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.