Uncategorized

1968, 1972, 1994, 2000, 2002

by

People are still raising the specter of “Dean as McGovern.” (Actually “raising” is not an accurate term anymore. Every Dean supporter has heard this one too many times to count, for over half a year. “Waving around the specter with cries of ‘DOOM! DOOM!’ ” is a little wordy though.)

Here’s my main problem with these comparisons. It’s not that they’re inaccurate or unoriginal (though they are both those things.) It’s this: 1972 was not the worst year for the Democratic party in the last half century, and the belief that it was is a symptom of something seriously wrong with our party.

Yes, it was a landslide. But Democrats still controlled both houses of Congress. And of course, a year and a half after his second term began, Nixon resigned, and “don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts” bumper stickers became very popular. In my list of “lousy years for the Democratic Party”, 1972 is no higher than fifth.

These are my top four, in descending order:

Read more

9/11 Memorial Follow Up

by

They’ve chosen the design. Times article here, and you can view some of the images here (note that those don’t reflect a recent re-design to conform to Libeskind’s plan–the new design will be unveiled next week). It will probably be impossible to do this right, and even more impossible to please everyone, especially this soon … Read more

Dammit, another Clark post.

by

This is my last freakin’ one.

As foretold by the Prophecies of Aberjian,* the Democratic field must reduce to two contenders: the DEAN and the NOT DEAN. These two shall then battle, Thunderdome-style, to the death. Tina Turner will officiate. Thus has it been foretold, thus shall it be.

Now, we know who the DEAN is. (Or at least think we do.) But who shall be the NOT DEAN?

Perhaps we shall soon have our answer. The latest New Hampshire tracking poll shows Clark pulling even with Kerry in New Hampshire. Josh Marshall, reading the tea leaves, prepares the ritual oil to annoint Clark as the NOT DEAN. (Kaus, checking his file, agrees.) Kos, on the other hand, previously reviewed the bones and believes that the Thunderdome-method may be the wrong way to go. He hopes to pull off the difficult task of merging Dean and Clark, Voltron-Style.

As for me, well: Kerry had a recent surge in the nationwide polls, but he’s nearly kaput. Clark’s statements that he won’t be Dean’s running mate seem to foreclose Kos’s hope. And if Gephardt doesn’t win convincingly in Iowa . . . .

Read more

Exquisite in Its Simplicity

by

Via Pandagon, from the new Club for Growth ads in Iowa: a farmer says he thinks that “Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading …” before the farmer’s wife then finishes the sentence: “… Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.” (here’s a link to the … Read more

Passing it along, Part Two

by

Michael Totten tries his hand at political taxidermy, separating the “liberals” from the “leftists.” It’s an interesting piece, and worth reading (Matthew Stintson provides his take on Mr. Totten’s piece — also very much worth reading — here.)

Although I’d quibble with some of the particulars,* I think that Mr. Totten is correct when he argues that there’s a difference in kind, not merely degree, between, say, the DLC (“liberals,” in his view) and the folks at ANSWER (“leftists”). These people do not share the same worldview — indeed, in many ways the gulf is even greater than that between so-called neo- and paleo- conservatives. It’s a mistake to suggest otherwise by falsely placing them on a right-left (or, in this case, left-lefter) continuum.

von

Read more

They decided to change those names…

by

… in that Muslim football tournament. For the record, I never particularly cared one way or the other if young people want to call their sports teams “Soldiers of Allah” or “Moujahideen” (in much the same way that I don’t particularly care if they wanted to call a team, say, the “Crusaders”); “Intifada” bothered me … Read more

Free legal advice.

by

It’s been a slow day for paying customers — it’s all waiting for the Court on this, waiting for the consultants on that — which is a good thing, since I’ve been running myself into the ground of late. But I’m genetically predisposed to never, ever, ever stop working (ask my wife), so I’ll offer some free legal advice to Josh Marshall.

Read more

The name game.

by

Fox News reports that “six cases of mistaken identity” were behind the grounding of the Air France flights over the holidays. It’s better to be safe than sorry, yes, but there’s also a lesson here that mistakes can (and do) get made in a war. Keep this in mind when you consider whether the government … Read more

Ayup.

by

Over at Tacitus there’s a pretty interesting debate going on about the ‘cowboy’ thing: Tac’s pretty much in that ‘this is an insult?’ camp of Righties that delights in complicating the lives of people who just wanted to use a nice, simple pejorative. For my part, that pretty much sums up this particular debate right … Read more

Quiet New Years Eve

by

Aside from the cold, no worries. Watched a couple of movies, shouted huzzah five minutes late and drank some champagne. In other words, nothing like this, thank all gods past, present and future.

Petty Annoyances

by

Just in from Fox News : BAGHDAD, Iraq — At least five people were killed in a large explosion that ripped through a restaurant in central Baghdad Wednesday and there were reports that Iraqi police said it may have been caused by a homicide bomber. This is not an occasion to try to score political … Read more

Well, we’re 1/3rd back…

by

…well, I am, at least: back home, that is. Not as dramatic a return as it could have been – what with my remote blogging from my parents’ house and all – but so it goes. All in all, as Christmas trips to visit presumptive in-laws whose patriarch doesn’t quite believe even after seven years … Read more

New and Improved Holiday Horror Open Thread — Now, with Extra Cursing!

by

Not too long ago, the irrepressible Moe Lane said in these (virtual) pages, “So, if you show up at this site after experiencing a holiday horror story (waving hand grandly) feel free to tell it here.”

It was a good idea. It was a great idea. It was the kind of idea that might lead to peace in the Middle East, goodwill towards men, and the Indianapolis Colts beating the Denver Broncos.

There was one problem, however. We got no comments. None. No one wanted to share their holiday horror stories with us. (And the Broncos beat the Colts, gosh-darnit.)

It took me all night and a fifth of Beefeater gin, but I think I’ve finally figured out why. Moe, gentle soul that he is, admonished our readership “to limit the profanity.” Sorry, that simply will not do. One cannot tell a holiday horror story and “limit the profanity.” Many holiday horror stories consist of nothing but profanity.

So, I’m unilaterally relaxing the posting rules for this thread only.* Consider this your gratuitous profanity holiday open thread. Since I’m an anal-retentive lawyer jerk, however, I’ll ask that you obey the following rules:

(1) Do not limit yourself to past events. Is your mother trying to convert your Jewish boyfriend to Catholicism at this very moment? Post on it. Did your Aunt just refer to your goyish girlfriend as “that shiksa”? We want to know. Has Uncle Bob appeared at another Christmas morning breakfast in his boxer shorts with the fly is wide open? Every detail, friends.

(2) Do not use real names or characteristics that will easily identify your subject. Why? Google. You don’t want your remarks to come back and haunt you (or us) as a result of some ill-advised, post-holiday egoGoogling. Now is also not the time to discover that extra-randy poster “DrEXXXtasy” is your father or that super-bitch “Lorax84” is great aunt Thelma. So a little self-restraint is needed. Remember: we cannot (and will not) monitor the comments section in real-time.

(3) Use of the “curse” words “biotch,” “effing,” and “shite” is forbidden. Really, people: curse like adults.

(4) No ad hom against other posters. We’re all in this together, folks. (This rule does not apply to ad homs against unrepresented friends, family members, and loved ones, of course.)

And away we go . . . . .

Read more

Put up or shut up.

by

General Hugh Shelton was asked whether he would back General Wesley Clark for president, and he responded as follows: I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I’m not going to say whether … Read more

At the end of a rope, he lets down a tin pail. And you have to toss in fifteen cents and a nail.

by

Rilkefan, apparently unsatisfied with our weak efforts at prose, suggests in comments that we add a recommended reading list. For most, the fascinating world of drying paint would be preferable. He asked for it, however. My currently recommended works of fiction are hidden below. A list of nonfiction works will follow in, oh, between two-to-thirty weeks.

Perhaps you (or cobloggers Moe Lane and Katherine) will offer your/their own list(s) . . . .

UPDATE: In comments, Rilkefan notes that he wasn’t refering to “what random books” people may like, but to “books referred to in blogly discussions.” Well, shoot. Maybe we can do that too.

von

p.s. None of these books are exactly new, ya hear?

Read more

Dean’s foreign policy speech

by

The text is here.

Not surprisingly, I liked it. The substance is very good. I wish he’d said more about the most dangerous countries–Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan. But this was more of an outline of priorities; there will be other days for those questions. I thought he dealt with Saddam’s capture perfectly, & he rode my hobbyhorse on Nunn-Lugar and non-proliferation.

It’s hard to tell much about the style because I didn’t see it delivered. Based on a quick read-through, he’s got a bit of a big-word/wonkspeak problem which Dean usually does not have. There are also some really excellent moments, though.

Read more

Hussein

by

Michael N. just posted the words to an old hymn in the comments:
“When tyrants tremble in their fear
And hear their death knell ringing
When friends rejoice both far and near
How can I keep from singing?”

I thought that deserved to be on our main page.

Read more

The Disappeared

by

via Instapundit (I know, I know), we have a several-day-old-article about a new poll counting the number of Baghdad residents Saddam Hussein murdered. The estimate they come up with is 61,000, in Baghdad alone.

This was higher than previous estimates, but it does not really surprise me. I never doubted him to be a thug and a murderer and whatever invective I could come up with–though every time you’re confronted with the numbers again you wonder how the Iraqi people could possibly be worse off when all this is over, no matter how much we screw it up.

But what I’m really interested in, for the purposes of this post, is the methodology:

“The survey obtained Monday, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam’s regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.

The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad’s population — 6.39 million — and average household size — 6.9 people — to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam’s rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.”

I’ve never heard of this casualty-count-by-poll before. Do we have any statisticians or social scientists reading this? Is this a decent method of counting casualties? How does it differ from the use of press reports or anecdotal evidence, or mass graves, or the various other methods that are used?

I have no idea if it’s even remotely accurate. But if it is, we should consider using it to figure out how many civilians (or for that matter soldiers) were killed in the U.S. invasion, and its aftermath.

(continued, and please read the whole thing before commenting.)

Read more

brief lawblogging interlude

by

I don’t do much writing about legal issues, I know. Winter term, when I am taking a class on Terrorism in The 21st Century (presumably focusing on the legalities), and spring term, when I am finally taking Constitutional Law, will probably give more opportunities. My subjects this term are of less general interest. Unless you … Read more

MCI to our Amazon

by

This isn’t cool. The Michigan Republican Party has asked its members to turn over holiday card lists — complete with their analysis of the political and religious affiliations of their friends and family and their positions on issues such as abortion and gun control. Didn’t phone companies used to ask you to do this? I … Read more

Good News / Bad News

by

The bad news: via Taranto we see that a self-described Democrat has written an opinion piece about Bush hatred, and how it won’t win an election. As opinion pieces go, it’s fairly good, especially as it does recognize the fact (often obscured by our own passions and hobbies) that most of the population does not … Read more

blogs: what are they good for?

by

Blogging of the President is having its first “Blog Burst” tomorrow, on the topic: “the Internet and Politics, what does it mean?‘ ” Here’s my contribution, one day early: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” –A.J. Liebling Suddenly, all of us–or at least, many more of us–do own a … Read more

Novaked! (Again)

by

Ya’ll remember Bob Novak, right? The conservative columnist who touched off a media feeding frenzy on his putative right-wing allies by naming Plame in a column? In the immortal words of Whitesnake: Here he goes again on his own (though without Tawny Kitain, it must be said) . . . . In his latest indictment … Read more

Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (And Women)

by

*I recalled Prof. Anastaplo while paging through Professor Volohk‘s writings on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), which generally argue that the Second Amendment is a personal right (like the 1st Amendment) and not merely a right afforded to the state or community (like, for example, the 10th Amendment). Professor Volohk bases his argument, in part, on the supposed original intent of the founders. Professor Anastaplo, on the other hand, argues that the original intent of the founders was precisely the opposite, and reads the Second Amendment to convey a community right. Indeed, in his much-earlier The Amendments to the Constitution, Professor Anastaplo considers and refutes (pre-refutes?) many of Professor Volohk’s better “original intent” arguments. (Which is not to say that Professor Volohk is wrong in his analysis or history — only that it’s not the open-and-shut case sometimes suggested by Professor Volohk.)

Bush and Chalabi

by

From a Washington Post article on Chalabi, via Atrios : “Nobody knows how the president will finally come down on Chalabi. Right now Bush reportedly remains unconvinced that Chalabi is the one to lead Iraq into a democratic future. Jordan’s King Abdullah didn’t help matters: When he met with Bush recently, he is said to … Read more

comic relief

by

if you’ve read about the horrible events in Mosul, you’ll need it. So, here you go, from Aunty Beeb: “Mr Blair, who is said to be a big fan of the show, recorded his dialogue in April for an episode in which Homer Simpson meets him in London. Actor Sir Ian McKellen and Harry Potter … Read more

MA poll on gay marriage

by

According to today’s Boston Globe, “Massachusetts residents, by a solid margin, said they supported the Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark decision legalizing gay marriage, according to a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll. The poll of 400 people, the first survey of Bay State residents since the court’s historic ruling, indicated that 50 percent agreed with the justices’ decision, … Read more