Vice President Al Gore Campaigns for Dean in Detriot

Gore to be hosted by Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick

DETROIT--Vice President Al Gore will visit Detroit, Michigan on Sunday, February 1, 2004, to campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D. Vice President Gore will visit four African-American churches in Detroit during his visit: Oak Grove AME Church, Great Faith Ministry, Ebenezer AME Church and Chapel Hill Baptist Church.

The triumph of the comedy series ‘the Office’ at the Golden Globes was well-deserved (it’s hilarious – and it’s out on DVD now) and Ricky Gervais, its creator (and star), plans to take advantage of his fame:

He says he’s planning to become "a little bit more arrogant and lazy, possibly send people out for pizzas that I probably wouldn't have had before. And just do voice-over work."

Who says we Brits don’t have big dreams.

From a report in the January 24th issue of ‘The Economist’:

“In the third year of secondary school, Saudi schoolchildren learn that a good way to show love of God is to treat infidels with contempt.”

From a report in the January 28th issue of the Washington Post:

“[INS official] Melendez-Perez said he was taking a bit of a risk by refusing al Qahtani entry to the United States because Saudis were generally treated more permissively than other foreign nationals by U.S. border agents.”

More evidence that the 21st Century has been postponed:

“In communities like Fremont and Cupertino, south of San Francisco, feng shui experts often consult with developers on the layout of subdivisions, avoiding placing a house at a T-shaped intersection, which would invite negative energy, or sha, the mouth of the dragon.”

This from an editorial in today’s New York Times on the President’s NEA nonsense:

“It's impossible to argue with increased financing for such a valuable enterprise…”

And that seal of approval from the gray lady tells you all that you need to know about this particular White House initiative.

As is usual with such campaigns (the tobacco wars come to mind), the current obsession with the ‘obesity crisis’ is everything to do with ideological fixations and control. It has almost nothing to do with health. Typical of this are moves to ban food advertising directed at ‘the children’. Rather awkwardly for the zealots that advocate this type of censorship, a new study (by David Ashton of Imperial College) has challenged findings connecting the increase in childhood obesity to such advertising (this was reported in Friday’s Financial Times: I cannot find a link). Now, experts often disagree, so there is a limit to how definitive any one study can be said to be, but it’s striking that Quebec’s ban on food advertising directed at kids (in place since 1980) has had no appreciable effect on childhood obesity compared with other Canadian provinces. Sweden has a similar ban and it has proved similarly ineffective.

The real solution (and, as someone who hated school sports, I hesitate to write this): more exercise.

Whether John Haas should toughen his position depends, it seems to me, on distinguishing the intrinsically immoral from the imprudent.

If the researchers at Georgetown did not participate in the abortions that yielded the cells and the abortions were not performed in order that the cells could be obtained, then I don't believe we can maintain that the use of the cells is intrinsically immoral, unless we're going to argue that it is always immoral to profit from the evil actions of others. (I don't think such an argument can be sustained.) I presume that Dr. Haas was asked whether the use of the cells is intrinsically immoral, so his answer, strictly speaking, is correct.

Nevertheless, an action that is not in itself immoral can become immoral if it is performed under certain circumstances. Drinking alcohol is not intrisically immoral, but it is immoral for an alcoholic, because for him it is a gross violation of prudence to expose himself to the temptation to drunkeness.

On the grounds of prudence, I would argue that for Georgetown, a Catholic university, to permit such research is bad, because many will take it to mean that there is really no problem with it. And this impression will be reinforced when, for instance, the diocesan spokesman speaks in consequentialist terms of the expected benefit to society. One would like to see such research restrained in general, to avoid the temptation to harvest fetal tissue specifically for research. One could make analgous arguments regarding the use of Nazi research, both as to the immorality and the imprudence of doing so.

It is unfortunate that the researchers and administrators in question did not (it appears) look into the source of the cells to begin with….The possibility [that]the cells [had] undesirable source must have occurred to someone. One suspects they didn't want to know.

I think part of the problem is that we're suspicious (and why wouldn't we be?) of the ratiocinations of Catholic bishops and university presidents.

It was, delightfully, a bad week for the BBC. Stephen Pollard, as so often, finds the best words to sum up this appalling institution:

“The BBC is an organization that, from top to bottom, sees itself not as a neutral reporter of the news, but as a de facto opposition to whatever government happens to be in power. There is a clear left liberal bias in the BBC’s assumptions. As a body funded by a tax paid by every TV and radio viewer, without any alternative – failure to pay results in imprisonment – that is simply grotesque. Hutton has done the process of democracy a huge service.”

That’s quite right. The current arrangements for funding the Beeb should have been scrapped years ago. One of life’s mysteries is why neither Mrs. Thatcher nor John Major tried to do anything about it while they had the chance. Cowardice perhaps, but also complacency – and a failure to understand the way that culture can shape politics. The Tories aren’t alone. We see the same stupidity at work in President Bush’s decision to push for more money for the NEA, the latest feckless initiative from an increasingly feckless administration.

I like NR, the Corner and especially Jonah so I was a little surpirsed to see Jonahs and Alder dismissing reader's comments are uniformed or "rebels". I think its legitimate to question NR's suppport of NEA funding. When did being conservative become a rebel position at NR.

Subject: Wow, and this is a conservative magazine?

I don't understand the silence and spin on the Prescription Drug Bill and the NEA budget increase and the Mars Mission. Does National Review have any principles it stands for beyond supporting a president who happens to have an (R) after his name, no matter what? I don't see how you can claim to be a fiscally conservative magazine.

There is much in our culture that conspires to encourage this dark and superficial view of humanity. It behooves us to resist the inroads of nihilism by withholding the sanction of the law from practices that, however exigent, are never less than morally problematic. By voting to legalize euthansia, the Dutch have given a hostage to the very force they had hoped to placate: death.

BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan resigns - BBC

LONDON (Reuters) - BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who said in a radio report that the British goverment "sexed up" the risk posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons, has resigned, the BBC said.

The BBC told Reuters: "We can confirm that Andrew Gilligan has resigned. We recognise that this has been a very difficult time for him."

Ms. Lopez,

In light of your postings today regarding Bush's work on sex-slavery, here is a link to an AP article published at sfgate.com (the on-line site of the San Francisco Chronicle) about a succesful prosecution of a slavery ring in the US.

In particular, I was impressed by the end of the article: "Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday said busting this ring and a forced-labor ring in American Samoa showed prosecutors were making inroads against human trafficking.

There have been 83 convictions or guilty pleas since the Justice Department launched the initiative in March 2001, a threefold increase over the preceding three years, officials said. Prosecutors have 142 open investigations, the most ever."

This is a part of the Ashrcoft Justice Department that rarely get any press.

Catching up after a trip to yet another undisclosed location... More cash for the NEA? Good grief. Everytime you think that it's impossible for George W Bush to spring another rat from his hat, he goes and does it again, but, to take some recent instances, what else can you expect from a president who signs laws he believes to be unconstitutional, proposes a vast guestworker program in the middle of difficult times for blue collar America, recruits Jules Verne as a science advisor, squanders a SOTU driveling on about steroids, and as for the budget...

Now there's the NEA. Roger Kimball makes the best case that can be made for the White House's decision to hurl money the country doesn't have at an institution the country doesn't need, but he's being far too kind. Even if it is agreed that government should be directly funding 'culture' (I don't think government should, but that's a different debate), the president's decision is bound to backfire. Remember O'Sullivan's law. Any organization that is not explicitly conservative will ultimately end up in the hands of the left. Dana Gioia may indeed be doing splendid work at the moment, but neither he nor George W. Bush will be in office forever. At some point in the future, maybe under a future Democratic administration or maybe just as a result of bureaucratic drift, the NEA will inevitably fall back into its old, bad habits - only this time on a much bigger budget.

As one seems to be saying more and more these days: thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

I hadn't seen Derb's post until I read Peter's. I respect Steve Sailer's intellect too, Derb, but it's sad to see him embracing every bit of paleocon dogma. Sailer disproves the theory of free trade only if that theory is taken to mean that any tariff, no matter how small and no matter what other policies are in place, will ruin an economy. I suppose there are some free traders whose fervor leads them to suggest that, but proving it wrong does not invalidate stronger forms of the theory.

Peter points to one of the minor ironies of early American history: the fact that Jeffersonian supporters of revenue tariffs were willing to impose higher tariff rates than the Hamiltonian supporters of protective tariffs. I would also note that Hamilton did not believe in tariffs on goods that were used by American producers--such as steel and semiconductors in modern times--and thought that the tariffs were an important complement to a policy of mass immigration.

I think everyone generally agrees that Joe Lieberman is a decent and honorable guy and all that. He's running as a reasonable centrist and he's getting clobbered for it. I agree with all that. But there's one thing he's said more than once which I think reflects badly on his judgment or his honesty. He said time and again in the early debates that "anyone on this stage" would be an improvement over George W. Bush. Lieberman surely doesn't believe that. And if he did, he's got real problems. After all, if you take the war on terrorism as seriously as he does, how can you possibly believe that Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich or Carol Moseley Braun -- or really even Howard Dean -- would be a better pick than George W. Bush. And yeah, I know that such displays of party loyalty are one of the obligatory pieties of electoral politics. But considering how badly he's done, would he really have done worse if he'd said "I'm afraid that replacing George W Bush with Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich, fine men though they are, would be a real tragedy for our party and our nation." In other words, rather than constantly saying he's a centrist, couldn't he show it?" Fights attract crowds and they attract supporters as much as they attract critics. Lieberman missed a chance to do the right thing and it might have helped him. It certainly couldn't have hurt him much more than his existing strategy has.

Of course this is all too late. But it's been bothering me for a long time.

John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Boston, said the ethical issues surrounding the use of fetal cells, embryonic stem cells and cloning are the most controversial facing the church. "I don't see the moral difficulty in using these cell lines, because you're not contributing in any way to the abortions, which took place decades ago," Haas said. "However, there is the risk of leading people to think that [some Catholic institutions do not] consider abortion to be a great evil and are indifferent to it and willing to work with tissue that result from that kind of action."

Fromn a reader:

I dunno, Jonah. I heard everybody complain about the State of the Union speech, trying to cover too much, what are steroids doing I there, etc. etc. etc. Yet each person who complained had praise for a different portion of the speech. Howard Fineman (Did I get the name right) thought the steroid bit was great--a very necessary message for kids. If you put together all the parts that individuals liked, you had a whole speech.

My eldest son, older than you are and should know better, just sent me a "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today" Michael Moore kind of silly rant attempting to prove that all Republicans have committed the vilest of sins, that of being hypocrites. So tiresome. But then I find the Republicans who insist that they will sit on their hands and not vote in this election to teach Bush a lesson pretty tiresome too.

The most basic conservative belief is that man is not perfect, and you can't make him perfect no matter how many well-intentioned laws you pass.

From a reader:

One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the road side. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. "Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man. "We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. Oh, well, you can come with me to my house," instructed the lawyer. "But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me!" "Bring them along!" replied the lawyer. He turned to the other man and said: "You come with us, too." "But sir, I have a wife and six children!", the second man answered. "Bring them as well!" answered the lawyer as he headed for his limo. They all climbed into the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine. Once underway, one of the poor fellows says: "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you." The lawyer replied: "Glad to do it. You'll love my place, the grass is almost a foot tall."

1. Two northeastern liberals on the tickets will lead to a landslide loss.
2. Senator Heinz-Kerry is henpecked enough at home.
3. Candidates never want to be upstaged by their VP nominee.
4. Having placed herself in line to be the standard bearer in 08, Hillary would work to undermine whatever slim chance Kerry has to win.
5. A Hillary vice presidency would mean having Bill hanging around Washington, getting attention. Kerry doesn't want that.
6. Hillary would not be content to be a quiet, dutiful VP. Kerry knows that too.
7. Parellels with Mondale-Ferraro would become compelling.
8. Mrs. Heinz-Kerry will not consent to sharing stage with another woman.
9. One fakeplastic smile is enough for any ticket.
10. Obvious Red Sox - "Yankee" fan tension would lead to fistfights in October.
P.S. I Tivo “Uncommon Knowledge” every week.

Jonah, I've been reading the conversation between you and Mike Potemra and agree with you fully. I think what's missing amongst the "anybody can say whatever they want" crowd is the first half of the Friends of Voltaire quote: I disagree with what you say. Unless and until you state that qualifier, the rest--"I will defend to the death your right to say it"--becomes, by omission, a defense of the _words in question_ not a defense of freedom of speech. By not taking the effort to denounce Michael Moore's statement that Bush is a deserter, Clark is defending the statement, not Moore's right to make an ass of himself. (Moore's bank account alone should be evidence enough of that latter fact.) And Clark has now shown on several occasions that he has no intention whatsoever of denouncing Michael Moore's statement; hell, he hadn't even taken the time to even _question_ its veracity, last I heard. In our culture, unless you explictly disagree with something you're apt to come across as supporting it, especially when you support those who believe it. Wesley Clark thinks he is deserving of the Oval Office, but his actions reveal time and again that he shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of that office."

What many fail to grasp when using the phrase 'marketplace of ideas' is that some products often fail to find consumers to demand them, and hence they fail in the marketplace. If the Michael Moores of the world (or Susan Sarandons or Tim Robbins, etc.) are shamed into silence (note that Tim Robbins was quite well-behaved at the Golden Globes, progress perhaps?) by their response to the negative reactions that they receive, this is PRECISELY HOW A MARKET FUNCTIONS, and thus is a very good thing. Markets are about choices, not about mandated diversity. Mike would seem to be hoping for a series of (using the market metaphor) state-financed enterprises to provide make-work for those who simply cannot compete... I am a first amendment absolutist on a level that I doubt you would embrace, but I do NOT believe that the right to speak out obviates the necessity of accepting the consequences of one's words... Just a thought...

Now, it’s true I haven’t written since then that the UN should take over in Iraq. I don’t think I’ve written that it shouldn’t either. Though maybe I have in an incidental way, I just don’t recall – much as I didn’t recall writing the offending passage until people passed it along.

Anyway, I’m not sure I see the huge hypocrisy on my part. Let’s start from the top. If you read that column, you’ll see that the reason I supported the if-no-WMDs-then-hand-it-to-the-UN deal was first and foremost to convince France, Germany and Russia to get behind the US during an ongoing war. If you’ve read the papers since March, you’ll recall that they didn’t join the coalition, they didn’t get with the program. That changes the equation pretty considerably. I was not in favor of handing the keys to Iraq over to the United Nations because I think the United Nations is such a wonderful organization. Deferring to them now, without laying the groundwork for it in advance would be a public relations and strategic blunder of huge proportions at this point. However, I do think the UN should get more involved. I do think the administration was right to try to enlist the UN in the effort more. And I do think the UN is betraying its own humanitarian principles by not helping out simply out of fear and anti-Americanism. The fear is understandable, but by giving into it they worsen Iraq’s prospects for healthy future.

So yeah, things have not gone wonderfully on all fronts in Iraq and the UN could help alleviate some of the anti-American sentiment there.

Also, I proposed that idea because I was still fairly certain there would be WMDs found in Iraq and that French and Russian skepticism was an opportunistic pose designed to make us look bad. I think I was right about that then and now. My deal would have called their bluff. We didn’t offer it, they didn’t take it. In retrospect that might be a good thing. I’m not sure. But I am sure that suggesting I’m a hypocrite because I don’t support an idea which is now totally obsolete is, charitably speaking, unpersuasive.

A blog called Soundbitten zinged me for something I wrote last March. It's a pretty silly potshot since he (she? I dunno) clearly doesn't understand what I was talking about here in the Corner and also skips over the fact that in numerous pro-war columns, I never emphasized the WMD issue as my primary motive in order to make it sound like I’ve flip-flopped. Then Atrios picked it up – without attribution, by the way – and so this afternoon I’ve received a quite a few, almost invariably nasty, emails taunting me about it. On a side note I must say that of the dozens of blogs of the left and right which criticize me with great frequency, the readers of Eschaton/Atrios are without a doubt the most reliably ugly and cheap about it. I can take the criticism, but it really seems like these guys work hard at being unlikable, in contrast to plenty of liberals and leftists who zing me all the time. Anyway, here’s the offending passage I wrote last March 28:

So here's the deal: George Bush — who has rightly been much more reluctant than Tony Blair to toss the U.N. a bone when it comes to the potentially lucrative prospect of rebuilding Iraq — should make it known that if Coalition forces find no Iraqi WMD while we're in there, we will defer to the U.N. on how to run postwar Iraq. If the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein would "change the equation" for the French during the war, why shouldn't the discovery of WMD stockpiles at the end of hostilities change the equation for the peace? If it becomes clear that the United States and Great Britain were right when we said France, Russia, and Germany were being willfully obtuse in not seeing Iraq's noncompliance, why shouldn't the Coalition nations be rewarded for having the courage of our convictions? If these reconstruction contracts must go to someone, and we can credibly argue that we made the greatest sacrifices while the French and Russians were supine appeasers, why shouldn't those contracts go to us?

Now, to be honest, I think they should go to us regardless, because America's motives were right — and our sacrifices are real — even if Saddam doesn't have these weapons. For twelve years he issued bilious clouds of smoke in order to make the world think there's a fire in Iraq. If it turns out it was all smoke and no fire, that doesn't make us wrong for bringing the fire hose.

But, as a political proposition, without the discovery of WMD, postwar Iraq will be a political tar baby anyway — perhaps even if we're greeted as liberators by most Iraqis. We might as well hand it over to the United Nations. I am still confident we will find plenty of such weapons — Saddam didn't buy those chemical suits and atropine injectors because Glamour magazine says they're all the rage….

Mike - We've been having the exact same argument for about two years in here. You come from the perspective, I'm now quite certain, which believes there's a great deal of heft and meaning to such phrases as "I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I come from the perspective which says such statements are usually diversionary treacle, intended to distract from the substance of the issues at hand. When I hear Wes Clark, for example, brush off questions about Michael Moore by saying "I support Mr. Moore's right to dissent" or some such, I think he's being a monumental wuss and, frankly, a coward. Who cares if he supports his right to dissent, that's not the issue. If Clark had the integrity to say what he thinks about Moore's comments, he would say it. Instead he falls back on a tired cliché to dodge the question.

Similarly your "Mosaic" stuff takes the condescending view that there's something quaint or charming about even the most vile speech because of its contribution to "diversity." Fine, but really: So what? All it says to me is that when push comes to shove those who fetishize extreme speech will make for unreliable allies in the fight against the ideas that speech communicates. It's almost like you subscribe to a radical chic that is charmed by the fellow you meet at a cocktail party who would -- if given the power -- put you in a reeducation camp. Indeed, this whole "speech should be suppressed" thing you and your reader raise (again) is really a strawman. Who is talking about "suppressing" speech? Where did that come from? Not from me. Not from your original post about the Brian Lamb book etc. No, you brought it up again, almost reflexively as if any criticism of the sort of un-intellectual diversity you celebrate necessarily implies the organized suppression of dissident speech. I'm sorry, but that's your hobgoblin, not my threat, real or implied. I am for shunning, shaming and mocking voices like Moore's, not for suppressing them with the force of law. And if that drives those voices from public life, Wahoo! Mission accomplished. That to me is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. But if that strikes you as suppression, then I guess I am for suppression.

There endeth my lesson. Amen back at ya.

Kathryn,

The following quote from a reader today in the Corner totally captures the essence of NRO.

"It's kind of like being on a long car trip with some heavily stoned Rhodes Scholars."

I nominate it for the new NRO slogan. That would give the NYTimes something to write about....

PS. If you make it your slogan, I'll buy a NRODT subscription for all my friends....

Mike - I guess I'm in the "that's sentimental pap" column too. Sure it's nice to have a rich mosaic of voices or whatever. But the content of those voices must be weighed on the merits too. Simply asserting that divergent voices add to our diversity and diversity is good isn't enough, because it provides no criteria by which we should judge those voices. It adds to diversity to have, say, Nazis and Stalinists in the national debate too, but frankly, I'd rather have a little less diversity if it meant not having them in it. I am not, repeat not, saying that Coulter and Moore are Nazis/Stalinists. But the point remains; the rich mosaic approach must celebrate all perspectives regardless of content.

I'm partial to the idea of one nation divided by a healthy debate too. But I do not believe that Moore and Coulter are in the same nation. The nation that you, me and Ann inhabit witnessed 9/11 and immediately saw it as an assault on our nation, regardless of partisanship. Moore saw it as something we had coming and lamented that more deserving, i.e. Republican, targets weren't hit. I disagree with Ann quite often but I never doubt that she's on America's side. I can't say the same about Moore. Oh, and if you're wondering if I'm questioning Michael Moore's patriotism, the answer is yes. I think the only thing he truly loves about this country is how rich it's made him.

Interesting:

Jonah,

I think that the letter posted at The Corner that describes Bush as the neighbor next door may be onto something.

Please let me share a demonstrative anecdote. I was recently in my local Meijer store, which is a Wal-Mart like mega-store, and walked down the cheap art aisle and was stopped in my tracks by a painting of George W. Bush. It was at least 18x12 in size and portrayed our President on one knee, with an open Bible in his right hand, and a clear and distinct wedding ring on his left. He is wearing a shirt and tie, but has the sleeves rolled up.

It surprised me, in that, even out here in red country, there is still plenty of cynicism about our leaders. I guess I just don't expect our generation to lionize heroes like our parents generation did.

Or maybe this whole NEA thing is a plot to lionize W in velvet like Elvis or James Dean.....

If a lifelong Democrat like me plans on voting for George W. Bush in November, you Republicans had damn well better do the same. There is only one issue, the war on terror, and you people need to get over this "these aren't conservative values" whine. Right here, right now, we need a leader who sees the world in the starkest of black and white terms. We've got him and we'd better do everything we can to keep him.

From a reader:

Jonah,

In three years of battles with my wife over the Bush presidency she has
never said a single positive thing about him -- until this morning.
Today she looked up brightly from the computer and said Bush is going to raise NEA funding.
My own reaction was "what a complete waste." But in retrospect I think it's a brilliant move. For a lousy $20 million he's found a way to break through to women voters. He'll never get my wife's vote.
But he has cracked the animosity against him and that could pay big time returns down the road, especially with women closer to the center.

And even if the Democrats turn his flank and try to outbid the funding proposal, it'll still be a hell of a lot cheaper than more environmental laws or those silly Amtrak subsidies.

Peggy Noonan wrote this in 2002. I think she was right then and I think this is what we're seeing now too:

The reason is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The reason is that GWB is doing an FDR.

And I think people know this without quite knowing it.

FDR would sacrifice anything, he'd tack left right and center, to win World War II. You can almost literally trace the end of FDR's New Deal legislation to the beginning of the war in Europe in September 1939. Yes, the court-packing scandal had something to do with it, and so did the Supreme Court finding aspects of the New Deal unconstitutional. But after Hitler moved on Poland, Roosevelt sacrificed almost all his liberal domestic plans, angering his own supporters and disappointing his party's interest groups, in order to mollify conservatives and refocus voters' attention away from the Depression and onto the war. He knew he would need broadened support to execute a war. He disappointed much of his base to get it.

Mr. Bush is doing the same thing. He is accepting what he thinks he has to accept (pork, a bad trade bill) in order to keep or expand the power balance he has in Washington, and in order to keep from angering or offending your basic, normal, politically nonobsessed citizen.

From a reader:

The readers who are threatening to stay home on election day because of Bush's "liberalism" are really missing the point. Am I troubled by Bush's positions on the NEA, immigration, and the welfare state? You bet. He's no Reagan in many respects. But in all the areas where we are bothered by Bush's policy decisions, the Democrats would be far worse. And most importantly, issues like the NEA pale in comparison to the only important issue of our day -- the war on terror. Choosing to pout over the NEA and spending increases and thereby allowing Democrats to take power and turn our security over to the French and Kofi Annan is just about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. And this is saying a lot, since I've watched a few of Howard Dean's recent speeches.

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg, Writing as a very disappointed GWB supporter and campaign donor, I think there is a huge segment of people out there who stand by him despite all these insane policy decisions because they simply like him so much as an individual. I think his down-to-Earth way of speaking and sincere religiosity are catnip for a huge proportion of red staters who rightly feel condescended to by the coastal cultural axis. People build an image of person based on an incomplete picture of reality, and when reality diverges from that picture, they tend to exclude it. It's like living next to a postcard-perfect family, whose kids play with your kids, the mother runs the church socials, the father coaches little league, and so on, and one day hearing that they host monthly S&M parties. Your first reaction is simply to not believe it--George? Impossible!--and it passes straight through without taking hold.

I think this guy is right on the substance, but that doesn't mean Bush doesn't have a problem brewing:

The "ex-member of Bush's base" wasn't part of Bush's base. He is one of the easily-angered, make-sure-you-find-something- not-conservative-enough-about-them, HowardDeanpersonality type conservative wing of the Republican party. They throw temper tantrums over side issues that affect life in America in the smallest ways and don't want to vote for the candidates who on big issues are night/day different from the Democrats. Bush's base is made up of people who still so admire him as to actually call him not just a good, but a great president. There are MANY more of us, I am sure.

I'm getting a steady trickle of emails like these:

Bush's immigration policy was, for me, the last straw -- because I view the amnesty deal as a surrender in the national security area -- who can tell how many murderous Islamists will hide in the flood of border-jumpers, if we (as Bush has done) announce that we really have no intention of enforcing our immigration laws. Coupled with signing a bill he knew was unconstitutional (BCFR), letting Teddy write the Education bill, support for discrimination in college admissions, out-of-control spending, letting almost all of Clinton's last-minute executive orders stand without a fight, refusing to prosecute the pardons-for-votes stuff, this NEA thing, etc...

Now, I believe Bush is a lock for re-election. So how can I punish him for abandoning me, his base -- and send a warning to the rest of the GOP that conservatives will no longer act like battered wives? By staying home in November. I'm in Florida. Surely Mr. Martinez, hoping to ride Bush's "coattails" to a Senate seat, might take notice. Ditto Jeb's referenda... If Bush ticks off his base enough, as he has me, then there will be no coattails, and he'll have another four years of frustration. Maybe, if we're all lucky, the Dems will start blocking ALL of his stupid policies instead of only a few...hurray for gridlock!

--
An ex-member of Bush's base

I don't agree with him on the Nader point, and he may not realize that "NRO" doesn't take editorial positions separate from the magazine, but it's an interesting question:

Jonah:

Ralph Nader was right. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats (at least at the Executive Branch level). It strikes me that if you were to list Bush’s domestic and foreign agendas to date and, in a poll ask whose policies they were, many would say Bill Clinton.

My question to NRO is this: Is their ANYTHING that Dubya could do that would lead NRO to support an alternative candidate?

Okay, you've been warned. So don't send me any "Damn you Goldbergs!!!" This is a game a reader sent me as explicit "payback" for the penguin thing. It's very addictive and adds nothing to the GDP. You shouldn't follow the link. More importantly, you should not report your high scores to me. Seriously. I must have gotten at least a hundred reports on various readers penguin-batting high scores.

From a reader:

Dude,
with regard to Bush's recent lib-sellout-sounding proposals like NEA funding
and immigration, I think there's probably more political calculation in it than anything else, particularly with regard to the elections in Congress this fall - the "coattails" issue. Put aside how you feel about the merits of his immigration proposal for a moment and consider the one unleashed by Nancy Pelosi this morning (was linked to washtimes.com via drudgereport this morning) and see a sterling example of how the left apparently can't help itself. Bush looks like a Buchananite by comparison to this stuff. Is there any reason to think we shouldn't be expecting a similar blast of "Democrats have a better way" asininity from the Dems on the subject of NEA funding anytime soon? Not to mention the thought that comes to mind: "Who in this picture sounds like a 'reactionary'?"

Maybe after a few of these "proposals" are floated, the result is that Bush has effectively handed his fellow Republicans in Congress the ability and, most importantly, the evidence, to run against the Democrats in congress as liberal extremists by dint of the Dems' own counterproposals, and all along, no one with an "R" after their name necessarily cares if Bush's proposals ever go anywhere as written. After all, just look at how hard he's been fighting for his immigration program...

Fair point from a reader, I guess I mispoke on the high dollar part:

Jonah:

"When Bush starts spending high dollars on the NEA..."

High dollars!!!???

I agree with you on this (about NEA funding increases being a Souljah moment for Bush). For one thing, the NEA is (relatively speaking) under control -- Mapplethorpe-class excesses seem to have disappeared, and a quick glance through the 2003 grants shows what looks like a "motherhood & apple pie for the arts" funding priority list.

But we're only talking about a measly *$15-20 million* increase for NEA, in the context of a trillion dollar budget!!! We're probably spending more than that on swamp rat sanctuaries in Mississippi! I suppose the folks who want to zero out the NEA can feel the sting of each penny as it is spent -- but it's really a nit in the overall scheme of things.

In exchange for such a minor price, Pres Bush shows that he's got a warm spot in his heart for the Arts (probably with some advice from the beauteous Mrs Bush) and stands up to those mean, awful, artless conservatives who want to use the money to buy lug nuts for fighter planes. Not a bad investment, particularly if California will be in play this autumn...

If this reader is right, I support Bush's move 100%:

Mr.Goldberg

One possibility is that President Bush might use any controversy as an opportunity to restructure the NEA by dividing it into a National Endowment for Symphony Orchestras and a separate National Endowment for Homoerotic and Anti-American Performance Art and letting Congress decide how to allocate the funds.

From JOHN MAGNER: Subject: NY Times' Conservatives beat. I eagerly look forward to the Times' forthcoming establishment of a Liberals beat. The lucky reporter will, of course, "examine liberal forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media." The idea will be to "delve into the issues and personalities that drive -- and sometimes divide -- liberals." The Times' Liberals beat will examine the disparate but at times interconnected liberal organizations -- teachers' unions and Affirmative Action supporters, for example -- all as a way of gaining a peek into who establishment Democrats listen to, and why. Can't wait!

When Bush starts spending high dollars on the NEA you have to start wondering whether he's crazy like a fox. Maybe the constant drumbeat from liberals calling Bush a monster-barbarian-trog have succeeded with key demographic groups? Maybe this is all calculated to elicit a predictable (and warranted) response from conservatives which the Administration can then exploit; "See, the Gingroid-nasties hate me! They're complaining I'm too compassionate! I'm a middle-of-the-roader, just like you."

I'm always reluctant to assume these sorts of multi-carom strategies. But surely Bush doesn't expect to pick up actual votes or support on the merits of increased NEA funding? I mean he's on this big kick to cut spending and he chooses to boost spending on the mother of all White Elephants (at least in the minds of millions of Americans. Personally, I can see spending the money on arts, in flush times, if done responsibly). I'm sure the symbolism will help with a handful of people, but in the broad scheme of things, people who care about more NEA funding enough to influence their vote are already lost to Bush -- and there aren't that many of them in the first place. But there are millions of conservatives who want less NEA funding and he's opting to tick them off. So, maybe it's intentional. And, it might actually be working, as Glenn Reynolds notes.

And all of this for what? For staying in the white house for 4 or 8 years? Is it worth it?

And this is not directed only to Mr. Dean, it’s for all the Americans who support such allegations without being aware of their consequences. What’s it that you fight so hard for, showing your soldiers as s occupiers and murderers, the soldiers who I had the honour of meeting many, and when talking to some of them, I didn’t see anything other than gentleness, honesty and good will and faith in what they’re doing.

Your words and those of others were insults to the Americans, Iraqis and moreover to yourself, and I’m certain you don’t represent the number of Americans you fanaticise about. I’m sorry for being so rude, but I really tried hard to restrain myself from being more direct, and thus nearly as rude as you were. If I wanted to respond just as an Iraqi who is so offended by your words, my feelings wouldn’t have been expressed without using a language nastier than what I’ve committed myself to on writing on this blog.

Don't forget that John Kerry is a prostate cancer survivor. My father is being treated with lupron, and the drug has enabled him to live relatively comfortably for the last several years. One of its side effects, though, is that as it shuts off your testosterone, it changes a man's facial skin tone--and the changes are dramatic. My father's face looks ten years younger, his skin is almost luminous, and he hardly has to shave anymore. If Senator Kerry is using this drug, his handlers would be reluctant to share that information--not very "Presidential." I could be wrong, but it's something to consider.

Peter -- I'm not sure I know either. But I would make a couple points. First, if you've got an administration divided between Republican multilateralists, realists and neocons the WMD issue really might be the only consensus position. Bush might also have agreed to play down the other reasons in order to keep Blair and the rest of the coalition in line as well as possibly seduce other nations. Surely the French have no interest in liberating anybody. And the United Nations can't buy into a plan to redraw the face of the Middle East. Maybe Steve Hayes forthcoming book will have the answer?

But it should be pointed out that the more Bush digs in on WMD the more preposterous the "Bush lied" mantra becomes. If Bush knew that there were no WMDs, the metaphysical stupidity of focusing on it as the prime motive becomes ever more stark, especially if you go by the Kennedy hypothesis which says that Bush did this all for political gain. If he knew they didn't exist, he might as well have said "We are going into Iraq to stop the slaughter of the unicorns. When we liberate Iraq we will find herds upon herds of unicorns, some will be dead but many will still be alive -- if we act quickly!"

So maybe, Bush figured that the WMD issue was the most concrete thing to base the war on. After all, liberation, spreading democracy, fighting al qaeda, lessening dependence on Saudi Arabia, including pulling our troops out of there, were all valid reasons for the war, but Bush could not guarantee their realization upon completion of the war (or by election time). If he was sure about the WMD, he could say "See, we achieved our objectives." The rest would be gravy.

The DNC chairman is asking his Republican counterpart, Ed Gillespie, to repudiate a recent article on NRO. "Will GOP Chairman Rebuke Conservative's Vile Hate Speech?" runs the press-release headline. Democrats say, "National Review writer Timothy Carney in a column on Friday, compared Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to Nazis and Senator Orrin Hatch to Neville Chamberlain. It will be interesting to note whether Gillespie will be hit with another fit of outrage over political 'hate speech.'"

You will not actually find the word "Nazi" in Tim Carney's article. The Chamberlain comparison is indeed present, which I suppose makes the Nazi comparison a kind of spectral presence. But McAuliffe didn't say "Carney compared Hatch to Chamberlain, which would make the Senate Democrats Nazis, which is outrageous," since saying that would sound pretty lame. His misleading shot at us strikes me as more objectionable than Carney's article.

I just listened to Tony Blair respond to the Hutton report on C-Span radio. I assume it'll play on C-Span later today. If it does be sure to catch it because it was awesome. It was really one of the great in-your-face moments of modern politics. Blair hit all the notes. All it was missing was that incredibly lewd thing Jim Carrey does in some of his movies. You know where he makes that pelvic thrusting gesture and starts yelling "can you feel that? huh? can you?"

I guess that would have subtracted from the overall classiness of his response. But seriously, watch it if you get the chance.

That technology is also available to your readers. Hold shift while you click on a link and it will come up in a new window, regardless of what HTML is on the server side. I do appreciate your taking the time to do it right, though. thanks,

From a reader:

Jonah,

The debunking you linked to a short while ago on the Corner didn't persuade. The sight and sound of an approaching Harrier is completely unlike the approach of a Lynx helicopter. The Harrier is a jet ... it's sleeker, faster (and the sound of its approach tends to lag behind it, even at less than sonic speeds). It doesn't "chop" through the air, it cuts.

The falling penguins may indeed be an urban myth and may need debunking, but .. the snopes.com entry doesn't do the trick.

Thanks for doing what you do. :)

From a reader in academia:

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

I agree very much with your Corner posting on how emphasizing WMD’s over the goal of changing the Middle East was tactically a bad idea, one provoked by the need to have a “legal” (i.e. UN-pleasing) argument. But note another implication. In his axis of evil speech President Bush argued for a doctrine of preemption. In reality, however, the Bush administration went after not the most terrorist and most WMD-friendly government (that would have to be either Iran or N. Korea), but the one with which they had a plausible casus belli under international law. In short, the Bush administration itself didn’t really act according to its pre-emption doctrine. Given the demonstrated uncertainties of intelligence, I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or not, but it has to be acknowledged if we want to understand the situation we’re in right now.

Perhaps John Kerry is being honest when he denies using Botox. After all, Botox is yesterday's news! The new zeitgeist is Restalyne. For a while folks were going to the Caribbean for their Restalyne injections, but I believe it's been approved for use in the US.

If he's never heard of Botox, maybe he should ask his wife...she looks like she's overdosed on the stuff. Is that why she never smiles? Is her entire face numb? Seriously, she looks like she couldn't be more bored with this whole silly democracy thing. When they are on stage together and he has his arm around her shoulders, I swear I can hear him saying to her, "C'mon honey, just smile, for Pete's sake. Why do you have to be such a gloomy guss?"

but it's still worth reading now: ABC's "The Note" (scroll down a bit) has some internal memos from the Kerry campaign (or rather, from the ex-staff to the new staff). There is a lot of good stuff here; my favorite is this from Jim Jordan: "You'll be tempted to ask the research shop to get you a memo on The Candidate's achievements in Congress. Save yourself some time and don't."

CORRECTION: The memos were spoofs; my bad.

I haven't had a chance to read Frum and Perle's "An End to Evil" but I have caught them talking about it a few times. One point that I've heard Perle make really sticks with me. The emphasis on WMDs was largely the result of lawyers at the State Dept. thinking that was the only "legal" reason we could go to war. Perle didn't reference it directly, but remember the whole kerfuffle about Paul Wolfowitz's interview with Sam Tanenhaus in which he divulged that the emphasis on WMD above all else was largely due to "bureaucratic" pressures from inside the US government. This, predictably, was distorted into proof that neocon ideologues were lying about the real reasons for the war. But that wasn't what he was saying at all.

Anyway, my point is this: to the extent the post-Iraq failure to find WMDs is a disaster for the United States in terms of its credibility, its relationships with allies etc. one could argue that the fault lies in the fact that George W. Bush listened too much to Colin Powell and the State Department instead of the hawks, since it was the Wolfowitz crowd which wanted to emphasize freedom, democracy, stability and the war on terror. Now that no WMDs have been found that rhetoric seems self-serving when in fact those were co-equal priorities all along. If George Bush had talked before the war about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq as eloquently as he did afterwards, he would be in a lot better shape politically and in the history books. Moreover, I bet he would have been a lot more honest. Bush is a moralist and I'm certain he had the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism in his mind as much as anything else.

That was certainly the case for most of the pro-war conservatives outside the administration. Scan through the pages of post 9/11 National Review, National Review Online, The Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard etc. Look at what Chris Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan and the "war bloggers" had to say about the war with Iraq. The WMD issue was certainly important, but it became critical only after the administration made it clear that they were going hinge their entire case on WMDs.

I don't think the administration lied or deliberately exaggerated the WMD intelligence. I do think it deliberately exaggerated the WMD issue at the behest of the cookie pushers at State. And that's why we're in such a pickle now.

Penguin story has been debunked.

From the now famous Airpower guy of yore:

436.2...I swear...I wish I could save the page...he looked like a ski jumper.

BTW, a Harrier pilot discovered during the Falklands campaign that the thousands of birds on the shores of some of the uninhabited islands would watch raptly his every move...fly left to right, thousands of heads slowly turned to to follow...right to left, same thing. So, out of curiosity he flies directly away from shore, reverses course and heads straight for the birds (with penguins you don’t have to worry about them springing into the air in a panic and trashing your engines). Yup, everybody follows...until they fell over on their backs. True story. Hey, post-war patrols can be tedious...

It's only a matter of time before we witness another Howard Dean Moment in the Democratic presidential race -- but not, I predict, from any of the Democratic presidential candidates. Skulking in the campaign background is a ticking time bombette with a volatile temper and acid tongue who makes Dean look like Mr. Rogers on Prozac.

A suggestion: to make the next several primaries even more fun you need to publish drinking game rules for several classes: Media coverage in general but CNN/Dan Rather/Peter Jennings specifically; phrases used by candidates in election night speeches. For the more tame people you could have a penguin batting or other goofy macromedia contest during lulls in the action with published averages for ten at bats

"The economy of privilege." Kerry's campaigning against it. We're going to hear that phrase a lot more. It's not bad. It's not true, but it's not bad.

At Edwards' rally, the candidate was introduced for maybe three minutes and spent the rest of the event making the pitch himself. A Kerry rally is nothing like that. It's more like a roast. First Shaheen sang Kerry's praises. Then a former state senator sang Kerry's praises. Then Ted Kennedy sang Kerry's praises. Then Kennedy's son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., sang Kerry's praises. Then Kerry spoke for a bit and handed the mike to his stepson and wife, who sang Kerry's praises. It's like going to a concert and sitting through a bunch of speeches in which the musician's friends attest, "this guy can sing."

Sooooo much email about the Penguin Batting link (I know, I know the future of Democracy is at stake tonight, blah blah blah. But my email runs 9 to 1 'guin battin' to NH primary info). The best reported score so far, 326. But I like this email:

Mr. Goldberg,

I've been an avid NRO reader for about a year now, but have never subscribed to NRODT (although I asked for a subscription for Christmas but didn't get it). I'd like to sort of blackmail you for a Corner post.

If you report my Penguin Batting record (322.9) on the Corner, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I influenced many, many people into spending a few more minutes on the game trying to beat it, and in return I will subscribe to NRODT. Otherwise I may never subscribe. OK, I probably will, but I won't convince my friends to do it.

Including my name is not necessary.

Thanks,
Jake [Last name withheld]

You noted in the Corner that NH readers have been quiet today. I think it is because we all had to take an extra trip to the town dump to unload all the Dean propaganda left at our doors.

Dean supporters are dedicated, though--in front of our town hall voting site just before the polls closed, theirs was the only group with a large display inviting people to sign up as campaign volunteers, and the Dean signs and signholders dominated the downtown intersections.

Most Democrats I know waited until the last minute to make up their minds . . . But it looks like the sheeple went for Kerry. So much for the supposed independent thinking in NH.

K-LO, it all depends on where votes are counted.

Remember FLA in ’00? Counted lots of blue areas, so gave state to Gore. Then counted lots of Red areas, oops, maybe Bush.

Kerry’s Fund-Raiser Worries Advocates Of Iran Democracy

HE’S FAULTED FOR SOFT LINE

By ELI LAKE Staff Reporter of the Sun

WASHINGTON — Iranian American supporters of the effort to bring democracy to Iran are raising concerns about the resurgence of Senator Kerry’s campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, questioning the role of a Kerry fund-raiser who wants to normalize ties with Tehran.

Governor Howard Dean will be making campaign stops in the following cities over the next five days. A full schedule of events and details will be released tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28, 2004.

Lansing, Michigan
Greenville, South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
St. Louis, Missouri
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Phoenix, Arizona
Seattle, Washington
Madison, Wisconsin
Detroit, Michigan

Reading Morrow's engaging dream sequence, Dean's Secret Revealed, I thought: if I had to associate the candidates with a member of LOTR, where would their lots fall?

Here's my list:

Howard Dean: Gimli. Short-tempered, easily provoked, and well... short

John Kerry: Saruman. Slick, strangely exotic, conjuring, confident to a fault, and well... tall

John Edwards: Tom Bombadil (not in the films). Awkwardly optimistic, gleeful, dancing, and well... not in the movie.

Lieberman: Treebeard. Methodic, consistent (in relation to his peers), and well... slooow.

Clark: Gollum. Schizophrenic, perceptively deranged, and well... look at him.

Kucinich: Not sure: One of the Trolls?

Hey since we're all venting about Kerry & Co. I thought I'd share on my favorite little tidbits about the kind of man Kerry is. From John McCaslin's Washington Times column, June 2, 2003:

Guard your beignets

It won't be long before Washingtonians by the Suburban-loads steer for tony Nantucket where, if they're lucky, they won't share dinner with Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Pull up a chair to the Chanticleer, a restaurant without peer its windows looking out on a garden of climbing roses and a carousel horse. Since its establishment 33 years ago, the popular French restaurant has remained under the same chef/proprietor, Jean-Charles Berruet, and his wife, Anne.

Yet with every world-renowned restaurant comes the "jilted diner," as one well-known Washingtonian, who asks to remain anonymous, describes himself.

The Washingtonian and his large party had already placed their orders when who should stroll in for a quick bite to eat but Mr. Kerry and his charming wife, Teresa Heinz.

The Washingtonian ordered "Beignets of Cod Fish," which takes time for the chef to prepare, and just when he thought his waiter had returned to serve him, he was told that the beignets suddenly were not available and perhaps he should try something else.

The patron thought it very odd that so much time had passed and now, just as his table was about to be served dinners, the supposedly world-class waiter was telling him the entree was no longer available.

It was during a chance encounter after dinner with the waiter that it was revealed that the Democratic candidate had actually "stolen" the beignets.

"Did you give my beignets to the senator?" the Washingtonian asked.

"Yes," the waiter admitted.

"It seems the wait staff are under standing orders to get the senator 'in and out' in a most timely fashion," says the Washingtonian, "and in this case he couldn't wait for his beignets and was given the order already placed.

"The 'Man of the People' might end up at the White House," the gentleman added, "and if he does the presidential kitchen staff had better take notice."

In my most humble opinion, you should tally up the predictions from your Corner contributors and post a comparative chart along with the actual New Hampshire results. Now THAT would be a cool feature!

Larouche isn 't ever included in the lineup of Democrat contenders, even thought the most current report available (which isn't all that current - as of 9/30/03 - the next one is to be filed 1/31/04) Larouche outraised Kucinich, Braun, Graham, Sharpton and Clark. (As of that date, Larouche had raised over $5.6 million - had spent it, too!) It will be more newsworthy to compare his fundraising with the "conventional" candidates when this next report comes in - I'd expect he'd be behind Clark. Even so, Kucinich and Braun go to forums and debates as though they were contenders, yet "everyone knows LaRouche is crazy" and he doesn't. Is he really that much more unlikely than Kucinich?

I'd love a Dem debate where he could go off about Syndicalism, the forgotten man of labor, and neocons. It woudl push the other outside the box a little. Can't you see Dean nodding in assent?

“Kerry is the frontrunner. If these numbers hold up, Dean will try to spin it, but he’s in trouble without a win. The road doesn’t get any easier for Dean. The polls in a lot of later states showed Dean absolutely crashing. It’s not clear whether they were doing this before Iowa or whether it’s a reaction to the rant. But he’s got some ground to make up. If nobody drops out, he can go hard left and win some states with pluralities. It’s also unclear how much money he has spent. As for Kerry, he’s got some things to prove on February 3rd too. I’d be surprised by Edwards’ showing if these numbers hold up. But if Clark finishes behind Edwards, he’s got a real problem.”

“Some of his apparent comeback was just natural after the exaggerated reaction to the rant. And he’s changed the way he campaigns but he’s probably boxed himself in, because so much of his campaign was based on anger. I don’t know how much Deaniacs are interested in hearing him talk about the balanced budget. New Hampshire was really Ground Zero for his operation. It was an Amway strategy to absolutely solidify their core vote. So it makes sense that he still has support there. We always knew he had vulnerabilities when you move to the more conservative states. He was hoping to overcome that on a wave of hype. Well, the hype is gone. Dean has to get to February 17th, when he could do well in Wisconsin. And after that, he has to get to Super Tuesday on March 2nd which is a way long off.”

From a reader (note: I haven't checked this for accuracy yet):

In "Return of the King" (the book), when the forces of the West are arrayed before the Black Gate for their final battle with Mordor, the Mouth of Sauron (his Messenger) lays down the peace terms:

“...All lands east of the Anduin shall be Sauron’s forever, solely. West of the Anduin as far as the Misty Mountains and the Gap of Rohan shall be tributary to Mordor, AND MEN THERE SHALL BEAR NO WEAPONS, but shall have leave to govern their own affairs....”

Looking in the Messenger’s eyes, they read his thought....HE WOULD BE THERE TYRANT, AND THEY HIS SLAVES.

I know Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. But does that really exonerate him from any criticism of his record? Whether you're offended by his anti-war activities or not , I think Kerry's effort to be on both sides of the Vietnam issue could come back to bite him because it will be perceived as a metaphor for wanting to be on "both sides of every issue" -- as the Dean campaign is fond of saying. See the Owens article I linked to below. Or just look at the cover to his book, "The New Soldier."

From a reader:

Hey Jonah, Nice tribute to Joe Leiberman. You know, he's done his share of political spin and wavering over the past few years, but his inevitable drop from the race makes me a bit sad. He and Dick "Pinky" Gephardt both seem like good men who love their families and their country. Of course I reject almost all they say concerning domestic policy, but there does seem to be something genuine about both guys.

From a reader:

Is it wrong to day-dream about Al Franken trying to wrestle me to floor? Before you jump to conclusions, my fantasy includes opening a 40oz bottle of whup-ass on him. Of course, being 6’4, 260lbs he’d probably think twice about approaching me and should hope I don’t see him first. I’d show him fascism like he’s never seen…..

From a reader:

Not likely voters or even registered voters but adults.

I believe the rule of thumb is the further a poll goes away from likely voters, the more Democratic the result.

The Newsweek story on the poll doesn't mention the basis. In fact, at one point the story states that Bush's standing among "registered voters" has declined which is either inexcusably sloppy or deliberately misleading.

According to this reader from Owensboro Kentucky:

It appears to me that the polls (particularly Zogby) show a strong late surge for Dean. Plus, "Republican-leaning" independents will vote for Dean as the easiest to beat [for] Bush. The pundits don't have the guts to make such predictions, but I do! Please post this message on The Corner, thus displaying my brilliance for all to see!!

Lots of readers want me to be more outraged by Franken's tackle. Sorry I can't oblige. I'm not saying -- or I didn't mean to say -- that he was right to do it. Obviously, it was a dumb thing to do. I just think it's a more forgiveable/human response than a lot of folks do.

That said, tackling him from behind -- a fact I'd somehow missed originally -- doesn't speak too well of Al. First, it demonstrates that he didn't try to talk to the heckler before resorting to violence. Moreover, he says he employed a wrestling move. Well, um, where did he wrestle that he got the opportunity to tackle opponents from behind? A school for the blind?

Yes, it's true that if Rush Limbaugh had tackled a protester, Al Franken in particular and the media in general, would make a huge stink about it. We'd see the protester on the Today Show talking about the "fascist" tendencies of the American right with Katie Couric nodding along. So, Franken's a hypocrite and the media has a double-standard. Big news there.

But generally speaking I don't have that big a problem with what he did. Larouchies are crazies and who knows what kind of vibe the guy was giving off at the time.

What does trouble me is that Franken's Johnny-on-the-spot take down demonstrates a martial acumen no one had suspected. Maybe Rich Lowry should be worried?

Based upon absolutely nothing save my TheraFlu® induced visions, Kerry 32%, Dean 29, Edwards 19. Granite-staters choke back their Joe-mentum and poor Lieberman comes in a distant 4th.

Note: This prediction subject to change throughout the day.

Does anyone know anything specific about how Newsweek does its polls? I ask because during the impeachment brouhaha it was generally accepted that Newsweek's polls were implausibly rosy towards Bill Clinton. Now, it seems like Newsweek's polls are implausibly anti-Bush. Anyone have any serious idea as to why?

Here’s an item from the latest New York Magazine (scroll down and do not get distracted by the photo of Charlize Theron) on that great populist, that regular guy in a baseball cap, that scourge of the privileged and the pretentious, Mr. Michael Moore:

"Stupid Thirsty Men: Moore Water!

"Dude, where’s my French bottled water? It appears that man of the people Michael Moore has gone completely J.Lo on event organizers with pre-event demands. Before he’d agree to present an award for the best 30-second anti-Bush ad at a Manhattan MoveOn.org benefit earlier this month, Moore’s handlers insisted that he have a supply of Evian backstage. “Even Poland Spring wasn’t good enough,” says our inside source. “They called up to make sure he would have Evian…”"

This story is obviously false. No true man of the people would behave in this way. And that, of course, is just what Moore is. Isn't he?

"You can lose while winning and win while losing."
New Hampshire's primary race is all about expectations, gamesmanship and momentum. The candidate who can look ahead is the one who exceeds expectations, carries the momentum, and balances those achievements with campaign cash, viability and a nationwide organization.

"Iowa winnows, New Hampshire eliminates."
The caucuses, known to trim the field substantially, are said to offer "three tickets out of Iowa." But New Hampshire often narrows that down to a two-man race. However, this year's contest is so volatile, it's hard to say which candidates are likely to get passes to the seven Feb. 3 races.

As a political junkie and lover of democracy, I am having a wonderful time thinking about you, the insomniac, waiting to get the first returns. But even more fun is the mental image of Rich and Jonah in a Jeep somewhere in Dixville Notch with snow falling in a white out, trying to stay warm without attacking each other and stalking the line of voters entering the poll on this, the 228th anniversary of the Great Experiment. This is so wonderful, I want to howl like Dean!!!

"The Department was already seeking en banc review of the holding of a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit which invalidated parts of the 1996 material support statute, and the Department is reviewing today's District Court ruling regarding an additional portion of the law.

"The Patriot Act is an essential tool in the war on terror, and has played a key part -- and often the leading role -- in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results have been important, in passing the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law. The provision at issue in today's decision was a modest amendment to a pre-existing anti-terrorism law that was designed to deal with real threats caused by support of terrorist groups. By targeting those who provide material support by providing 'expert advice or assistance,' the law made clear that Americans are threatened as much by the person who teaches a terrorist to build a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the PATRIOT Act appropriately imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad."

During a town hall meeting on the Dartmouth campus, Kerry noted that former Vice President Al Gore would be president if he'd won any number of other non-Southern states in 2000, including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Ohio.

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

In its last issue, Le Nouvel Observateur has placed a picture of Michael Moore, as the Statue of Liberty, on it's cover. The disgusting title: "L'Amerique qu'on aime, il n'y pas que celle de Bush!" (The America we Love, there's more than Bush's America!).



Inside the magazine, a piece on the perfect candidade: "Howard Dean : joker des démocrates").

In French, a joker means "wild card", not "pathetic fool", more suitable when mentioning screaming Dean.

One possible reason for Kerry's choice of language (and perhaps his popularity in NH) is the large French Canadian population in the Granite State.

The NH French Canadian vote doesn't seem to have been discovered by the near frozen news media covering the story up there yet.

My father's cousin once told me that when he grew up in Manchester in the 1930s, speaking French (or actually French Canadian) was a necessity to get along in the schools.

As I recall, Buchannan's strongest vote came out of Manchester. Watch for the French-looking (and now speaking) Kerry to do well there as well.

I picked up some weird bug this weekend, seems like a blend between giardia and epstein-bar; I keep wanting to fall asleep in the bathroom. Also, I haven't been online in almost 48 hours and my email box overflowed. So my apologies to anyone who sent me mail between now and Saturday evening. It didn't come through. Anyway, I won't be around for much of the day.

On "Sixty Minutes", Kerry stated that it only took him two weeks in Vietnam to realize that the war was wrong. It took more than two weeks in Vietnam to get used to the weather, and there was an orientation period for everyone that lasted that long. The politics and confusion of Vietnam took much longer than two weeks to grasp for anyone. Kerry was trying to pass himself off as an astute observer but came off sounding like someone who jumped to conclusions based on nothing more than cynical observations. He's a Monday morning quarterback who's trying to convince everyone he could have won the game on his first possession.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The school honor roll, a time-honored system for rewarding "A" students, has become an apparent source of embarrassment for some underachievers.

As a result, all Nashville schools have stopped posting honor rolls, and some are considering a ban on hanging good work in the hallways — at the advice of school lawyers.

After a few parents complained their children might be ridiculed for not making the list, school-system lawyers warned that state privacy laws forbid releasing academic information, good or bad, without permission.

Some schools since have put a stop to academic pep rallies. Others think they may have to cancel spelling bees. And schools across the state may follow Nashville's lead.

One person familiar with the draft describes the book as "really long and searching," an attempt to "pull all the pieces of his life together." It's hard for him to decide what to leave out. And it's also difficult for Clinton to "make final judgments and come to terms with things," says a friend. The writing has been taxing both "physically and psychologically," says another. The book runs from his birth to the present, and will likely include his own account of the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton "sees the book as a big part of his legacy," says an associate.

There’s a good piece in this week’s Economist (link available to paying subscribers only) about the growing e-voting mess. The magazine focuses on the chaotic way that this ‘improvement’ is being introduced and what is, perhaps, these systems' greatest flaw – the absence of paper receipts. The writer notes that California has become the first state to insist that all voting machines must produce a paper trail by 2006. But, as he goes on to say, “the debate is far from over. To begin with, some electoral officials oppose the idea of paper trails on the basis that printers will be too expensive, or they might jam. This strikes Rebecca Mercuri, an electronic-voting expert at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, as an odd argument: after all Diebold and other voting-machine manufacturers also make cash registers and ATMs, and they seem to work.[A Corner reader also points to the OTB’s system as another precedent.]

“Another objection is that voters might walk off with the paper ballots. Dr Mercuri's preferred solution is that voters should be able to see the paper ballot under glass to verify it, after which it drops into the ballot box. Another option would be to use paper forms that voters place under optical readers, which would confirm their choice before the form is placed in the ballot box. The counting is automated, in other words, but not the voting.

“It is hardly rocket science. But it is too late to sort out the mess before November, when perhaps 20% of the votes will be cast using paperless touch-screen machines. Worries over their reliability and security, and the lack of a common standard, mean the new machines may have made a Florida-like fiasco more rather than less likely. “We're going to have digital hanging chads,” says Dr Mercuri.”

Someone needs to get worried about this – and quickly.

Oh, the Redgraves, not the Redgraves again. For years now Vanessa Redgrave and her brother Corin have been as well known (in Britain) for their hard left politics as for their acting careers. That says a lot, none of it good, about their character, their judgment and their commitment to intellectual honesty. Nevertheless if this account (by indefatigable blogger Scott Burgess) of an article in the (London) Mail on Sunday (it’s not online, so I haven’t seen the full text) by Corin Redgrave is accurate, it may represent a new low for the Redgraves.

According to Burgess the article is displayed prominently and comes with this headline:

“Even the Nazis let the Red Cross visit POWs. Why won't Mr Bush?”

Burgess quotes Mr. Redgrave as having this to say (among, I imagine, other things) about the plight of the Guantanamo detainees:

"Their welfare remains an unknown, because the Red Cross, which even the Nazis allowed to visit prisoner-of-war camps, has not been given access. The little information that has come out is alarming."

No Red Cross visits, eh? Well, let’s have a look what the Red Cross has to say about that:

“The ICRC [the Red Cross] visits around 660 people currently held at Guantanamo. The internees come from more than 40 countries, speaking around 17 languages.Each visit lasts around six weeks and comprises a team of ICRC delegates, highly experienced in detention work, as well as medical personnel and interpreters. By late October 2003, the ICRC had facilitated the exchange of more than 8,500 Red Cross Messages between the internees and their families.”

And this…

“The same standard working procedures have been put into place in Guantanamo that the ICRC demands in every place of detention it visits in the world. That is: ICRC delegates insist on speaking in total privacy to each and every internee held; teams should be able to inspect all cells and other facilities; Visits should be made at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as the people are held in detention; All detainees should have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system; Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and at the end of each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate; Any internee about to be transferred out of Guantanamo is interviewed privately before his departure to ensure he agrees to be repatriated.”

The Red Cross is hardly uncritical of what the US is doing in Gitmo, nevertheless, their account of visits to the facility does seem, uh, rather inconsistent with the claim that the organization has been given no access.

Any explanation, Mr. Redgrave?

I grew up in NH in the People's Republic of Hanover and I think the NH results will surprise lots of people. Lieberman's push for the McCain independents finally appears to be paying some dividends in the poll results. Kerry may be in the mid 30 poll wise, but I have a feeling that his support is a little more squishy. Dean has 20% of the electorate ready to jump on grenades for him. He'll get another 5% from people who contemplated Clark, but are returning to him. My prediction is as follows

Kerry 30%
Dean 25%
Lieberman 15%
Edwards 15%
Clark 13%
Also-Rans 2%


Lieberman will go to Delaware and South Carolina
Kerry will head to SC first to get a read on the polls, he'll then make a break for either AZ or MO if he can get Gephardt's endorsement.
Clark will head to SC, OK and AZ
Dean will make a cameo in SC then head west to OK, NM and AZ
Edwards will go to ground in SC probably before the end of Tuesday (look for his concession speech to come from an airport in SC) and maybe move to contest MO

All have a place where they can go to claim votes. Look for a few different winners on Feb. 3. After that the press will begin drooling over the prospect of a brokered convention and will snipe at any candidate who appears to be gaining too much traction.

One item that I heard mentioned on SPECIAL REPORT that hasn't gotten much play in the rest of the media. Dean brought in almost as much money off the internet last week as Kerry. Dean's supporters are still energized, but his upper end support is more limited.

If the match up devolves into Dean vs. Kerry soon, I think Kerry wins. The longer it takes to get to that head to head match up the more likely that Dean ends up with more delegates because he's got the money and organization to compete effectively on multistate primary days.

If Kerry does manage to get over 35% of the vote in NH and comes in more than 10 points higher than Dean, all bets are off. But I don't see that happening.

Of all the wounds that the left have inflicted on western thought in the last half-century, the grotesque and racist dogmas of multiculturalism must be among the worst. Prompted by Pim Fortuyn’s long overdue critique of the shambles that is modern Holland, the Dutch parliament has produced a report on their country’s three decade long experiment with multiculturalism.

The Daily Telegraph takes up the story:

“While the report praised most immigrants for assimilating and for doing well at school, it attacked successive governments for stoking ethnic separatism. The worst mistake was to encourage children to speak Turkish, Arabic or Berber in primary schools rather than Dutch. The report concluded that Holland's 850,000 Muslims must become Dutch if the country was to hold together.”

That’s very true. But the proposed remedy - “cheap housing in the leafy suburbs” – won’t do the trick. The answer lies in getting rid of state-sponsored multiculturalism once and for all, without apology and without delay. It’s interesting to read, incidentally, that multiculturalism has led previous governments to sponsor some 700 Islamic clubs, including some under the control of the malicious and vicious pre-medievals who pass as clergy in some of Islam’s wilder reaches. That’s a disgrace, but I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

State-sponsored suicide is something of a Dutch speciality after all.