What's Up in Georgia?

No, not the drought-stricken US state where Governor Sonny Perdue (a name only a Georgian could elect) led state leaders in a prayer for rain. The former Soviet Republic whose so-called Rose Revolution in 2003 was supposed to be a harbinger of better times for the country and the region, is suddenly looking like it's business as usual.

Specifically, President Mikheil Saakashvili (whose name I spell from memory having written a paper on Georgian democratization), appears to be little better than the former Soviet appartchnik Eduarde Shevardnadze he replaced. The Times tries to make him out to be a Caucasian Putin, but the jury's still out - either way, it's a corner of the world the United States would be wise to pay close attention to.

Bonds Charged with Perjury

The Home Run King* has finally gotten his comeuppance - indicted by a federal grand jury in San Francisco on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice; ESPN's got the story here.

Oh and while we're at it, the NFL reinstated, and the Miami Dolphins welcomed back, disgraced running back Ricky Williams. His antics will give at least some reason to watch the Fins for the rest of the season...right?

Fred Slams Mitt

Or tries to at least in an email to supporters - Grandpa can't exactly throw punches. He's succeeded, though, in hitting the former Mass governor as both a big government liberal and a pro-choicer; for a campaign that's shown little sign of life, it's a step in the right direction (and builds on whatever momentum the endorsement earlier this week carried). I've copied the email below...

Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for?

Today, November 15^th, Massachusetts residents who fail to register with the government and show proof of health care coverage will be slapped with a tax penalty for this year!

For individuals, the amount will be on average $219 this year and they will receive a punitive fine as much as $2,000 over the next year.¹

Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan!²

So what sort of services does Romney's health care pl an provide?

Per the state website:

$50 co-pay for abortions³

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans⁴, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions.⁵

After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50.⁶

Romney has tried to distance himself from his Hillarycare-type plan,⁷ but you can watch the video where he takes full credit. There's nothing conservative about Mitt Romney's health care plan. It's a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand.

Contrast this with Fred:

• 100% pro-life voting record.
• Has said repeatedly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
• Opposes embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

Tuesday, The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred. NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization representing over 3,000 local chapters in all 50 states.

Help support the true conservative.

https://www.fred08.com/Contribute.aspx

Thanks for your support,

Todd Harris
Communications Director
Friends of Fred Thompson

The New Threats Watch

Unbeknownst to me (apparently unbenknownst is unbeknownst to blogger's spell-check), Threats Watch has undergone a major face lift; I only noticed when Blackfive made note of it. Check it out, lots of good stuff there. It's also been added to resources waaay down on the right sidebar.

Favorite Article of the Day (yesterday)

Apparently Democrats are a whopping 0 for 40 on votes pertaining to surrendering in Iraq; the one that passed both chambers was vetoed and the override failed. The growing consensus seems to be that Democrats have waited too long and been too impotent and that the surge's success in recent months has cut the ground out from under them.

There's a scene in the second season of West Wing wherein Communications Director Toby Ziegler berates a Knick for going 1 for 27 from the field, noting that "that's one better than my grandmother could do. And she's dead."

DKos to be in Newsweek

Newsweek has apparently decided that its readership isn't satisfied with their in-house leftish nonsense; no they want more. Thus they've contracted with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Kos of DailyKos, to be among their 2008 correspondents. They've promised to find an equally obnoxious right-winger; my first thought is "what's David Duke up to?"

For his part, Ed Morrisey - far more fair-minded than I - views this as a fundamentally good thing for the blogosphere.

I also think, David Duke comments aside, that it'll be hard to find a right wing equivalent to Kos; as a whole, the left wing blogosphere is far angrier and more obscene; they lack the measured voices of a Captain Ed or a Glenn Reynolds (don't believe me? Take a look at firedoglake).

DiFi versus Her Own Party

I've come to have a rather grudging respect for Dianne Feinstein in recent weeks and months; especially on judicial issues, California's senior senator has had the chutzpah to do whats right and stand up to the rabid among her party (who am I kidding? They're all rabid). This was especially evident on two votes - to get Leslie Southwick (confirmed by the Senate on 10/24) out of committee and to get AG Mukasey out committee - for which she was widely reviled.

Now she may get a slap on the wrist from the California Democratic Party for her...you know...doing what the Constitution says she's supposed to do; a bunch of Left Coast "progressive" organizations are seeking her censure at this weekend's party executive meeting. The story's here, though it's from Huff Po so be warned.

Huckabee Surprises

So it's no secret that I'm somewhat fond of Mike Huckabee - I like him as a human being, which is more than I can say about most other presidential candidates (and politicians in general), but I find him weak or poorly-informed on many crucial issues (especially foreign policy) and disturbingly populist on the economic front.

Therefore it's with mixed feelings that I report this latest CBS/New York Times poll, which has Huckabee at 21% in Iowa - only 6 points behind field leader Mitt Romney. Of course he's only really seeing progress in Iowa; the same poll found him polling at 6% (behind Crazy Uncle Ron) in the Granite State.

All of this may be irrelevant, yet for the same reason raises some interesting points about modern campaigning: $$$. Huckabee's basically broke, whereas Romney's spent a fortune in Iowa - and the two are only separated by six. But that's Iowa, and he's unlikely to translate even a strong second-place finish there into success elsewhere unless he collects a lot of checks in the interim.

While we're at it, the same poll also shows the widely accepted Democratic dead heat in Iowa - Clinton 25%, Obama 22%, Edwards 23%. It doesn't seem as if Iowa voters are bothered by her issues in recent weeks (even though some, like the planted questions mini-scandal, have occured in their backyard), but if on Thursday night in Las Vegas she turns in a debate performance like that in Philly, well that may begin to change.

Spanish King Slaps Down Chavez

Monarchy certainly still has its uses - as when King Juan Carlos of Spain, at a summit in Chile, told Venezuelan Idiot-in-Chief Hugo Chavez to shut up. It's not like Chavez didn't have it coming - he publicly denounced former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, then going on to claim that fascists are (to borrow a term from one) untermensch, and that snakes have more in common with humans than fascists. Cute - and this bastard is idolized by the American Left.

Of course Chavez, el macho man that he is, can't take his very public shaming quietly; instead he's lashed out at the King, claiming that his majesty had advanced knowledge of the anti-Chavez coup of 2002. If the king knew, he's got a perfect chance to call out Chavez for the authoritarian thug he is; he should say nothing less than "Yes, I knew; and given your actions since then - a tyrannical, authoritarian thug who is willingly undermining his nation's future - I wish it had succeeded."

New Democratic House Strategy

Huh. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen and the rest of the crowd at the D-Trip have come up with an interesting new strategy for disbursing their financial resources: among Democratic incumbents, only spend in those districts where the NRCC is spending.

It's smart: they're playing a lot of offense next year, and unless incumbents are in deep trouble, they can take care of themselves. Given the enormous cash disparity between the two parties, Republicans won't be targeting many incumbent Democrats anyways. For those Dems who are already flush with cash and in conservative districts, not having the national party visible in their district may allow them to further themselves from their egregiously unpopular national party.

This is also emblematic of the way in which the Democratic Party's pulling ahead of the GOP on the ground - the money helps of course, and they still haven't beaten the Republican Party's infamous "72 Hour Plan" GOTV operation, but they're learning. Thankfully, the national environment in 08 is unlikely to be anywhere near as poisonous to Republicans as it was in 06.

Churchill and the Jews

"Churchill and the Jews" is the entirely un-PC title of a good-looking book by Martin Gilbert, reviewed on today's Opinion Journal; it opens with a Churchill quote I'd never heard before: "Why should we Anglo-Saxons apologize for being superior? We are superior."

Which brought to mind perhaps the most absurd comment of the week, that by Columbia U professor George Saliba: "All modern discoveries are by Muslims scientists." I'll leave you to ponder that one.

Top 100 Conservatives and Liberals

The UK's Telegraph has compiled their list of the top 100 liberals and conservatives in America, based on well...I'm not entirely sure what. They defend from the outset Bush's exclusion from the top 20 on the conservative side. I'm not sure their defense is so necessary - he's not exactly well-loved by anyone these days. I'll just make a few observations.
Conservatives:
- I've got problems with many if not most of their top 20 - Giuliani at #1? Really? While it's somewhat vindicated by Robertson's endorsement, I doubt they weren't being prescient.
- Petraeus at #2 and Gates at #7 are especially eyebrow-raising. Gates more so than Petraeus.
- Drudge at #4? He's still got clout, but his glory days are over - he was the front edge of the wave, and now we're inundated.
- Andrew Sullivan? Drew Carey?
- What's their thing with Giuliani and his coterie?
- Rove is absurdly low at #42...he may be out but he ain't that down
- PJ O'Rourke above Scalia and Jindal?
- Chuck Norris?!
- O'Reilly at #82 is absurd

Liberals:
- I'm just amused that Mark Penn is ranked above Her Majesty
- Bayh at #11? In what world?
- Kos at #12? Thanks for handing the party over to the crazies, Telegraph!
- Edwards (Elizabeth) over Edwards (John)...
- Howard Dean at #84? Below Sorkin, Streisand, Colbert, some rank and file Reps...
- (unless I missed him) no Charlie Rangel? The man's going to try and rewrite the tax code - he's a pretty important liberal right now...

Wow this is a discombobulated post.

[ed: I meant to blog on this a few days ago...whoops]

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

The 5th of November, known in England as Guy Fawkes Day, may become known in the US as the Ron Paul Crazies day: if you missed it, on Monday Ron Paul hauled in some $4.2 million, a single day record for a US politician. Hooray for a few thousand weirdos in their parents basements with internet connections and credit cards; the charges will probably be bookended by subscriptions to internet porn and Dungeons & Dragons memorabilia. To be fair, it was 35,000 basement-dwelling troglodytes...I can't wait for this particular pile of FEC data to be released.

The Politico story linked to above is titled "Ron Paul Gets Relevant in a Hurry" - I think that's a a dramatic overstatement - while he will be able to afford plenty of airtime in Iowa and New Hampshire, it doesn't matter if you don't have supporters in-state. Those 35,000 donors are likely scattered across the country, without any real geographic focus - and even if they are, some 65,000 votes were cast in New Hampshire's open primary in 2004 (open meaning voters can select either ballot).

The whole Guy Fawkes tribute thing sort of creeps me out - and brings to mind this YouTube video, which was the first I'd heard of their November 5th plot (for what it's worth, they fell far short of their 100,000 donor goal there).

Given that I'm two days late on this, I'll just link to some more coverage and analysis:
Hot Air
A Politico piece on Trevor Lyman, the man behind Ron Paul
Captain's Quarters
More to come, perhaps? Again, no Republican Party tag for Crazy Uncle Ron.

Yowza

When Sam Brownback dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, there was some chatter that perhaps he'd endorse Rudy Giuliani, thus giving him some badly-needed credibility among social conservatives. Well, Brownback will endorse McCain this afternoon.

Rudy, for his part, has gone one better: he'll be endorsed by religious leader Pat Robertson. For a candidate whose always been criticized for being too liberal on the social issues, this is a huge leg up, and comes in the wake of Romney's endorsement by Paul Weyrich, one of the major players in the founding days of the Religious Right. Romney, I think, has gotten more major endorsements from the leading social conservatives than either Giuliani or McCain, but I also think Giuliani's got the momentum overall.

I do think, however, that Fred Thompson has been left standing at the door by the Religious Right. I for one think that it's too late for him; he should close up shop and go back to Law & Order.

Also hurt by these endorsements is Mike Huckabee; he was the natural for the support of men like Robertson and Brownback, and their shunning him basically dooms him to the second tier.

2007 Weblogs Awards

It's that time of year again - [I didn't blog on it last year] - the 2007 Weblogs Awards. Several of my favorites are up, and you can vote every 24 hours - so what are you waiting for? My personal nominees:
Best Blog: Captain's Quarters
Best Individual Blogger: Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)
Best Comic Strip: Day by Day
Best Online Community: Little Green Footballs
Best Conservative Blog: Captain's Quarters
Best Political Coverage: Real Clear Politics
Best Military Blog: Michael Yon OR Blackfive - I'm torn
Best Podcast: The Glenn and Helen Show

Oh and browse the other categories - there's some cool stuff...

VoteGopher.Com

I generally distrust Facebook as a source of political anything, but I got invited to a group today for something called VoteGopher (founded, like Facebook itself, by an ambitious Haavaad undergrad). Apparently the premise of VoteGopher.com is that the site does issue research (on some 18 topics) allowing people to compare candidates; others have tried it before, but this looks like it might be a valuable resource in part because it harnesses the power of the Internet to provide both candidate overviews on a given issue but also videos, quotes, and news stories. God I love the internet.

The effort also gets some love from the Times (perhaps undermining its hoped-for impartiality) here.


Until I decide whether or not it's a biased hack job, I'll add it to my sidebar...

Pity the Fools?

I'm not going to describe them as thankless jobs, but both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi find themselves in uncomfortable spots. Their approval numbers make the president look like Bono (or at least Britney), Bush has rediscovered Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution (vetoes), and then there's the party itself. In the first episode of The West Wing, a leader of the Religious Right tells Chief of Staff Leo McGarry "Every group has plenty of demons" to which Leo replies "You don't have to tell me about it, Reverend. I'm a member of the Democratic Party."

Pelosi and Reid would only succeed in shutting up their foaming at the mouth base if they withdrew from Iraq yesterday, impeached (and probably lynched - or at least sent to the ICC) just about anyone who's ever stepped foot in the White House, and nationalized the means of production - to say nothing of locking up Rush Limbaugh and effectively rendering the homeland vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Given that they can't do any of that, the leadership is deadlocked. Congressional Republicans, for their part, have maintained the discipline that was a hallmark of the Tom Delay era. They've also taken a page from the Democratic playbook and are using what they can to hold up Democratic legislation and force votes on matters that Pelosi and Reid would rather push under the rug (the condemnations of MoveOn.org, for example). Thus Congress goes nowhere and Democrats find themselves beset on every side.

I don't pity them, I just laugh mercilessly. Politico's got a piece on this whole impasse here.

Who's Conservative and What That Means

About ten days ago, David Brooks wrote a column in the Times about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. That piece precipitated a veritable deluge (just to provide a small sample: 1, 2, 3, and the best-titled of the pack, William Jennings Huckabee) of Huckabee pieces, first just taking notice and then moving to criticisms and defenses and arguably culminating in a column by the candidate himself (and likely literally himself as he's been known to eschew speech-writers).

The arc of the debate basically went like this: who the hell is Mike Huckabee? He's a social conservative, claimed many of the earliest writers. Then came John Fund's piece (I believe the third of those above), with its devastating quote from the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The criticisms are of two varities: Huckabee as a false social conservative (I don't buy it) and Huckabee as simply not a fiscal conservative. The latter concern has become sufficiently grave in some circles that there's a story on Politico today in which fiscal conservatives are concerned about the prospect of him becoming the vice presidential nominee. Concern about his fiscal conservatism are based not only on pieces like William Jennings Huckabee (mentioned above) but also in his campaign rhetoric. The Politico piece suggests that the opposition is motivated by Huckabee's being "anti-greed" (so he's not Gordon Gecko I suppose), but it speaks to a larger issue: Huckabee is an economic populist.

I'm no fan of populism (in fact it invariably brings to mind a fantastic quote from the first season of HBO's Rome, uttered by Cicero "What a dreadful noise plebes make when they are happy"), especially from a Republican presidential candidate. But in a VP nominee, it's not entirely illogical - in fact it might help counteract the populism that Hillary will invariably spout. Whether or not Grover Norquist et al. can derail Huckabee's bid for the spot remains to be seen. Either way, it's interesting to see this debate, and interesting to see Huckabee's conservative credentials criticized.

On the other side of the equation is an op-ed in today's WaPo by David Greenberg slamming Giuliani (from the left) for being a conservative. He rightly argues that the perception of Giuliani as a liberal is based on his stances on guns, gays, and abortion (though he erroneously argues that Giuliani only moderately strays from Republican orthodoxy on those three). His argument for Giuliani-as-conservative is summed up in the following two passages:

On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
...
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
...
They include state support of religion; the legitimacy of dissenting speech; the president's right to keep information secret; the place of fair procedures in dispensing justice.

First off, since when is being pro-law enforcement a conservative trait? Is that to say, Professor Greenberg, that Democrats are pro-anarchy? Not that I'd disagree with that claim...
But what are his claims for Giuliani trying to crush liberalism? His attack on the Brooklyn Museum of Art, with its exhibition featuring the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung as an assault on free speech; all Giuliani really did was try and withhold funds from the museum, a move that only in New York (and San Francisco) could be criticized. It also brings up the larger argument about whether or not the state should be subsidizing art or whether that should be left to the private sector.

I'm not disputing many of his positions as conservative (in fact I embrace them), but Greenberg's being a typically liberal melodramatic about these; I'm glad, though, that he's disputing the conventional wisdom of Giuliani's liberalism and making him more palatable to the Republican party.

But it speaks to the state of the Republican race when a conservative can be attacked as liberal and a "liberal" as conservative. It's still a long road to Minneapolis next summer.

Tom Tancred Out

Of the House at least - he's still running for "president." Some presidential candidates are actually running for Vice President (Huckabee); I wouldn't actually say Tancredo's that ambitious. He's more running for head of the Border Patrol than anything else.

Of course the media will likely play this as part of that big bad wave of GOP retirements. There's a certain wisdom in that, but I don't think most pundits have yet realized that 2008's environment may bear little resemblance to that of 2006. Some of the open seats will flip because they're not Republican strongholds but Tancredo's, the Colorado 7th, won't. Bush won the district with 60% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004, and Tancredo's won comfortably for years (67% in 2002, 59% in 2004, 60% in 2006). This is a bright red district in a purplish state.

Ron Paul and the Troofers

I, along with the rest of the conservative blogosphere, applauded the other night when former President Clinton smacked down a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Minnesota.

Which only sharpens the contrast and underlines the importance of the following question: why in God's name did Ron Paul pay the leader of these paranoid idiots $1,300 for "services?
What exactly are these services? Promoting him to his fellow black helicopter/Trilateral Commission believers? The Paul campaign's increasingly got questions to answer - hate groups, conspiracy theorists, and Islamists have all jumped into his camp. It's an unsavory swamp inhabited by many of the most disreputable elements of American society yet Dr. Paul has yet to publicly denounce many of them...indeed he may be embracing them. (h/t Captain's Quarters).

For the record, I'll no longer tag Ron Paul-related posts as "Republican Party." He's too far off the reservation to merit that anymore.