The Next Big Thin

This is just cool: Sony's set to roll out its new line of TVs in December. The kicker? The screen will be .12 inches thick (3mm) thanks to Sony's revolutionary use of organic light-emiting diodes. Of course they'll be released first in Japan, so American techies will have to salivate from afar for a while.

Sorry for using both the typo-as-pun and pun in four words. It's early, I'm tired.

Cutting Off the Nose to Spite The Face (or something to that effect)

It's hardly a secret that many of the kingpins of the Religious Right - Dobson and Land most vocally - have said they cannot vote forRudy Giuliani, and that they would urge their supporters to do the same. As it becomes increasingly likely that said moderate will win the nomination, they're starting to mumble about supporting a third-party candidate. Really folks, really? You'd rather throw the election to the Democrats because Rudy fails to meet some litmus test that is beyond what most Americans want? My own party exasperates me - this is the kind of stunt I expect from Democrats.

Of course nothing will render the party's moralists irrelevant faster than supporting some obscure third-party candidate. Odds are the majority of their followers will hold their noses and vote for Giuliani merely out of a deep-seated loathing for Clinton. If these power-brokers should be consigned to the dustbin of political history, the Republican Party will, I think, be better situated to win in the future: stripped of its moral baggage, the party can focus on an economic message which will resonate strongly if Democrats give into the quasi-socialism espoused by their base.

One immediate objection that comes to mind is the matter of electoral foot soldiers - small business owners are unlikely to go door to door and there's not enough of them in any case. My quick answer to that is that in the last few cycles, Republicans have brought targeting into the 21st century; technology may likewise soon render traditional get-out-the-vote efforts irrelevant.

"Do It for the Taxpayers"

Fred Barnes convincingly lays out the argument against S-Chip, rightly portraying it as a foot in the door measure for universal healthcare. This is the sort of thing we used to be good at but Democrats never showed much aptitude for - putting the other party in a position where policy aside, it's a symbolically bad vote. It'll be interesting to see if the truth about the policy makes it into the media or is lost behind the "Bush hates kids" meme.

A Laughable NYT Op-Ed

[Don't read this with breakfast: you may snort your coffee with laughter or vomit.]
The Times edit board gets their panties all in a bunch over the specter of the justices of the Roberts Court, you know, judging. According to them, the Court is composed of "four very conservative justices, four liberals, and a moderate conservative, Justice Anthony Kennedy, hovering in between." That strikes me as an unfairly balanced composition - how about four conservatives, a moderate, and four liberals? I would hardly qualify Roberts as "very" conservative, and would only qualify Alito, Scalia, and Thomas as such on certain issues; and by very conservative I also mean in tune with the Constitution. Details, details.

Especially juicy are these paragraphs:

It is striking how conservative the court is now. On race, it was for decades a proud force for racial integration. Last term, it ordered Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to stop their voluntary efforts to have children of different races attend school together. The court, once an important force for fairness in American society, now routinely finds dubious legal excuses to deny relief to criminal defendants, consumers and workers who have been mistreated.

The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. Its members are not reluctant to strike down laws passed by Congress, as critics of “judicial activism” are supposed to be, or reluctant to overturn the court’s precedents. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?

I suspect by "conservative Republican" they mean anyone to the right of MoveOn.org. Oh and since when is the law supposed to be fair? It's supposed to be the law, which isn't crafted with an eye towards fairness.

And they ignore a category of people that have been mistreated in recent rulings: landowners. As in Kelo v. New London. But in that particular case, the majority was composed of Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Stevens (opinion) and Ginsburg. They also accuse the court of being hyperpartisan (which calls to mind a Safire column from years ago about the overuse of the word hyper as a prefix)...but begs the question of why the decades of legislating from the bench wasn't hyperpartisan?

I know some people wring their hands over the influence of the Times, but I have to imagine to the majority of Americans this stuff comes across as it really is. Laughable.

Glenn Reynolds on "Microtrends"

One of the recent additions to my Amazon Wish List is Mark Penn's Microtrends. Penn is Hillary's chief strategist and by all accounts a rather brilliant pollster; he's now published a book in a quest for credibility as a "serious intellectual" or some such. And now Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has a review. Go forth and read.

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.