More Polls!

I've seen this causing some chatter, so I might as well mention it: Rasmussen's latest weekly numbers have Thompson in front of Giuliani (and at the head of the pack) 26%-22%; Romney and McCain occupy a sort of netherworld they describe as "a precarious niche somewhere between the frontrunners and the also-rans."

There's always an additional note with Rasmussen. At the bottom of the page, Scott R trumpets his success record over the last two cycles. His polls, however, use "automated technology" and thus are generally distrusted by many within the beltway; at the NRSC during my tenure there, his results were always treated suspiciously.

Obama Showing Signs of Life?

After a long while as merely one of the also-rans in Iowa, a new poll (only the second?) shows Obama in first in the Iowa caucuses. The poll has Clinton in first (31%) over Obama (25%) and Edwards (25%) among all Iowa Democrats. But when only "likely caucus-goers" (aka those crazy enough to go sit in a church basement and fight about this in January) are surveyed, Obama ekes out a narrow win over HRC and Edwards (28%-24%-22%). Politico's Ben Smith has a nice brief analysis on this here, including discussing the intricacies of that "likely caucus-goers" filter.

Newsweek also had this interesting caveat to temper any renewed sense of Obamamentum: "the poll suggests that Clinton’s supporters may be the strongest of the pack. A majority of her boosters (55 percent) say their support is “strong,” edging Obama (41 percent) and Edwards (37 percent)."

That being said, it'll be intriguing to see how the Clinton team plays the expectations game down the home stretch. Unless she's opened a commanding lead, the caucuses can still produce funny outcomes - and despite what this poll's strength of support numbers suggest, I've always believed that Edwards has a pretty strong core of supporters there. I love election season!

Murtha Ordered to Testify

So Jack Murtha, Pennsylvania's resident jerk (I'd like to use a more interesting term, but decency prevents me from doing so) may finally have to eat his words: the Congressman had previously accused Marines in Haditha of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" and is now being called to testify in a defamation case filed by a Marine involved in the case.

Politico's John Bresnahan editorializes extensively at the end of the post, and brings up some potentially relevant questions, but I hold out hope that Murtha will be burned by this case in some way.

This is an impressive post: two paragraphs, two sentences.

Cubs Win, Cubs Win!

For the first time since 2003, when Bartman infamously ended their pennant dreams, the Cubs are going into October.


This is good news for suffering Cubs fans everywhere, but also for the management. It justifies their off-season spending spree ($300 million); not only because they won, of course, but because the enormously expensive Soriano played a crucial role, as did Zambrano. The latter reminded us how good he can be last night, so long as he keeps his emotions in check.

So here's to hoping that we can finally break the curse...and hey, if the Cubs keep it up, we might not have to focus on the suffering Bears!

CQ's First House Race Listing

The fine folks at Congressional Quarterly have put together their first list of 78 potentially competitive House races for next year; I'll take a look at some of them (and hopefully remember to link to their regional analysis in the future...

First Thoughts.
Republican Held, No Clear Favorite
- NC-8: No one saw Robin Hayes' near-defeat coming, but that was 2006, this is 2008. He's won pretty comfortably in the past, and there's no promise that having failed to deliver a knockout blow last year, Democrats can do so this year. That being said, the D Trip paid exactly zero attention to this race, and with their tender concern, Hayes may be in serious trouble. It'll be fun to watch.
- OH-15: There are an obscene number of Ohio races on this list, but while last year was a bloodbath for the Ohio GOP (as it was for their Pennsylvania brethren), this year may not be as bad. However, a lot will come down to the presidential election - if the Republican carries the Buckeye state, most embattled Republican incumbents hold on; if Hillary takes it, we lose more ground here. Thanks Bob Taft!

Republican Held, Leans Republican
- AK at large: Don Young and the rest of the Alaska GOP are in increasingly hot water for potential ethical laxities...but whether or not Alaskans care may be another story entirely. Last I checked there wasn't much of an AK Democratic Party, but we'll see.
- CO-4: Chris Cilizza hits the nail on the head with this one, so I'll just quote him:

Every election we look at the strong Republican performance of this district and conclude that there is no way Rep. Marilyn Musgrave can lose the seat. And every election she barely manages to win. This time we won't be fooled. Democrats are heavily targeting this race and Musgrave has proven that she underperforms in this eastern Colorado seat.

I'll add that in addition, Republicans have been unable to find a strong candidate to run for Senate (Wayne Allard's retirement has opened up a seat) while Democrat Mark Udall has been waiting for this opportunity for years. The state did go for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but I'm leery of describing it as truly red anymore; if it shows its purplishness again next fall, Musgrave may be victim (purple people eater?).

- CT-4: Chris Shays holds a rather macabre distinction: he is the only remaining Republican Representative from New England. The rest were cut down last fall. Again to go to CC, Shays recently threatened retirement (and a de facto loss of the seat) if not given some perks in the House, but it still may be too much. A lot here rides on Iraq - if things are improving, voters may be a bit more forgiving.

- IL-10: Really, CQ? Democrat Dan Seals had no primary opposition last time and an impeccable environment. And he blew it. Now he's got a primary challenger in the person of Clinton White House staffer Jay Footlik (who may have been put up to the task by fellow ex-Clintonista Rahm Emanuel), and Mark Kirk ain't going to be sleeping on the job. But this is a pretty purple district, so a lot may out of Kirk's control. Namely Obama - should the Illinois darling win his party's nomination, Kirk may as well start looking for a position on a corporate board.

Democratic Held Seats, Leans Democratic
- AZ-8: (Again) - really CQ? The GOP held on to this district for as long as it did because Jim Kolbe was sufficiently moderate to do so; he also probably won points in Tucson, a big university town, for his sexual orientation. Conventional Republicans are at a disadvantage here, and Kathy Giffords showed herself to be mildly competent last time. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer once revealed one of his two secrets to advertising to be appear on a horse (the other one was hold a gun): Giffords has taken it to heart, appearing on horseback in many parades and promotional materials. [Note to Arizona Republicans: next time you redistrict, swap some land between the 8th and the neighboring majority-minority 7th. I.e. find the thirty-something percent that vote against Grijalva every two years and tie them into the 8th!]

Again, it's hard to predict much this far out, especially as we don't know who the presidential nominees will be. My guess is that if Hillary's nominated, some of these Republicans won't be feeling the heat so much as she'll turn off swing voters in many purple and light-red states. Many of the Democrats they list are here because they hold seats Bush won in '04, but I don't think that'll make much of a difference now. Long story short, and it's pathetic, but the GOP has little chance of retaking the House next fall.

Democrats and National Security

The latest Gallup poll found that, for the first time since they started asking in 2002, Democrats "will do a better job than the Republican Party of protecting the country from security threats, 47% vs. 42%."

Hillary immediately disproved this silly notion by coming out against torture even in the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. What is especially juicy about this is the fact that not only does it put her and Slick Willy on different sides of the issue (as if that's never happened before), it also contradicts statements she's made previously. So she was for torture before she was against it, or to frame it another way, she was for drastic measures in unforgiving situations for the sake of national security before she was against them. Ladies and gentlemen, the party the American people trust on national security. Cue the Churchill: "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

So what caused the change of heart? Knowing Hillzilla, most likely a poll. But more specifically, she's probably decided that leading in the polls isn't sufficient when the left wing hates you - case in point, the DailyKos diary entitled "Why It's So Important that Hillary be defeated" which has garnered over 1,200 comments (if you choose to visit, please remember to disinfect your browser. It may otherwise become progressive and start demanding union hours or similar follies.).

It's also possible that Hillary's looking for a bomb in New York, if only to end the recent suffering (dare we say torture?) of Mets fans, who have lost ten out of the last fourteen and four in a row.

[[I'm not even going to bother apologizing for my lengthy absence. Also, I amuse myself when I can link to Gallup, Politico, and ESPN in a post, as well as cite Churchill.]

Canadian MP Comes to US For Cancer Treatment

Apparently Canadian Liberal MP needed cancer treatment, but rather than stay in her single-payer healthcare paradise, she came to the US for treatment. The story's relatively inane, just stating that she came down to the Lower 48 for treatment. What I find particularly interesting are the comments below the article - plenty of Canadians grousing about their luck with health care and wishing they had some US-style medicine. Huh.

Things Going Down Hill For GOP in Senate Races

The last twenty-four hours haven't been especially kind to Republican hopes of retaking (or at least maintaining the status quo) in the Senate, with former Governor Mark Warner announcing that he'll run in Virginia and former Governor Jeanne Shaheen saying she'll do the same in New Hampshire. Both remain popular despite having vacated the governor's mansions years ago. Warner's running for an open seat (vacated by the retiring John Warner), while Shaheen is challenging incumbent Republican John Sununu. Sununu's one of the last vestiges of the New Hampshire GOP, which was more than decimated last year, losing control of both chambers of the state house. Granite State voters were especially peeved by Iraq, but I think their libertarianism is also offended by moralizing Republicans in thrall to the Religious Right.

This same factor is also hurting the GOP in Mountain West states, where a long libertarian traditional has become detached from the Republican Party. Wayne Allard (R-CO)'s retirement announcement means that Democrats have another shot at a pickup out there, and it's probably better than 50-50 they succeed. Assuming Larry Craig actually resigns, Idaho isn't in play, but if he stays in office, Democrats may have a shot there as well. All in all, not shaping up to be a good cycle for the GOP.

Last One Out, Turn Off the Lights

It's been a rough couple of weeks for the White House: Rove announced his departure (today, perhaps?), Gonzales stepped down, and now Tony Snow will do the same in two weeks time.

Last one out, turn off the lights.


Oh and Larry Craig may step down today as well.

This Larry Craig Kerfuffle

You have to give it up to Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Having recently been accused of being gay, he trots out the wife, denies the story, and goes on with his life. He then allegedly engages in lewd behavior/propositions an undercover cop in Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

Now it turns into a firestorm, with Mitt Romney, whom the Senator supported, calling his behavior "disgusting," and comparing it to Bill Clinton and Mark Foley. That is, of course, an entirely unfair comparison, given that we know, thanks to the little blue dress, the real nature of Clinton and Lewinsky's relationship, and thanks to instant message records, the explicit nature of Foley's advances to pages. However this is entirely different - Craig wasn't in a position of power over the fellow in the next stall, the cop presumably was of age, and it didn't happen in Craig's office. Ed Morrissey does a far better job of dissecting this than I, so be sure to read it.

But let's turn to the political side of things: Craig is up for reelection next year, and hasn't yet indicated whether or not he'll run again. Democrats are licking their chops, but this is a state that Bush won with 68% of the vote in '04, and which hasn't sent a Democrat to Washington since 1994. If Craig chooses to step down, the state's Republican governor will appoint another Republican to fill out his term, maintaining the balance of power. Even if more salacious tales come out (such as the one about Craig in a Union Station bathroom), it's entirely unclear whether or not the Democrats could find a viable candidate to run against him or his successor. Right now, as with Vitter in Louisiana, this doesn't look to change the political calculus - let's hope it stays that way.

Obama: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

Barack Obama's presidential bid has hit some speed bumps lately, most stemming from the fact that the candidate himself is a relative novice, his senate campaign against Allan Keyes hardly providing a real test. Now I think he's hit another landmine, at least as far as the base was concerned.

Obama named names of Republicans that he could work with - a show of bipartisanship that isn't likely to win friends among the moonbats, to whom all Republicans (with perhaps the sole exception of Ron Paul) are devils incarnate - a whopping three in all. The lucky trio? Senators John Warner (VA), Dick Lugar (IN), and Tom Coburn (OK). The first two have led the charge, or perhaps more appropriately the retreat, among Republicans arguing for a troop draw-down in Iraq. So that's two steps forward - he names two anti-war Republicans he can work with (both of whom are also considered deeply knowledgeable), thus partially appeasing the base while appearing moderate to the base.

Coburn's a different ballgame. Even I think the man's a little bit nuts, but to the foaming-at-the-mouth Democratic base, he is Lucifer. Coburn is vehemently pro-life, objecting to abortions even in the case of rape; he is also strongly anti-gay. And he hasn't flinched on the war. That's a trio of things that are going to get the base riled up, and the fact that Obama can work with him means that to many on the Left, he can't be their man. I'm just waiting for the fallout.

Michael Vick, A True Virginian?

So argues US News's Michael Barone, citing as evidence David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, a book which I recently had recommended to me by a professor. One might almost call Barone sympathetic to Vick's legal troubles, noting that "we seem to consider fox hunting acceptable but have an almost universal feeling that dogfighting is not. Michael Vick, it seems, may have been born in the wrong century." This may be part of the sentiment fueling those polls in which whites have far less sympathy for Vick than blacks do; although a more likely explanation is simple racial solidarity.

Hastert to Retire

So far only the Sun Times has picked it up, perhaps because everyone knew it was coming and thus it's hardly newsworthy, but former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is expected to announce tommorow that he's not going to seek reelection.

Rove Out

In the biggest news of the day, White House evil genius in residence Karl Rove has announced that he'll be resigning his post as Deputy Chief of Staff at the end of August. I'll be posting more on this as the day progresses, but for the time being I think it's safe to say that he chose to leave and wasn't pushed out - this is the Bush White House, after all, where loyalty between the chief and the tribe is the foremost virtue. He says he won't get involved in any presidential campaign, so it remains to be seen what he'll do with his retirement (no doubt write a book).

Oh and in the linked article (and also in a worthwhile interview with WSJ's Paul Gigot), Rove foresees a brighter future for the Republicans, with them holding the White House, the President's approval rating rising, and the situation in Iraq improving.

"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.

Ames Straw Poll

I didn't bother blogging during the event (largely because the outcome was a foregone conclusion), but yesterday was the heralded Ames Straw Poll. Amid the barbecue and Iowa-style pageantry, there were the politics. It was assumed that Mitt Romney would win easily, but the real question was how the rest of the field would shake out - whether a second tier candidate could have the sort of showing to catapult him into the first tier; whether any of the non-participating candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson) could still finish well without any overt campaigning.

Once the 14,302 ballots were tallied, the winner was no surprise. However, Romney took only 31.5% of the vote, far less than some had expected he'd get (and it would have been declared a major victory had he taken a true majority), but a win's a win, right? Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee's showing (18.1%) was quite respectable, especially given that Ames was more or less make-or-break for the former Arkansas governor.

The event's conservatism is evidenced in the support for Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo (15.3% and 13.7% respectively); its weirdness in its 1,305 (9.1%) for votes for Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Chris Cilizza was apparently live-blogging from the event, and most of his commentary is worth reading (no independent links, just check out the Fix).

Oh and for what it's worth, Ames just claimed its first victim - Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson dropped out, his sixth-place finish sealing his fate. Not that it makes a big difference, just that it won't confuse people when Fred Thompson jumps in next month.

A Free-Styling Marine

This is why I love YouTube, and why I have the utmost respect for the men and women who defend this country.

4th Circuit Court Moving to the Middle

Some of the US circuit courts have distinct ideological flavors; the 9th has always been the ultra-liberal court, and until recently the 4th has been a more conservative one (and one that often hears cases involved with detainees and the War on Terror). Unfortunately, as the Washington Post chronicles, that may soon change. Of the fifteen seats, Republicans and Democrats both hold five - and the remaining five are vacant. It should go without saying that this isn't a reassuring development, that while Bush has been slow to provide nominations for those vacancies, it's unlikely that a Democratic president will be so lax. It should also go without saying that five nominees chosen by the same party have the potential to alter the ideological temperament of a court for years if not decades to come. This may be the endgame quietly sought by Senate Democrats as they have stonewalled so many Bush appointees over the last few years, and if so it appears to be working.

Many have called Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court his greatest legacy, but he will tarnish that legacy if he allows lower courts to drift away from conservative principles.
(h/t Bench Memos)

When Will Democrats Lash Out?

Yesterday's troubled markets (which, many analysts believe, will continue for a while) is partially the product of two prominent Democratic bogeymen: those "evil" sub-prime lenders and globalization. The mortgages offered by those sub-prime lenders have essentially been bundled and transformed into securities, sold around the world and thus transferring their risk around the world. This is why BNP Paribas halted withdrawals from a trio of funds yesterday, claiming that because of upheaval on the US credit market, they couldn't properly value the funds.

I haven't exactly scoured the web looking for it just yet, but I imagine that some Democrats will connect these dots and start brandishing their pitchforks in the near future. What they can do about it remains to be seen.

Lessons Learned Too Well

Ion Pacepa was head of Romanian intelligence until he fled to the United States in 1978. In today's Journal, he notes that Democratic bashing of the president has its inglorious roots in Soviet practice. Certainly worthwhile.

Book Review: An Army at Dawn

Over the years, I've read extensively about the Second World War from all sides, but especially from our own American perspective. As such, I was rather familiar with America's first act in the European Theater of Operations, Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa in November of 1942. This of course led to months of brutal fighting, before all Axis forces on the southern Mediterranean littoral were defeated in May of the following year. But even with all of my reading, I'd never encountered so magisterial a chronicle of those brutal months as Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa , 1942-1943.

Even with the widespread popularity of the war, thanks to prolific and gifted authors such as the late Stephen Ambrose and individual efforts such as Brokaw's Greatest Generation and Bradley's Flags of Our Fathers, I feel that I wasn't alone in my relative ignorance of this first campaign, unique in the annals of the war. I think this ignorance stems largely from the same success of authors such as Ambrose, whose focus was almost exclusively on the last eleven months of the war, from Normandy to the Elbe. Atkinson, a former writer for the Post, has thus performed a great service in producing a tome both incredibly insightful and nuanced without losing sight of the overarching strategic campaign, all spun in eminently readable prose that often borders on the lyrical.

And it's certainly a story worth telling. Because of that same bias that limits the reading public's understanding of the conflict to its final phase, we often unknowingly digest a fallacious story of an American Leviathan, inexorably freeing Europe and crushing Nazism. Atkinson paints a radically different picture, one in which US troops were woefully inadequate and leadership too often incompetent. Operation Torch could have been a disaster in the mold of Dieppe had the landings been opposed by the Germans; instead Vichy French forces put up an inconsistent resistance that varied from the spirited to the nonexistent. But even once firmly ashore, green troops and officers made poor decisions and failed to exploit opportunities, lengthening the campaign by months and forcing troops to endure brutal fighting in horrific weather and over inhospitable terrain. Meanwhile at the highest levels of command, things were hardly improved as US and British generals, in stark contrast to the warm relations between the "cousins" so often depicted, were mutually distrustful, with the British having little regard for the Americans' martial abilities. These unfortunate elements fed into unnecessary carnage, most notably the bloodbath at Kasserine Pass (perhaps the best-known battle of the North African theater thanks to its cameo in Patton).

Thus Atkinson suggests that the final, overwhelming Allied victory - a quarter-million prisoners taken, several of the most storied German formations utterly destroyed, Rommel's fighting spirit broken - was almost in spite of itself. Sheer weight of numbers, an American ability to make good losses of men and materiel in the face of German shortages, played a significant role in that outcome. But so too did the fact that the same uncertain soldiers who blundered ashore on November 8th were by the end hardened veterans, capable of beating the Germans at their own game, though even then commanders too often flung the lives of their men away.

Also of note are those commanders that Atkinson brings to life. He skillfully depicts Eisenhower's evolution through the campaign, beginning with a commander few Americans would recognize as the victorious Ike; he also confirms the common conceptions of others, especially Montgomery (arrogant and insufferable) and Patton (vainglorious).

Thankfully, Atkinson didn't craft An Army at Dawn as a stand-alone work. Rather, it's the first of a trilogy he calls the Liberation Trilogy. The second volume, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944, is due out this autumn; I for one am eagerly anticipating its release.

Searching for Lost Puppies Is Morally Corrupt

Or so say the Iranians. Of course this is the same country who, in a classic case of projection, accused the Israelis of having a "horrific human rights record." Things like arresting kids looking for the lost family pet, you mean?

More Arlen Specter

Two recent themes (that Arlen Specter may not be as crazy as once thought, and that nothing in Washington really dies) converge: Arlen Specter says immigration still has 'momentum.' Enough, he thinks, to pass a measure legalizing illegals without giving them citizenship. I couldn't disagree more vehemently - whatever momentum immigration as an issue maintains is in the opposite direction: at a minimum, Americans want the border secured before anything more is even discussed. Why Congress hasn't gotten the message (and $3 billion more in funding for that purpose is only a step in the right direction) is beyond me.

More Fox = More Conservatives?

That's the suggestion of some new research cited by Brendan Nyhan. It's not exactly a seismic shift, but it's no doubt enough to rile the Left. What amuses me is that the researchers have also authored a chapter in a forthcoming volume entitled "The Political Impact of Media Bias." Thus perpetrating the myth that only Fox is biased, and that the rest of the media is so well balanced.

Too bad we can't do some people the benefit of taking away NBC/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN and studying what that does to their voting patterns (and their brain waves).

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.

Thoughts on the Presidential Race

Nothing too deep here, just that I've become fed up with Fred Thompson's inability to commit to the race; as someone noted, at his height and weight, he's not exactly coquettish. So I'm done with him for the time being, and now I'm leaning back towards Rudy. Why? Because he's bright, right, articulate, and electable.

So the Fred widget will be gone from the sidebar, replaced by a Rudy widget.

The End of an Era

After 38 years, the British Army is ending its operation in Northern Ireland. When it began in 1969, the Army expected to be in the provinces for mere weeks. That low-intensity conflict certainly helped shape the British military and establishment, in ways that are affecting us today. Perhaps most importantly, the establishment showed a willingness to try and meet the IRA and others halfway, a willingness that is now on display towards Islamists in Britain.

Data Shows Durbin Vulnerable?

That's the claim from a poll cited on Illinois Review, which pegs the approval rating of the Senate's #2 Democrat at 49% favorable/24% unfavorable, and almost a dead heat (36%-33%) on whether he puts Illinois or Washington first.

As much as I'd love to see Durbin returned to private life, none of this data paints a picture of vulnerability by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually difficult to gauge any sort of vulnerability on Durbin's part due to a real paucity of polling data. No Senator's invulnerable, but Durbin's not exactly an endangered incumbent at present.

Oh and I treat these numbers with the greatest degree of skepticism because of the poll itself - only 400 respondents, MOE +/-4.9%, no notes as to who the pollster is etc.

Better Days Ahead for London

Having finally finished Melanie Phillip's Londonistan (I'll try and get a review up tomorrow), I'm hard-pressed to predict a bright future for either Britain or London. However, Emily Henderson, New Criterion's perceptive and endlessly amusing summer intern, provides hopes for a slight improvement: Conservative Boris Johnson has entered London's mayoral race. Admittedly, I'd be hard-pressed to pick this particular Johnson out of a lineup, nor was his name a particularly significant one to me prior to today, so in accepting this as a positive development, I have to take Miss Henderson's word.

But let's be entirely honest. Almost anything is an improvement to London's present Lord Mayor, the ultra-leftist Ken Livingstone.

Democrats Fearing Victory?

For a while now, I've thought (and perhaps blogged?) that the latest round of Democratic shenanigans, attempting to force a pullout from Iraq without waiting for Petraeus's September progress report, was driven by fear. Fear that the good news coming out of Iraq (and if you're not hearing it, you're simply choosing to ignore it) is a harbinger of things to come, a sign that the tide has finally turned and that the definite potential for victory exists. If so, Democrats are going to look pretty damn stupid. Their solution? Short-circuit things to avoid that outcome. If true, I will again overflow with disgust for this party - that they'd throw our troops and the Iraqi people under the bus for short-term political gain.

And I'm not alone in thinking this - Thomas Sowell agrees. He notes, and I agree (and they understand) that victory in Iraq likely means a Republican presidential victory in 2008. Here's hoping.

Edwards Getting Talking Points from Harper's?

It sure looks that way: this week's Harper's cover story is a piece by Kevin Baker, a novelist/essayist/critic who apparently has it out for Hizzonor (he's the author of at least two pieces savaging the man's mayoral record) claims that he would be worse than Bush. Lo and behold, John Edwards comes out and says that Giuliani would be Bush on steroids in San Francisco. Shady.

Sir Elton the Luddite

He admits as much, and also says we should shut the internet down. Why? Because it's killing artistic creativity of course! I liked his old music, but now the diva's lost it; dare we say the fellow's more of a disaster than Billy Joel driving?

Another Positive Review and a Jumping-Off Point

Warm reviews for economist Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter continue to pile up (indeed, I thought I'd made mention of the book here before, but can't find any such post). The latest is that of John Stossel - though warm may be a trite too optimistic; reviewers recognize the value of the book and its contribution to the discussion of voting behavior, turnout, etc., but no one is exactly cheered by its message.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg (writing on Townhall), however, goes one step further. He points out that if Caplan's arguments are correct then we shouldn't be trying to increase turnout (the ones who stay home in the first place are stupid) or make voting mandatory. Instead, in what is truly (a welcome) anti-democratic effort, he suggests that if immigrants must take a test to become citizens (and thus vote) why shouldn't we subject native-born citizens to such a test? Obviously it wouldn't go over too well in much of the US - Democrats and Republicans alike would scream bloody murder. Such distinctions within the electorate were quickly destroyed in the earliest days of the US; I doubt they'll make a return in the "enlightened" modern era. But he does breach a subject that has been wholly untouched by the recent immigration debate; namely changing the qualifications of citizenship so that one does not become a citizen automatically by being born here. In that the US is relatively alone in the West, and while it might give us warm fuzzy feelings inside, it also creates plenty of ingrates - both of native and immigrant stock. Maybe it's time to start talking about this?

Sharia Is Just Like Western Law

So say the Saudis...except of course for things like this:

Claims must be proven and substantiated by two male witnesses, preferably Muslim, or one male witness and two females, or one male and the oath of the claimant.

Render that mathematically: 2 women = 1 man.

Why are liberals opposed to crushing al Qaeda?

Koran In Toilet = Hate Crime

Last year, a senior at Pace University allegedly tossed a Koran in a campus toilet on two separate occasions (so two Korans, two toilets); he's now charged with a pair of felonies for those actions (I believe on the grounds that what he did was "hate speech"). I saw the story the other day, didn't have time to blog about it. Thankfully Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House has more time than I do. Read it and be shocked, and then spread the word. And to think Congress just expanded the definition of hate crimes...

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."

Quick Thought on the Beckham Media Blitz

So tonight British soccer player ("footballer") David Beckham first took the field ("pitch") for his new team ("side") the LA Galaxy. No doubt Americans everywhere changed the channel. Beckham is the LA Galaxy (and in a way, Major League Soccer's) $250 million attempt to bring the sport into the mainstream. But the fact of the matter is that Beckham ain't all that great. He's past his prime and he more often made headlines for his off-the-pitch antics than for any match heroics (i.e. marrying Posh Spice, getting his hair redone, etc.) Don't take it from me, rather take it from the late George Best, a truly great soccer player ("footballer") from Northern Ireland:

"He cannot kick with his left foot, he cannot head a ball, he cannot tackle and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that he's all right."

Read it again. This is the Galaxy's $250 million investment, their bid to make soccer really matter in America. The US Women winning the World Cup a few years ago helped; so does the fact that satellite television makes it possible for stupid Americans to watch the World Cup and to watch good soccer on Fox Soccer Channel and other networks. But is there a place for soccer in the galaxy of American sports? Arguably, in a day and age where everything from competitive eating to curling to bowling can have its day on ESPN (and even get talked about on Sports Center and PTI), yes.

But will we ever be much more than the NFL Europe of soccer? Probably not. That doesn't mean you should shut your eyes to the sport. It just means that instead of watching a boring MLS match (they usually are) or a Mexican League match on Univision, the only part of which you understand is "GOOOOOAAAAALLLLL," find a way to watch a Premiership match. Or a UEFA Champions League match. Watch two truly great sides go at it for ninety minutes with Old Trafford, Emirates, or another of the legendary stadiums reverberating with the roar of the crowd, and understand why it often deserves its title of the beautiful game.

"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.

Two Complementary Pieces on E-Jihad

The Economist has put together a readable and important survey on e-jihad (which may again be subscription only - if so, apologies). It looks how the inherent characteristics of the internet make it an enormous asset for jihadis and would-be jihadis, providing a secure means of communication (thanks to the proliferation of top-end encryption software), a forum for indoctrination and recruitment (including the usual appalling videos of killings and beheadings), and a means of disseminating information and tactics.

Meanwhile, the latest issue of Middle East Quarterly includes My Cyber Counter-jihad. The author, Shannen Rossmiller was an unremarkable individual, a municipal judge in Montana until she began infiltrating jihadist websites (by posing as a sympathizer). As part of her efforts, she learned Arabic and then began cooperating with the FBI in building cases against would-be jihadis, including one soldier who was looking to betray his comrades. Sadly (but unsurprisingly), Rossmiller is now forced to have permanent security for herself and her family.

Obama: Genocide? So What?

Bill Clinton said "Never again" in Rwanda; today's Democrats are hardly so principled. And Barack Obama is bordering on downright crazy. Today in New Hampshire, Obama said that "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there." Really? I'm glad you're bright enough to realize that. But (brace yourself for this bit): "It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions." I don't even know how to respond to that. He also has the "wisdom" to claim that we haven't lost in Iraq - no Senator, but you want us to - and that a withdrawal would leave troops in the region to intercede (with international help). Where have we heard this before? Maybe Murtha's proposal to redeploy to Okinowa?

This is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and truly does abandon America's position of leadership in the world (as well as our credibility in opposing genocide).

More Russian Shenanigans (with update)

I noted yesterday the Russian Foreign Minister's absurd comments, blaming the tit-for-tat expulsions between the UK and Russia on Gordon Brown. But in terms of what Russia's up to these days, it's just par for the course and a couple more tidbits simply reinforce that impression.

First off, the Kremlin continues to refuse a British extradition request for ex-KGB spook Andrei Lugovoi, who may have been involved in the Litvinenko assassination. However, they assure the UK that Comrade Lugovoi will be investigated in the Russian court system...which I don't find very compelling.

Second of all, Russia has been meddling in the Balkans again, threatening to veto any UN resolution calling for an independent Kosovo. The province, presently under a UN mandate, is technically still a part of Serbia; though its population of ethnic Albanians want independence, the Serbian minority there (as well as the Serbian government and its Russian allies) are opposed to such a development.

Meanwhile, a worthwhile piece in the Economist (subscription only?) chronicles Serbian divisions over that stance, given that a restive Serbian Kosovo may sink any bid for them to join the EU. Some (who no doubt still morn Milosevic's demise) feel that keeping Kosovo is worth such a price; others are more focused on the EU and willing to deal on Kosovo. But of course Russia isn't interested in seeing events in the region proceed without their approval; Putin recently claimed that the Balkans were a "sphere of Russian special interest and that it was 'natural that a resurgent Russia is returning there.'" Or perhaps a Kosovar put it more succintly: “we are just the first victims of the new Russian imperialism.”

The EU, US, and UN need to find a way to resolve this Kosovo impasse; perhaps unilateral recognition of the province's independence is the best remaining option. But Russia needs to be made to understand that it can't influence the Balkans as it used to (and it's unlikely that the Red Army could march on the Bosphorus as it did in the 1870s); indeed they really need to understand that theirs is an alcoholic, dying country, propped up by oil and gas revenues, but hardly mattering in the grand scheme of things. And the international community should recognize that and admit the authoritarian nature of its regime - expel Moscow from the G8, help Europe diversify its gas supplies, and staunchly support anti-Russian governments throughout the former Soviet Union. So long as Russia is allowed to throw its weight around, it will do so; how much longer that will be permitted can only be answered in Washington and Brussels.

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey's take on the situation, and the revelation (which I'd missed) that Russia has announced it will not cooperate with the UK on intelligence matters. While he's right in noting that this sort of controlled escalation tactic is also old hat, oft-used during the Cold War, it doesn't change the fact that Western governments seem to be deluding themselves as to the true nature of the Russian government (Bush has never been more wrong than with his Putin "I looked into his eyes" schtick).

The Earmark to Nowhere?

Say what you will about Ted Steven's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - at least we knew what the money was being spent on. The same can't be said of an earmark inserted by John Murtha, potentially among the most corrupt members of Congress: no one actually knows if the recipient
organization actually exists.

But it's only a million dollars, right? Being such a paltry sum, Congress didn't bother to look into it too much, and overwhelmingly passed the bill.

Now here's the big question: is there more here than meets the eye? Is Murtha channeling money to nonentities for personal purposes? The man is corrupt, as well as inept, so I'm hoping someone looks into this; though despite the Democrats' love affair with subpoenas, I hardly expect them to bestir themselves for this.

Post-Lax Review of Durham PD Begins

It's about damn time: a formal review of the Durham Police Department's handling of the Duke lacrosse "case" begins today. From the beginning, police conduct was too often unprofessional and biased, without regard for due process or the presumption of innocence. The most egregious example of all of this was the police lineup for "victim" Crystal Gail Mangum in which she was shown only pictures of lacrosse players - no one else. The Police Department assumed that someone on the team had raped her, the only question was her. I'm looking forward to the results of this review, though I admit I haven't the greatest expectations; it is Durham after all.

Rematches

Given how many close House contests there were last November, it's no surprise that many losers (on both sides of the aisle) are back for another go. CQ's got what looks to me like a pretty good list. Most are to be expected, though I feel that there should be more freshman Democrats in marginal districts on the list. As for the narrowly-victorious Republicans, a friend of mine who worked on the Seals campaign wasn't too optimistic - she felt that in many races (likely including most of the ones on this list), Democrats had missed the boat. Whether or not she's right remains to be seen, though the enormous Democratic financial advantage may partially mitigate a more balanced environment (which is itself an enormous assumption).

Dumbest Comment of the Day?

And no it's not from a Congressional Democrat!

Rather, the winner is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Lavrov had the temerity to claim that the recent tit-for-tat expulsion furor between his country and the United Kingdom was the product of Gordon Brown's ascension. Not the fact that the Russian government killed Alexander Litvinenko and won't admit it while stonewalling an extradition request. Nope, it's all Gordon Brown's fault.

Russia's nearly as thuggish as it ever was back in the bad old days of the USSR, and many of the old institutions are back, albeit under new names. It's subscription-only now, but there's a worthwhile piece on Putin-worshiping youth organizations with more than an eerie resemblance to the Young Pioneers of old. Murdering dissidents and playing coy about it is old hat, no doubt something Putin picked up while working at the KGB (indeed, the Litvinenko assassination strongly resembles that of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in London in 1978, also using poison).

It also prompts another question: when are we going to stop deluding ourselves about the nature of the Russian government and start treating them like the autocratic thugs they are?

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...