates, Richardson has perhaps the most experience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. For him to be so misguided, as well as misusing his experience and talents, is a real waste.

Just How Far Outside the Mainstream Are the Democrats?

And I'm not saying this without reason either! Planned Parenthood's annual conference was held yesterday, and the usual Democratic dog and pony show ensued. All of the candidates no doubt overflowed with enthusiasm for "choice" and a world with on-demand abortions (without widely-supported provisions such as parental notification). This of course provides plenty of space for them to say something stupid and show how much they agree with the abortion absolutists - and thus are out of step with the majority of Americans. Both Obama and Edwards (or at least his wife acting in his stead) proclaimed their support for federally-funded abortions, something that may be back this year if Congress succeeds in passing the relevant appropriations bill. Obama went the extra mile and said that kindergartners should have sex-ed class. Yowza. Never mind that sex-ed seems unnecessary at a time when kids think the opposite sex has cooties.

There's a lot to be made of all of this. First of all, it can be (and often is) argued that it is their stance on abortion that drives people of faith away from the Democratic Party; their support for abortion also makes statements of faith by the Democratic front-runners ring rather hollow to many voters. Second of all, in their absolutist approaches to abortion (bemoaning, for example, the Supreme Court's outlawing of partial birth abortions, a procedure opposed by the majority of Americans), they cater to a rather fringe element that thus succeeds in alienating many other voters. Further in bemoaning judicial restrictions on abortion - and promising to appoint justices who would do away with such restrictions - they are effectively admitting this isn't popular (because if it was, it could be passed like normal legislation). Indeed it's their support for partial-birth abortion that renders me incredulous, and I am by no means an uncompromising pro-life advocate. The procedure is barbaric, and according to doctors, alternative practices are available (but what do they know); Democrats argue otherwise.

So when November comes around and Democrats can't figure out why they lost the White House again (which I still think is the more likely outcome), they should think back to days like today. And realize that until they stop catering to their extremist base (or at least do so behind closed doors), they only alienate mainstream America.

An Unsung Hero Passes

Blackfive notes and mourns the passing of General Wayne Downing, Special Forces soldier extraordinaire - and a soldier's soldier.

More Congressional Harassment

Veterans for Freedom, a group that understands that the blood of Americans spread in Iraq cannot be in vain, is launching a push of their own to give our troops the opportunity to win. Check out their ten-week plan here. If you're a veteran, I'd urge you to get involved; they're doing great work and they rightly note that their strength is their numbers. And again, feel free to give a piece of your mind to your Senators, especially if they're spineless cretins like Reid (apologies to honest invertebrates everywhere).

The Senate Votes

Of course referring back to my previous post on the consequences of our withdrawal, that day may not be coming as soon as the fools on the (Capitol) hill might wish. The Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment went down in defeat today, with 52 voting for cloture (and thus seeking to raise the white flag) and forty-seven showing some evidence of spine. The yeas and nays are below (or here); if your Senator refused to second-guess Petraeus, call him or her and give your thanks; otherwise call and give them a piece of your mind (Invertebrate Republicans in bold). Find their contact info here (phone and email).

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)	Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1

Johnson (D-SD)

[Oh and for the record, Surrender Harry had no change of heart - unsure whether he's got one - instead, he voted against it on procedural grounds.]
UPDATE: As someone commented, I forgot Hagel the first time through; Freudian slip?

The Consequences of Quitting Iraq

A stark statement of the facts: we can't flee and let utopian idealism convince us that everything will turn out for the better. We did that in Southeast Asia and two million Cambodians are dead.

From (of all places!) the Boston Globe!

Catholicism Returns to Its Roots

In a move much reported (and much maligned), Benedict XVI has announced that Catholic priests can celebrate the traditional Tridentine Mass in its original Latin if they so desire; previously bishops had to approve before priests could do so. Sadly, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has drowned out any reasonable commentary on the matter, which I finally found here. Arroyo makes several good points, most notably that it speaks to the church's international character; Benedict cited this as one of his motives. It also serves to reconnect Catholicism to its history which though filled with darker periods (most notably the Inquisition) also served as the foundation of Western Civilization for centuries.

I was also amused to note that the most vehement opposition to the move came from clergy in Western Europe. While they bemoan the return of traditionalism, their flocks are disappearing; if the pews are empty, what does the language matter? Indeed perhaps a Catholicism showing a little bit of spine and tradition, in the process rejecting the relativism that has become the norm in Europe, might actually draw people back.

On a practical note, I feel that having Latin masses more widely celebrated might spur some form of Latin revival in schools; no doubt the youth of the world would benefit from that.

I should also note that I'm not a Catholic; nor have I had the opportunity to sound out many of my Catholic friends on the matter. But given that they run from the most extreme cafeteria-variety to (I kid you not) members of Opus Dei, I'll be interested to hear reactions.

A Truly Great Historian

"Historians" such as the peerlessly awful Howard Zinn are the darlings of the intelligentsia, which is in itself tragic. But what's equally tragic is that truly brilliant (and right-minded) scholars such as Gertrude Himmelfarb are thus overlooked or ignored. Her brilliance is on display in a review of Michael Barone's latest book, which itself looks appealing. Most notable is her second paragraph, a call to arms which should be heeded:

In academia today, narrative history is as unfashionable as Macaulay himself. It is said to "privilege" political events over the social and economic forces that truly drive history, and, worse still, to privilege the individuals and elites that happen to dominate politics over the "anonymous" masses that are, or should be, the proper subjects of history--"history from below," as is said. The public has no such qualms. The histories that grace the bestseller lists are, for the most part, narratives, written by nonacademics and a few dissident academics. Barone's book is unashamedly and unapologetically in this genre. It is a detailed chronological narrative of the events (political, diplomatic, military) and the individuals
(high-born and high-powered) that contributed to the English Revolution --a tale well told.

Oh and as I said, she also makes Barone's book sound eminently worthwhile!

[Just for amusement's sake, I'll note that Himmelfarb is the wife of Irving Kristol - and thus the mother of the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol.]

Priceless Political Cartoonage

Don't know what kinds of copyrights I'm breaking by posting this, but enjoy. Original is here.

Yon on Strykers

Michael Yon has another worthwhile piece, though this one is substantially different from some of his other dispatches to which I've linked in the past. He continues to cover what most of the media ignores, but instead of terror or barbarism, it's something more mundane to troops on the ground: their Stryker combat vehicle. Recently introduced, the Stryker was plagued by criticisms during its development and its baptisms by fire. The story Yon tells is fundamentally different: whatever bean counters and pundits may think, troops love the Stryker and it returns the love, getting them home alive despite situations which seem unsurvivable. On a personal note, last fall I spoke to an officer who served with the first Stryker brigade in Iraq (and who will be returning to command them in his third tour). When I queried him, based on those criticisms I'd heard in the media, his response was largely similar to what the troops told Yon. He loved the things.

I also think I overstated Yon's feelings towards the media in an earlier post. The more of his dispatches I read, the more I realize the depth of his ambivalence. I think he's got a love/hate relationship with both embedded reporters and everyone stateside because although they often surprise him with the fairness of their coverage (a topic he touches on in a Glenn & Helen podcast from March), at other times their willful ignorance seem to anger him (as when no one really picked up the massacre he reported). It's all part of the complexity that makes him one of the best (if not the best) people reporting from Iraq.

Dennis Miller Destroys Harry Reid

So I generally despise Fox's "Half-Hour News Hour" - it's a poor imitation of the Daily Show and Colbert report which succeeds in being many things - glib, self-satisfied, shallow, pathetic - without ever nearing funny. That being said, Dennis Miller destroyed Harry Reid there recently, and I felt it was worth sharing.Oh and note to the "Half-Hour News Hour" folks: you may think you're necessitated by the evil liberalism of Colbert and Stewart. But if they're so evilly liberal, why has Rahm Emanuel attempted to keep all of his Democratic reps from appearing on those shows? Is it perhaps because they're equal opportunity evil? Therein lies the beauty.

More Orwellianism

I've become increasingly suspicious of Democratic usage of words like "choice" and "fairness." Time to add "responsible" to the list. As in the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq" act that the House passed on Friday. Why include it? Because there's no such thing as a responsible redeployment. And if they were to be linguistically honest, it'd be called either the Iraq Retreat act or the Iraq Surrender act.

Who Does Bloomberg Hurt?

No answers of course, just more fuel for the fire: a poll has Hillary winning Ohio with a 40% plurality if it's her, Giuliani, and Bloomberg. What's significant is that it's Ohio, one of those infamous "swing states." But I still have a feeling that should Giuliani win, he puts some traditionally blue states (Illinois, California, New York) in play, making Ohio more or less irrelevant.

Also: can anyone think of a state other than Virginia that has been so much a center of national politics? And that was in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.

The Other Senator in Hot Water

While McCain's campaign meltdown continues apace, David Vitter (R-LA) also finds himself in trouble. In bed. Oops. His number appeared on those call logs recently released by a DC madam. On top of that, the proprietor of the House of the Rising Sun (or a similar establishment) also acknowledged that the Senator had frequented the place before he was elected in 2004. There were also apparently rumors back when he briefly sought the governor's mansion in 2003. For a party that's wallowing in scandal, I have to give Vitter credit for differentiating himself from the rest of the pack.

But the pressing question is whether or not he can survive. I originally thought so, based solely on the sordid nature of Louisiana politics; a friend of mine who's an astute observer of her home state's politics and an article in the Times-Picayune backed that up. But a more scientific argument for survival comes from Chris Cilizza:

First, he is not up for reelection until 2010. That means he has roughly two-and-a-half years to rehab his image before he has to face voters. Three years is a long time in politics, and while the issue seems like a silver bullet for Democrats (or a possible GOP challenger) now, it might not be so potent down the road.

Second, Louisiana is a state not unfamiliar with political scandal. The most prominent example was four-term Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), whose campaign slogan in his 1991 reelection race against former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke (R) was "Vote for the Crook, It's Important." Edwards won that race, only now he is incarcerated after being convicted in a racketeering case.

The sheer number of Louisiana politicians who have come under investigation from either state or federal authorities has, frankly, numbed the state's voters to scandal. A story like this could be absolutely devastating to Vitter in a notorious good government state like Wisconsin or Minnesota; in Louisiana, it might well pass for standard fare.

Third, the Louisiana Democratic Party is in dire straits. Their strongest candidate for governor this year -- state Sen. Walter Boasso -- was a Republican until a few months ago. Vitter's 2004 victory, coupled with Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's (D) struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, have created a power vacuum. Old hands like Breaux seem inclined to stay out of the fray as evidenced by his decision not to run for governor after Blanco stepped aside. A fresh face like former Rep. Chris John saw his image badly tarnished by the less-than-stellar Senate campaign he ran against Vitter in 2004. As the old saying goes, you don't beat something with nothing.

I especially like "Vote the Crook, It's Important." Every time I think Chicago has a lock on the depths of corruption (running a drug ring out of the city water plant, anyone?), something in Louisiana robs me of that delusion. With luck, Vitter will survive. If not, Cilizza's right: can the Democratic Party really get rid of him?

Cry Me a River

From Western Resistance: a wannabe terrorist imprisoned in Britain is attacked and "scarred for life" and now seeks "differential treatment" because he's "subjected to differential treatment within the prison system." Well it's not every prisoner who's interested in setting off a dirty bomb in the US, so yes he's different. No word on the identity (or race) of the attacker, though I suspect it would be something like a white supremacist. In countries without the death penalty (the UK among many others), I've wondered whether terrorists who would otherwise merit the needle shouldn't simply be imprisoned alongside neo-Nazis and others who might want him dead. Not our fault, right?

Brown's Got it Right

British PM Gordon Brown often says things related to terrorism and Iraq that I don't agree with. But this time, he's right: Britain would be targeted by al Qaeda regardless of the war in Iraq.

As for the continuing presence of UK troops in-country, the PM also wisely rejects any "artificial" timetables. Again, bravo. Churchill once characterized Britain's policy on the frontier as "butcher and bolt;" today many in Britain would prefer the second part only (and I don't want butcher, just pacify).

Britain Stirs

Many people I've talked to (I hesitate to say experts, because that assumes previous examples) about the seemingly unstoppable collapse of Europe have said that any reaction will not begin with the government but with the common people.

Apparently that's happening in Britain, where as the BBC reports more than 255,000 people have signed a petition on 10 Downing Street's website stating their opposition to the mega-mosque planned for East London. This is the same mosque that will overshadow the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in 2012. Some officials quoted in the article are engaged in the usual games, claiming that it's "only" going to cost some 75 million pounds - not the 100 million that critics claim, rather than answering real questions about the project. And of course London's Red Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is on the side of the Muslims. The BBC also mentions the group behind the project, Tablighi Jamaat, without ever mentioning its ties to terrorist groups and the fact that some jihadis captured in Afghanistan were recruited by them. Typical.

The petition itself can be found here, though only British citizens can sign (and if you are and you haven't, I urge you to do so). Ironically, the petition's text calls for more money to be spent on the NHS. So let's not go forward with a development that will provide a meeting place for terrorists, but let's just import more from Pakistan!

But hey, it's a start.