Saturday, November 27, 2004

2008 is coming up soon

and according to Carl Jeffers, things look peachy for the Dems. Jeffers' biography line (at the bottom of the article above) states that he is a national TV political commentator, but after reading his essay, which is "analysis" in the same way that the noises I make while showering are "singing," it's hard to imagine him sitting across from, say, Michael Barone without Barone collapsing into gales of laughter every time Jeffers opens his mouth.

I realize this sounds a little harsh, but go read the article and you'll quickly see that I'm actually being quite generous. Example: Jeffers believes that the '08 Republican will be either McCain or Giuliani, and when I say "believes," it means that he ridicules the notion of Frist, Pataki, and others. How he can deduce this already, I have no idea on several grounds: first, we're still three years away from any primary. Secondly, I'm not sure how easy it is to dismiss Frist or another candidate who is red instead of purple. Remember that primary/caucus voters are comprised of the people who are essentially the base, not a bunch of Andrew Sullivan readers - their predilection to nominate an abortion-rights, gay-rights candidate is not enormous, to say the least. Moderates have been nominated before, but to claim that it is a foregone conclusion borders on rank stupidity.

Jeffers also supplies us with some incisive post-election numerical analysis, by dismissing voting trends (such as the huge rise in Hispanics that voted Republican) in favor of noting the raw stats themselves. This is so laughable that it's hardly worth the trouble it took to summarize, but let me just say this: Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and if the Dems aren't slightly worried by the gains we made this year among that demographic, then they better plan on being a minority party for a long time to come. Jeffers' insistence that the trends of this year's election aren't indicative of a shift among the general electorate (remember, the Dems were more mobilized this year than ever before, at least in my young memory, and they still lost), and even more so, that this shift isn't worth the scrutiny and/or worry of the Dem bosses, is utter nonsense. There are better liberal writers at my half-witted student newspaper.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

UPDATE: my new personal favorite motto for the Donks

Do it for me, if not for yourself

Ever wonder what sort of motto the Democrats should adopt for their next futile go-around in '06? (and '08 and '10. . .)

Go read a few of these things, at least through the first page - if I could offer a money-back satisfaction guarantee for your time, then I certainly would for this website. My favorite, because it's dead-on accurate, is the "Welcoming Americans of All Colors." Go see what I'm talking about.


Though most of America (or at least most of those who occupy my corner of it) appears to be unaware of the events in Fallujah during the past couple of weeks, the stories that come out of that battle are proof that the Greatest Generation may yet be upon us. I found this letter via a post on Belmont Club. Here is a segment that is particularly amazing:

The first is a Marine from 3/5. His name is Corporal Yeager (Chuck Yeager's grandson). As the Marines cleared and apartment building, they got to the top floor and the point man kicked in the door. As he did so, an enemy grenade and a burst of gunfire came out. The explosion and enemy fire took off the point man's leg. He was then immediately shot in the arm as he lay in the doorway. Corporal Yeager tossed a grenade in the room and ran into the doorway and into the enemy fire in order to pull his buddy back to cover. As he was dragging the wounded Marine to cover, his own grenade came back through the doorway. Without pausing, he reached down and threw the grenade back through the door while he heaved his buddy to safety. The grenade went off inside the room and Cpl Yeager threw another in. He immediately entered the room following the second explosion. He gunned down three enemy all within three feet of where he stood and then let fly a third grenade as he backed out of the room to complete the evacuation of the wounded Marine. You have to understand that a grenade goes off within 5 seconds of having the pin pulled. Marines usually let them "cook off" for a second or two before tossing them in. Therefore, this entire episode took place in less than 30 seconds.

Amazing, huh? Think of this during the next weeks, as the media wipes an indulgent, obsequious tear from its eye at the retirement/exile of that windbag Dan Rather and breathlessly follows the saga of Scott Peterson: two pieces of garbage that both received what was their due but at a cost of bloated press. Meanwhile, we have to turn to blogs to understand real bravery, which is not voicing dissent at a justified war (sorry Susan Sarandon) but walking blindly into a room filled with machine-gun-wielding Islamists.

Happy Thanksgiving, union bosses

This story really doesn't need much set-up, but to get you boys to take a look at it, I'll quote one paragraph:

"Since the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 876 called a strike Aug. 3 over an impasse on a new contract, motorists passing by daily on Gratiot honk horns and wave in support of men and women on a picket line outside the plant.

Those pickets, however, except for striking meat cutter Charles Shoebottom, are not company workers. They are hourly help hired by the union to man the line and carry signs. "


Tuesday, November 23, 2004

It's about time somebody taught these damn kids a lesson

Via Six Meat.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Ron Artest -- Caught on Tape?

"I'm a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize." -- Ron Artest

This guy gets more insane by the second.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

They haven't learned

It is remarkable that approaching three weeks after the presidential election, the op-ed pages are still filled with bitter vitriol that is aimed not at the President or his policies, but rather at the voters who approved them. I submit the example above, courtesy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as emblematic of this group-think. Read the column on the left first - a thoughtful and insightful essay on what direction I (and most possessing common sense) think the Democrats should began moving if they want to be a majority party ever again.

Now read the "Rebuttal," which isn't so much a rebuttal as it is a work of spittle-flying invective. The author apparently doesn't realize that satire, while funny, is essentially treating the object of your wit with varying degrees of scorn. And amazingly, the object of scorn is as much Republican voters as it is George Bush. I point you towards the second paragraph, where it is noted that liberals "have to live with conservatives, so let's pretend we care about them." Then scoot over to paragraph three, where we find out that in order to get elected, you have to appear as stupid as the folks whose votes you are courting: "You want to run for president? Wear baseball caps and drink beer in an aluminum can. This imparts a quaint, guy-next-door persona. Voters will want to have a beer with you, talk to you and share a few laughs. You’ll be the kind of president everyone can understand, not the scary intellectual who can outsmart them. "

I expect to read such nonsense on the pages of the Nation, Mother Jones, or perhaps even the Daily Iowan, but the AJC? My guess is that the fervor of the columnist I quoted above is significantly greater (or just louder) than the Dem Leadership Council moderates, and as a result, barring a party takeover by the Man From Hope, the Dems will just move further away from the middle.

Saturday, November 20, 2004

ROLL TIDE Posted by Hello

George Will says "Roll Tide"

I can't believe this, but Will wrote about Alabama football in his column today, as he reviewed Warren St. John's book, Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer.

Fists, objects fly near end of Pacers-Pistons

So Sprewell was suspended for an entire season for pretending to choke his coach. What happens to Artest, Jackson, O'Neal?

Friday, November 19, 2004

Benefit of the doubt - Bo in today's DI

"But the media would engender greater trust among the public if they would, between three-hour specials on Abu Ghraib, occasionally find time to report on the small (read: not sensational) triumphs of the American military. Because the breathless media seem incapable of doing so, let me supply some context for the video described above. Here is a Reuters story from Nov. 15: "In one incident, some Iraqis are reported to have come out of a building waving a white flag. When a Marine approached this group, insurgents opened fire on the Marines from different directions." Then we find out (Detroit Free Press, Nov. 17) that just the day before this video was shot, this same Marine unit had a soldier killed when a booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. Lastly, the unedited video also shows another wounded insurgent holding up his hands and speaking to the Marines, who then take him as a prisoner."

RIGHT ON RED >> � Clinton Reconsidered

Doesn't Clinton seem so insignificant these days?

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

In honor of the Iron Bowl

Via a poster on TiderInsider. From The Onion.

You Will Suffer Humiliation When The Sports Team From My Area Defeats The Sports Team From Your Area.
18 April 2001
By Bill Brodhagen

As you can see from the calendar, the game is coming up this weekend. I'm sure you are as excited for it as I am, as our cities are rivals and have been for quite some time. Your confidence in your team is high, but rest assured, you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area.
On numerous occasions, you have expressed the conviction that your area's sports team will be victorious. I must admit that every time I hear you make this proclamation, I react with both laughter and disbelief. "Ha!" I say to myself with laughter. "What?!" I say to myself in disbelief. How could you believe that your sports team could beat my sports team? It is clear that yours is inferior in every way. When the sporting contest begins, the players on your team will be treated as though they are inconsequential. It will be remarkably easy for my team to accumulate more points than yours.
There are many reasons for this, starting with the inferior physical attributes of the players representing your area. Strength, speed, and agility are just three of the qualities that the players on the team from your area lack. The players representing my area, on the other hand, have these traits in abundance.I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.Underscoring your team's inferiority is its choice of colors. It is ludicrous to believe that your team's colors inspire either respect or fear. Instead, they appear to have been chosen by someone who is colorblind or, perhaps, bereft of sight altogether. The colors for my team, on the other hand, are aesthetically pleasing when placed in proximity to one another. They are a superior color combination in every way.
While we are on the subject of aesthetics, let us compare the respective facilities in which our teams play. While my team's edifice is blessed with architectural splendor and the most modern of amenities, yours is a thoroughly unpleasant place in which to watch a sporting contest. I know of what I speak, for I once attended a game between our respective teams in your facility. Let's just say the experience left me wishing that my car was inoperable that day due to mechanical problems, rendering it impossible for me to get to your area to attend the game.If you need another reason why the sporting franchise representing my area is superior, look no further than the supporters for the two sides. Not only are the supporters of the team from my region more spirited, but they are also more intelligent and of finer breeding than you and the rest of your ilk. In addition, the female supporters of the team from my area possess more attractive countenances and figures than yours. Some of the women from my side that I have observed could make a living by posing for pictures for major men's magazines. The women who cheer for your team, I'm afraid, are far too unattractive to do so.
One of the more pathetic aspects of the team from your area is the fact that only people in your immediate area possess an affinity for it. By means of contrast, the team from my area inspires loyalty and affection in individuals who live in many other geographic locations. To illustrate this point, let me tell a brief story: Recently, I was on vacation in an area of the country far away from my own, and I saw many individuals wearing items of clothing that bore the insignia of my team. I approached one such individual and asked him if he originated from my area. He said no, explaining that he simply liked the team from my area and had for many years. Interestingly enough, during this trip, I saw no clothing or other paraphernalia bearing the insignia of your team.
Do you still doubt that the team from your area is inferior to the one from mine? Just look at our teams' respective histories. In the past, we have defeated you on any number of occasions. Granted, there were times when your team beat my team, but those were lucky flukes.The day of the game will soon be at hand. And no matter how hard you pray to a higher power or how many foam accoutrements you wear in support of the team from your area, your team will be defeated. We will win and you will lose. This is your fate. Prepare for humiliation. It shall be upon you at the designated hour.

© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Too white?

I'm too tired to get into this right now, but I certainly think this lawsuit is absurd. What's even more absurd is that AF most likely had to settle in order to avoid costly litigation. And what's even more absurd is that the plaintiff's lawyer will take a third of that settlement. And (last thing) who exactly does the lawsuit benefit? Who has been so wronged that they deserve $50 million dollars? If this is what they settled for, then I don't even want to know what the plaintiffs were asking.

If anyone has any comments, please post them. I think this might be something worthwhile to write about for my column this Friday, although I'm sure it will inspire some hate mail, and I could use some other insights.

George Will: Validation By Defeat

How many times have I said the same thing?

This guy is smart.

Hate emailer update

Remember dude who sent me the hate email? We've gone back and forth a couple of times -- usually consists of him trying to say something cute, but failing because he's either slow-witted or doesn't understand English all that well.

Anyway, this morning, ITC tells me they've blocked the MyDoom virus from my account. And although I can't be sure who the sender was (the address is jumbled), I feel like I know.

I'd feel pretty desperate too if I were a low-ranking reporter assigned to the Kucinich campaign in the Iowa caucuses.

The legacy of the Swift Boat Vets

John Fund analyzes the effectiveness of the group in a well-written piece. Truly, the Swifties are a tremendous story, and I've never quite understood why they have been labeled as a bunch of Bush partisans (actually, I do understand it - when the media finally got on board, they decided to treat the Vets with biting condescension normally reserved for conservative activists). But these men are not Bush backers, as O'Neill's support for Edwards evinces - they simply loathe John Kerry. And rightly they should, in my opinion.

Personally, I was never that concerned with whether Kerry received medals for wounds he didn't receive or whether he embellished his wounds to get those medals or whatever. That is his own business. What is damning is: a) his testimony about the "widespread" atrocities; and b) his lying about Christmas in Cambodia.

First, if you can't figure out why his Senate testimony didn't infuriate Vets or why it is fair game, then nothing I can write will convince you otherwise. Suffice to say that his medals are Kerry's own business, but making broad, sweeping (not to mention false) generalizations about the service of thousands of soldiers to a national audience is no longer his own personal business.

Second, if Kerry wants to tell his staffers some tall tales about his war experiences, whatever; same goes for anything he tells his drinking buddies at the bar. But it's a different matter altogether to do so on the floor of the Senate, and it's another ballgame unto that to use these lies to undermine an administration. I think that deep down, most Donks probably caught on to this shameful display, since the retort to my point was always something to the effect of "well, at least Kerry served his country." Kerry made his own personal narrative into national business when he started using it as a means of advancing himself in public service. After all, the media worked themselves into a lather over PRIVATE matters of Bush's life (allegations of drug abuse and so forth); would that they had displayed a similar doggedness when it came to pronouncements on the floor of Congress.

Good for the Swifties. Hopefully they can rest somewhat easier now.

Gene Simmons votes for Bush

For those of you unfortunate enough not to be exposed to the freak of nature that is KISS, Gene Simmons is the blood-vomiting, tongue-wagging bassist for the group. He's a weird man, from all interviews I've seen of him, and if he wasn't grotesquely wealthy and famous, would probably be the weird uncle at the family reunion (Simmons is sex-crazed, something that becomes apparent about 15 seconds into every single TV interview I've seen).

But apparently he also has some pretty good intuition regarding the world. His quote, lifted from Yahoo! News:

"In time of war, if you go through a bad neighborhood, I don't want a little French poodle, I want a rottweiler on my hands."
-- KISS frontman GENE SIMMONS, on why he voted for U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH over JOHN KERRY.

Indeed. Would that more rock stars displayed such sanity.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Gene's wife is the queen of Skinemax, Shannon Tweed, who has opened the eyes of many an adolescent male on pre-driver's-license Friday evenings.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

At the time, it seemed like a great decision. Posted by Hello

Power Line: The death of Mr. Bastard

MSR, I know you're devastated.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Losing OK Donk Senate candidate in TNR: Vote Righteously!

Brad Carson, the unsuccessful Dem Senate candidate in Oklahoma, writes an insightful piece on the culture war in The New Republic.

....For the vast majority of Oklahomans--and, I would suspect, voters in other red states--these transcendent cultural concerns are more important than universal health care or raising the minimum wage or preserving farm subsidies. Pace Thomas Frank, the voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones. The political left has always had a hard time understanding this, preferring to believe that the masses are enthralled by a "false consciousness" or Fox News or whatever today's excuse might be. But the truth is quite simple: Most voters in a state like Oklahoma--and I venture to say most other Southern and Midwestern states--reject the general direction of American culture and celebrate the political party that promises to reform or revise it....

Roll Tide Posted by Hello

Friday, November 12, 2004

"You have no idea what a skank I am, do you?" Posted by Hello

Michael Jordan

Okay, after a day of mulling things over, here's my judgment on MJ (subject to revision):

First, I probably agree with a lot of what MSR thinks about the man. He certainly doesn't come across as a very nice person when you actually look deeper than the hagiographic books, articles, and ESPN specials devoted to the man. Even the book I read about him, "Playing for Keeps" by Halberstam, MJ has moments where he appears to be a complete ass - and this is in a book meant to celebrate him.

And I'm a Jordan admirer only in the sense that he was a winner, something that I think is pretty hard to debate. Certainly the biggest winner in recent sports history, if not ever. And to me, this is what is so fascinating about sports - there is always a winner, and there is always a best. Contrast that to Hollywood, for example, where there are never any definitive winners; there is no objective measurement by which the Oscars are awarded, it's simply whoever the voters like the most that year. For me, part of the real draw of sports is the fact that we watch, quite simply, the very best in the world, and not only that, we KNOW they are the very best. I can walk down to the UI theater department and probably find someone who can act as well as Ashton Kutcher, but there isn't anyone in the state of Iowa who can throw the football like Brett Favre.

That is ultimately why I am sort of enamored with Jordan: he was the greatest player in a league full of men who were the very best basketball players in a world of 6 billion humans. It's hard for me to articulate it beyond that, but I can't imagine being one of the top 100 in America at something, much less the best in the world. It certainly spoke to his legacy when, upon his return to the Wizards, a lot of the players were apprehensive about playing with him, since they grew up idolizing the man.

Again, as a person, he leaves a lot to be desired. The Washington Post did a series of articles about the Wizards when Jordan came back, and he didn't even come across very well in those articles. Then you throw in the paternity lawsuits, the way he treats his teammates, the way he preyed on weaker teammates for his own gain; none of it makes me think I'd like to spend a lot of time with him as a person. But I think that's probably true for a lot of great athletes, with the exception of maybe Brett Favre (a Mississippi boy was addicted to painkillers - does it get cooler than that?) and Sir Charles. Look at Larry Bird, who has never come across as a very warm or caring person; look at Jim Brown and his domestic abuse stuff; and this isn't even counting all the guys who have had varying degrees of trouble with the law.

All of this to say that I probably agree with MSR when it comes to Jordan as a person and how the media basically gave him a free pass for his entire career. But I have never thought he was much of a human being, but I certainly think he is an astounding basketball player.

UPDATE: I should have said that I also subscribe to the theory that Jordan came back not for any love of basketball, but simply because he wanted the media spotlight again. I also think the point made by Jonathan Last, in his excellent Weekly Standard essay on Jordan, holds true: Jordan was never particularly enamored with basketball, it just happened to be the one thing he was the best at.

Friday Night Lights

Saw it tonight. Overall, a very, very good movie -- not just a good sports movie. Couple of points:

  • Makes all the difference in the world when movies set in the South use actors from the South. Billy Bob Thornton played the head coach, Lucas Black (from Speake, Alabama, of Sling Blade fame) played the quarterback, Tim McGraw played the abusive father (and did a damn fine job). I don't know about many of the other actors, but they had real accents, and they weren't trying to act "southern."
  • Rarely have I seen a movie that so effectively captures the essence of the book on which it is based.
  • (Please excuse my ignorance here, but I'm not a movie critic or film major.) The director used a documentary/informal style of camera work -- you know, where the camera looks like its on an amateur's shoulder or something, like Any Given Sunday. And this is crucial to the film's success: it invites the viewer to pass his own judgments on what he sees on the screen. This is a story of ambivalence -- one alternately finds himself rooting for and against the Permian Panthers and their fans -- and the camera work facilitates that ambivalence. (I'm not sure if that makes sense to you, but it does to me.)
  • This movie, like the book, will really make you think, especially if you grew up around the obsessive high school or college football culture. Is it cultural kitsch which gives needed meaning to the lives of many small towns, or does this kind of fan obsession with the performance of kids in a game ultimately ruin the lives of many of those kids? If it's both, is the trade-off worth it?

I apologize for the pitifully written thoughts above, but the Plaintiff is watching the "Blue-Collar Comedy Hour" in the background, and I can't seem to concentrate. Hopefully, you were able to decipher roughly what I was trying to say.

Git 'er dun!

QUICK UPDATE: Two quick additional points:
  • I really want to emphasize how powerful some of the actors' performances were in this movie. The kid who played Boobie Miles, the team's star tailback, was incredible. In one scene (and I won't tell you what it is), the Plaintiff and I were about to bawl, and it had everything to do with his performance. Several other actors turned in great performances as well, and this had a lot to do with the casting -- the minor characters in the movie look like people I might've seen walking around my hometown. Really, this was perfect.
  • Browsing over at -- which, by the way, gives the movie an overall 81% freshness rating (which is very, very high) -- I noticed one review that compared the style of the movie to Robert Altman's Nashville. Like I said above, I'm no film major, but I did see Nashville, and I thought the same thing throughout the movie. The movie simply takes a complex subject, puts it on the screen, warts and all, and allows the viewer to pass judgment.

What a dumb idea

I like reading PoliPundit as much as the next guy, but sometimes, that crowd is a little...silly.

McGreevey: One serious skank

Peterson guilty

Jury lowers the boom: 1st degree murder for Laci, 2nd degree for Connor.

Sentencing phase will commence in a week. Death penalty clearly in play.

Regarding Clarett

I've read all of the articles regarding Maurice Clarett's claims of illicit benefits received through coaches and boosters at OSU, whom he claims later betrayed him, and as crazy as it may seem to some, I believe him and I'm pulling for him to succeed at the next level. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Ohio State is punished for their NCAA transgressions (and let's be clear: they should get HAMMERED) for a moment (will touch on this in a later post, I'm sure), I want to see Maurice Clarett succeed because I can imagine how almost any ultra-talented D-1 college football player could've found himself in this position. Frankly, it's a wonder that more don't, and I'd speculate that the only reason for that is that most schools are not stupid enough to handle such players the way that OSU did (as Tortfeasor observed earlier). I feel sorry for Maurice Clarett--I do think he was used and then thrown away when OSU felt that he was more trouble than he was worth (again, what a dumb move).

As for those who point out that Clarett was complicit in receiving the NCAA-forbidden benefits, let me say this: I've never been one to judge a kid in college who takes handouts that are freely offered to him, and I'm not about to in this case. How many of you can say that you'd turn the money and cars down, particularly when your head coach and mentor, in whom you've put tremendous trust, authorizes it all? For those who said they'd turn it down, I'd be interested to know your socioeconomic backgrounds.

With regard to the issue of credibility, what has Clarett done to call his into question? It seems to me that the only thing one can point to is the very thing that he now seeks to rectify: his failure to be forthcoming with the NCAA when they originally questioned him about alleged violations. And, for the record, the national sports media (not to mention the NCAA, whose guilt in such instances is far more pernicious) conveniently gives free passes on the credibility front to individuals with far more dubious histories than Maurice Clarett. On that note, how can one consider Milton Kirk more credible than Maurice Clarett? At best, their respective situations are equivalent (Kirk took part in a conspiracy to sell the services of one of his high school football players, only to later "come clean"), and at worst, Kirk was a player in a much broader conspiracy with the intention of fattening his wallet and taking down an entire football program in the process. Oh yeah, and Clarett didn't break any laws.


NRO vs. bigoted elitists

These were some of the same ideas I tried to elucidate in my DI piece today, but of course the brainpower at NRO was able to produce something much smarter on the same subject. Check it out when you have a chance.

Arafat's real legacy

Watch this, and then make your friends watch this.

Bo in the DI: "Acceptable bigotry"

Bo lowers the boom on the hypocritical liberals who evidently believe that bigotry towards Christians is not only acceptable, but "chic."

Money quotes:

....The left has never been shy about its disdain for evangelicals, who somehow deserve less of a vote than the "young voter" herd of sheep that follow Michael Moore or P. Diddy - a herd that is voracious for politics when it comes packaged as a Bruce Springsteen concert, but found its fervor wanting upon realizing that voting booths are exponentially less glamorous than a P. Diddy video....

....And it is understandable that Smiley & Co. are so fearful of tyrannical Christians, whose malevolent soup kitchens for the homeless and diabolical missions to Africa are indeed ominously menacing....

....It is justly abhorrent to be racist; it is equally despicable to be anti-Semitic. But it is chic as hell to direct bilious vitriol, as the above authors do, at Christians.....

....[T]hey had better shut up and shut up soon. Do they think that Christians cannot read, that Christians don't have access to the New York Times, that Christians are not quietly absorbing the malicious invective being directed at them?

You better read the whole thing. Pure destruction.


Everyone needs to read this. Krauthammer destroys the CW that the evangelical, backwards Christian bigot (insert additional pejorative terms to suit your own personal tastes) swung this year's election, particularly w/r/t the gay marrage initiatives - complete with stats and poll numbers to back up his claim.

VDH has to be my A#1 all-time favorite conservative writer, but Krauthammer is sure sneaking up there. What a devastating column.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Marvin, f***! This is what happens when I use Wade's hairbrush!  Posted by Hello

In case you had any doubts

about Arafat's moral character (such doubts are likely limited amongst these readers, as opposed to the employees of the Carter Center), then click on the link above and find out exactly how much money Arafat's wife is receiving from the PA.

I'd also like to point out that the US gave massive amounts of money to the Palestines; if memory serves me correctly, I believe it is somewhere in the top three recipients of foreign aid (along with Israel and Egypt, though I'm not sure of the ordering). Some senator ought to start making some serious political hay out of this matter, since it appears that this money obviously did not benefit the intended parties - the Palestinians. Why should taxpayers have to pay for this? And why don't we hold the new government of the PA to more exacting standards than we apparently did for Arafat's regime, and extract promises about more transparant accounting before we send any more US dollars their way?

Meanwhile, the worthless Jimmy Carter is busy singing the praises of Arafat. Both men are Nobel Peace prize winners and fittingly, both are worthless when it comes to international politics - one intentionally corrupt and one too dumb to realize when he is being corrupted (see: North Korea, 1994).

I'll comment on the Jordan stuff later tonight - I did read that excerpt and he does come across poorly.

There has been a terrible mistake!

The real Michael Jordan?

I heard a fascinating interview on Jim Rome today with Michael Leahy, the author of the new book about Michael Jordan's stint as a pro basketball exec and his final comeback with the Wizards, When Nothing Else Matters. Click here to read the introduction to the book (you won't regret it) and some of the reviews out there.

In the interview, Leahy explained that Jordan was considered a failure as an exec, basically because he put little to no effort into the job -- strange for a guy whose work ethic on the court was unparalleled. Leahy also attempted to debunk the myth that Jordan returned "for the love of the game," instead insisting that Jordan's return to the court had much more to do with an uncontrollable desire to be at the center of attention.

Perhaps more disturbing, Leahy described Jordan's "abuse" of his teammates, both as a member of the championship Bulls and with the cellar-dwelling Wizards. (He mentioned Kwame Brown and Horace Grant, in particular.) Further, Leahy lamented the fawning coverage Michael received from members of the press who feared being denied access to him, specifically recalling the way Michael shut out Sports Illustrated after they ran a single unflattering article about his unsuccessful minor league baseball stint -- this notwithstanding the 50+ positive cover stories about Michael SI had run prior to the article.

I have no idea how accurate the book is, but I did find the allegations thought-provoking. I know MSR is a certified Jordan-hater, whereas Bo is more of Jordan-admirer, so this should make for some interesting commentary.

Like I said, click on the link above to get a better idea about the book's thesis.

Clarett, OSU, and the NCAA

Will the NCAA ever turn its focus to the Big 11?

UPDATE: It's really hitting the fan now. On its front page, is running this article, alleging that Jim Tressel has been paying players since his day's at Youngstown State.

UPDATE II: Here's the original ESPN The Magazine article that has caused the stir.

Real World/Road Rules Challenge

I'm a little embarrassed to be posting this immediately after Tortfeasor's thoughtful essay below, but this little analysis of the MTV section of the pop-culture wasteland is right on. It's by the Sports Guy too. I will only say that he touches on one thing that I have always wondered about the people on these challenges: don't they have jobs? Most of them were on RR or RW somewhere between 2 and 8 years before, making them approximately 24 to 30 years old. Shouldn't they have jobs? I say this only because I seriously doubt any employer would give their employee a month off work to compete in a MTV game show, particularly one as asinine as this.

Honestly, it's somewhat depressing to watch all these former B celebs try to hang on to their glory years, but it's also fun. And Simmons is right about the homoerotic melting of the ice challenge - I happened to see that one two weeks ago, and wondered how exactly these men could look themselves in the mirror afterwards.

That radical Bush

I keep hearing about how Bush is so radical, so conservative, and so aggressive in tearing down the wall between church and state.

Maybe I'm slow -- that' s always a possibility, considering I'm from one of the "dumb states" -- but how does one look at the totality of Bush's policies in his first term and find "radical conservatism" or "aggressive Christianity"?

Tax cuts for everybody -- tax cuts are associated with conservatives, to be sure, but Bush's tax cuts were intended a) to benefit everybody, which they did, and b) to return the tax rate to pre-Clinton levels. I suppose one can shoehorn this into the conservative column, but radical? Let's move on.

Prescription drug benefit for Medicare -- absolutely nothing conservative about that. Check out the reaction to this move by the folks at NRO, the Weekly Standard, etc. They were livid.

No Child Left Behind -- the accountability part: conservative, I suppose, though requiring our public schools to meet certain growth goals shouldn't be "conservative" or "liberal." But NCLB also has the effect of giving less control to states and localities in the education realm, and this is certainly not a conservative policy. Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education altogether, if you'll remember. NCLB can't go in the conservative column, either, even though it infuriates the NEA.

Partial-birth abortion ban -- this is about as mainstream a position as one can take, as the vast majority of Americans oppose the gruesome procedure. Only those politicians who are balls-deep in with NARAL could vote against the ban. "Health" of the mother was nothing but a red herring, or more like a loophole, designed to allow the procedure to continue. Bush and others knew better. Sure, this is consistent with conservatism, but it surely can't be considered radical.

Immigration policy -- are you kidding? Conservatives were furious over this one.

Tepid support for FMA -- this one is conservative. Bush supported the FMA out of political/electoral concerns, and did so in name only. He did nothing to urge its enactment, but simply wanted to be on record as having supported it. But conservative, to be sure. Fair enough, but then you've got to accept....

Tepid support for renewing Assault Weapons Ban -- Bush supported extending the AWB, although he did not exactly use the bully pulpit to urge its renewal. But we went on record as supporting the ban, certainly not the conservative position.

Increased funding for NEA -- what could be less conservative? Again, conservatives want the National Endowment for the Arts (or was it Humanities? Can't remember) abolished. At the same time, I understand the mission of the NEA/H has changed, so instead of subsidizing perverse/"cutting-edge" art, the endowment encourages more community access to classic theatre, etc. Verdict: not conservative.

Aid to fight AIDS in Africa -- simply put, not conservative.

Faith-based initiative -- first of all, didn't get out of the gate. Second, this is NOT the establishment of religion in any way -- it simply allows religion-affiliated charities to compete for federal funds to do what they do best: serve others. No religion or denomination is to be preferred. One could argue that this is a socially liberal policy, an attempt to make government welfare programs more effective through outsourcing to groups who specialize in helping people. Again, it never passed, but I'm not sure this one qualifies as somehow radically conservative. Whatever.

Stem cell research -- although you'd never know it from the mainstream media, Bush has actually taken the moderate position on the issue, allowing research on existing adult stem cells to go forward -- even funding it -- but halting embryonic stem cell research. Most people have no idea that there is any difference, which is reflected in the opinion polls on the issue. Still, this isn't a radical position, especially considering that adult stem cell research shows so much more promise than embryonic stem cell research.

The Patriot Act -- I suppose this is the one that really gets under the liberals' skin. Two questions, though: 1) this doesn't have anything to do with "aggressive Christianity," does it? and 2) name one violation of your civil liberties that has taken place since the PA's enactment? Ah, I see: "no" and "none." The Patriot Act was, in my opinion, entirely necessary in the wake of 9-11, when we were still so disoriented that we couldn't see our enemies. Less of a response would have been irresponsible. And as long as the War on Terror continues, the PA seems justified, especially since I've yet to see a shred of evidence of real civil liberties violations. Call it conservative if you want, but then be glad a conservative was in office on 9-11.

Afghanistan war -- would have been undertaken by any president, liberal or conservative, I hope.

Iraq -- some may be thinking of Iraq when they call the president radical. However, it's not altogether clear to me that the decision to go to war in Iraq is to the right on the political spectrum of traditional, or paleo-, conservatism. It was a neoconservative decision, but does neoconservatism necessarily fall to the right of Pat Buchanan? It involves nation-building, the commitment of US forces to humanitarian missions, etc. -- the kind of foreign policy many paleoconservatives criticized Clinton for running. At the same time, I can understand how some consider the Iraq decision to be on the far right, as it seemed to stretch the "just war theory" about as far as it could stretch.

Spending bills -- basically, Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since he's been in office. This has angered many, many conservatives, and many of them don't consider the President a conservative because of his unwillingness to hold the line on spending. The federal government, regrettably, has grown on Bush's watch -- certainly not a trait of a conservative.

Bottom line: looking above, I see some admittedly conservative positions mixed with more moderate, and dare I say, liberal positions on other issues. Perhaps I missed the executive order that President Bush must have signed, forcing American schoolchildren to memorize a Bible verse every morning.

So what it is it, exactly, that drives these folks up the wall about the president? I think it has a lot more to do with style than substance. What do I know, though? I'm just a dumb red-stater.

Arafat's real obituary

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

"High achievers leaving schools behind"

Found this MSNBC article via a great blog, The Untergeek.

....Umaid, now a third-grader at Oak Hill Elementary in Herndon, is one of 112 Fairfax students who changed schools this year under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The legislation is intended to give struggling students the chance to move from high-poverty, low-performing schools, but Fairfax school officials have found that the students who take the transfers generally aren't the ones who need extra help.

Instead, they are like Umaid: higher-scoring students from middle-class homes. The trend, evident in suburban school districts nationwide, means that the receiving schools don't have to augment their remedial programs or worry about test scores dropping. It also means that resources spent on transfer students aren't going to the students who need them most, some educators said....

But, you know, what’s so wrong with that?

As most of the people reading this know, I used to teach 7th grade in one of these failing schools – I was a Teach For America corps member for two years in a rural southern school. And I definitely told some of the parents of my brighter students – the parents who actually cared enough about their children’s education to come to conferences and answer the phone – that they should consider trying to get their kids into other area schools that could better meet their needs. My responsibility was to the kids, not to the school.

The tragedy of failing schools manifests itself in many ways: the most obvious, of course, is that many students fail to acquire the most basic skills; but the arguably worse result, in my opinion, is that many students with enormous potential are essentially trapped in schools that do not have the resources or will to tap into that potential.

Both results suck, and we’d like to change them both. We need to work to change them both, and NCLB accountability is the first step. But we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – if failing schools continue to fail, I believe it is our moral obligation to allow students to escape. The best students, almost invariably, are the ones whose parents care enough to make them do their homework every night and come to parent-teacher conferences, and these are the parents who will take advantage of the vouchers. But the alternative – making those brighter students go down with the sinking ship – is worse.

First-hand account of Fallujah

This is awesome:

Watching the green screen was nerve-racking. With buildings wrecked and streets churned up, there were potential booby traps everywhere. Then, as the column lumbered down a main road, the guerillas appeared.

They emerged from gates, alleyways and rooftops, alone or in small groups. Wherever they faced an armoured vehicle, they died where they stood.

The resistance was determined, but hardly the apocalyptic showdown the guerillas had pledged. They had threatened to throw hundreds of suicide bombers at the Americans. But in the darkness they were at a disadvantage, stumbling blind while the US gunners could see clearly.

What's up with the Arafat situation?

Something fishy about the Arafat situation -- he's dead, he's not, he's brain-dead, he's turning cartwheels in his hospital room?

Tom Maguire thinks so.

"Good Riddance"

So says the editor of The New Republic to John Kerry.

This is a great read.

Generosity Index

The Catalogue for Philanthropy has released it's 2004 Generosity Index, which measures each state's charitable contributions in relativity to it's average income. As Deacon at PowerLine said, "keep scrolling until you find a blue state."

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

A passing thought

My first hate e-mail, printed below, got me thinking about the dude's complaint that folks in the South try to convert you every time you turn around.

Seems to me that those on the Right may try to convert you to Jesus, with the promise of eternal life in Heaven.

But those on the Left will never give up in trying to convert you to Marx with the promise being...Cuba?

Am I wrong here?

Tips for a New Democratic Majority

(Via Instapundit.)

Conrad's Tips for a New Democratic Majority:
1. Appoint Terry McAullife Party chairman for life. If McAuliffe isn't available,
this guy would be great.
2. More Massachusetts liberals. Give Teddy his turn.
3. Explain to 51% of the electorate that they're
stupid. They will eventually realize that you are smarter than they are and will vote as you tell them to. It has only taken them this long because they really are sooo fucking stoopid.
4. More CBS News exposes.
5. There's no such thing as too much Michael Moore.
6. A nationwide Guardian letter writing campaign.
7. Don't just legalize gay marriage, make it mandatory.
8. Can
Bob Shrum run a campaign or what?
9. A federal law making
rolling one's eyes a criminal offense.
10. "I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I'm reporting for duty."
11. Close the
telepathic subliminal electioneering gap.


My first hate mail

This is an emotional moment for me. BTW, this is the original formatting -- the guy must have thought he was using a typewriter.

Here it is:

Howdy pardner,
Whats up? Thanks for giving me a great laugh this morning. Educated in Alabama? ha. Thats an oxymoron.
I can empathize with you for feeling outraged about Brittany Shoot's column,
but truth be told, she did make a lot of sense.
As someone who spent the summer in Bristol, Va/Tn and travelled around a lot
of the southwest part of your state, I know damn well what i'm talking about. The confederate flags and Nascar paraphernalia that saturated the region is
proof enough. Having worked as a reporter, I know that people down there
worship ignorance and have a mindset affected by an irrational, archaic dogma
that encompasses religious and racial elitism and a deluded sense of the world. I've experienced it first hand and it ain't pretty. They believe what they're told and refuse to view different sides of an issue. I find it easier and much more enlightening to have a conversation with
someone from the states Shoot mentioned rather than talk about NASCAR,
Gretchen Wilson and whatever else you guys do down there.
Plus up north, I probably won't run into someone who tries to convert me to
their religion at every step I take.
Maybe I just don't get the hard on that you southerners get when you see a
bunch of cars driving around in a circle or i'm missing the point. By the way, congrats on getting into law school and good luck chasing after
those ambulances.

To which I say: chasing ambulances? That's for your boy John-John Edwards.

Battle for Fallujah

What a remarkable fighting force our military is. The insurgents, as this post (with information cobbled together from several news sources) catalogues, are fighting a desperately futile battle - the military has adjusted to their tactics of hit-and-run, and are now picking off the insurgents one by one. It is remarkable and frightening display of brutal calculation, but simply reassuring: our troops are kicking ass.

I actually thought this was funny

I think this is serious, but it's so far over the top that it's basically a satire. Whoever wrote this wins some points for the line about Vermonters and Subarus.

At the same time, it's tough to imagine a Northeast liberal male writing something like this, since most of them are emasculated, PC-fluent metrosexuals. Same goes for any Hollywood liberal male, like Jason Biggs. I think I've mentioned my hatred of him somewhere on this blog before, but it all traces back to when I saw him at an MTV Movie Awards interview, and he pointed at his John Kerry button with all the self-righteous arrogance of someone who has made entirely too much money at entirely too young an age without putting in the sufficient effort it should take to earn such sums of money. I feel the same way about Ashton Kutcher, who for reasons unbeknowst to me still has a career. It certainly doesn't help that they are both shitty actors.

Honestly, it just makes me can't-see-straight angry that Hollywood kids (including but not restricted to the two I mentioned above. Actually, pretty much all of young Hollywood, except Republicans Freddie Prinze Jr and Jessica Simpson), who have come into their massive wealth with such ease and without having to put in the years of backbreaking work that normal folks (ie, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, small business owners) have to invest, somehow feel they have earned the right to tell these normal folks that they should pay a much higher percentage of income tax. To me, that is the arrogance that comes with getting things that you haven't really earned; being given vast sums of money without understanding how much money that is, or how hard normal people have to work (in terms of years in school, backbreaking debt as a result of that schooling, opportunity costs, 70-hour work weeks and so forth) to obtain even a fraction of that wealth.

What arrogance.


Let it be true. . .

Can you say "60-Republican Senate in 2006?"

Monday, November 08, 2004


I sure wish someone had told me earlier that the South was seceding again. I would have moved down there this summer - although apparently Iowa is also part of the secession (having gone red this time around). Or are we being seceded from? This ignorant, unintelligent voter and confessed "ugly bastard" is confused.

The good part is that since the Blue states are all pacifists, or at least believe that ANY war is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, we'll win the war without lifting a finger. I call first dibs on pillaging Katha Pollitt and Katrina Vandenheusel's houses. Of course, we can make special stops for both of them on the 2004 incarnation of Sherman's March to the Sea.

Nothing in recent memory has given me as much pure joy as watching the pity party that the Left is holding. Nothing at all. Relish the pain, boys.

The South...has risen again?

Power Line says, according to a reader, that Laurence "they're coming to take me away -- haha!" O'Donnell, on the McLaughlin Group, seriously floated the idea that the blue states should consider seceding from the Union over the next 20 years.

We in the South have promised to "rise again" now for 140 years. Did it just happen -- without firing a shot, but merely by electing the one dude who could drive the Yanks absolutely insane?

I mean, I don't want to overreact here, but...




UPDATE: The Washington Times has an article about the secession buzz. (Via Powerline.)

James Q. Wilson on the election

Mark Steyn Gets It

This is a great read.

We have publication

Letter printed in the DI today.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Kate O'Beirne on why the Donks lost

This piece really puts into words what I've been feeling the last few days: that the Donks can't just learn to talk like they care about the heartland. Their positions on a range of issues, from abortion to gun control to foreign policy to Janet Jackson's booby, are simply unacceptable to most Red Staters.

Couple of quotes:

The election was won because neither Bush nor his party pretended to be something they're not. George Bush was the Real Deal running against the Great Pretender....

Republicans find themselves on the majority's side of the cultural divide because they don't display the Democrats' condescension and hostility to the moral sentiments and concerns of most Americans....

Kerry, on the other hand, glibly declared in the final debate, "My faith affects everything I do and choose. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." Had Bush made such a declaration, it would have signaled to liberals an underlying intention to usher in a theocracy; but secularists were unconcerned about Kerry's pledge because they knew he didn't mean it....

Republicans don't talk patronizingly about the issues that matter to voters by telling average Americans to "vote their pocketbooks." Rich Hollywood liberals might put aside their own economic interests to support a candidate who pledges to raise their taxes, but the little people leading small lives in small towns are not expected to look beyond their parochial concerns about overtime pay or health benefits....

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Xeno- what?

“It makes you not want to drive through there, because you just don’t know what’s going on with those people.”

Drop the “g” from the end of “going,” change “those” to “them” and “people” to “folks,” and you might assume I’m quoting To Kill a Mockingbird.

Nope. Those words come from a CNN man-on-the-street interview piece entitled “Blue State Blues,” uttered by a 55 year-old New York City resident. His wife offered, “You can fly over, but you wouldn’t want to drive through there. I just want to leave the country.”

I would accuse them of xenophobia, but as one of “those people” from that crimson-red state of Alabama, I couldn’t possibly know what that word means.

The irony would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.

My fellow Southerners and I – and a few Midwesterners, I imagine – have been used to this kind of ignorance from the self-anointed cultural elite for a while now. But we’ve got news for the Blues: we know more about y’all than you know about us.

Let that sink in for a second, Los Angeles. Ponder that one for a moment, New York.

Exposure to your way of life, Blue America, is unavoidable. We get all the Friends, West Wing, Law and Order, and Sex and the City reruns that y’all produce – that’s why we all have those huge satellite dishes in front of our trailers. (That’s called self-deprecation, Blue Staters.) We watch the news and notice the disproportionate amount of time and energy that is devoted to your issues, and we would faint if one of your news anchors were to speak with a drawl. The vast majority of the movies we see are set in your cities, written by your writers, produced by your producers, directed by your directors, and acted by your actors. A lot of us have never been to your metropolises (though plenty of us have), but we figure we’ve got a pretty good idea what’s going on up there – and we figure Atlanta’s close enough, anyway.

But most of you, I’d venture to say, haven’t spent a whole lot of time down here, either – and I’m sure you can’t imagine why you would. You know everything about the backwards South already, don’t you? You learned all you needed to know in 8th grade American History class, where you learned all about John C. Calhoun, Bull Connor, and George Wallace. You saw Sweet Home Alabama, Steel Magnolias, and Mississippi Burning. You watched The Dukes of Hazzard against your parents' orders when you were a kid (and who can blame you? Daisy!). You listened to country music one time, and you thought it was stupid and irritating. And you’ve seen that Trinity Broadcasting Network and noticed the Southern accents on those crazy preachers (although you were mildly surprised that they let – gasp! – a woman take the pulpit!)

Except what you see, Blue America, is not the South. Most of the time, what you see is a grossly distorted, overly simplified version of what the South must be like these days, produced by your studios in New York and Los Angeles (because, let’s face it, you wouldn’t want to actually drive through there). Y’all probably have no idea how much fun we have renting your movies (VCRs arrived in our Wal-Marts this year!) about the South, just so we can mock the horrible attempts at Southern accents and the wildly over-the-top stereotypes about Southern culture. For example, Blue America, it may surprise you to know that I have had electricity, running water, and even an air conditioner (unlike, apparently, the lawyer played by Matthew McConahey in A Time to Kill) my entire life. Both of my parents can read and write, and we all wear shoes most of the time. And here's a fact to chew on: Southern public schools are the least segregated in the country. But unfortunately, y’all internalize those images on your televisions, take them as gospel truth (or whatever adjective you folks would use in front of “truth”), and your “investigation” is over. Your perception of the South can be likened to your attempts at barbeque pork: you don’t take the time to figure it out, and you end up with something more like a sloppy joe.

Which is ok by us, we reckon. We’ll be happy to talk to you about our way of life any time you’d like, and we’d even give you a place to stay and a couple of good meals to boot. We promise not to try (too hard) to convert you, but do expect to bow your head for the blessing before dinner.

But we don’t expect many of y’all will take us up on the offer. After all, it’s probably much too dangerous.

That’s fine. We’ve never been too awfully concerned about what other folks think about us, anyway. It’s hard enough just trying to please Our Lord.

Powerline: Lebedoff on Why Kerry Lost

Take the time to read this post. The Powerline guys take several salient excerpts from Lebedoff's book, The Uncivil War, and review them in light of the presidential campaign.

The general thesis: what Lebedoff calls the New Elite -- I'm imagining humanities majors from the highly selective colleges living on either coast -- harbor disdain for majority rule, believing instead in government by experts. This most clearly manifests itself in the New Elite's reliance on the judicial branch (that is, activist judges) to implement social policy.

In other words, their campaign theme: Let the "smart" people run the country, and everything will be better.

No wonder they lose.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Implications of Tuesday

Bo's latest in the DI is spot-on.

For some reason, I found this paragraph particularly well-crafted:

It is redundant to note that another darling of the left, Michael Moore, has been rendered politically irrelevant as well. With a documentary that married loose facts with anti-Bush invective, with demagoguery that embraced the slick sheen of sensationalism over inspired discussion, with ubiquitous media coverage that was fawning rather than critical - with all of these factors working in his favor, Moore was still unable to prevent a Bush re-election.

Joan Baez channeling black children

In Charlottesville, no less.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

One quick quote from Zell...

"They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party."

He gets it.

I've got a lot to say...

...about the election, the Left's reaction, etc, but I may not have time until tomorrow to hammer it out.

The gist of it: the Left is clueless, and their self-reflection over the presidential loss only underscores just how foreign Red America is to them. I recommend you brush up on a couple of articles of liberal self-reflection to prime the pump:

"What Went Wrong?" from The New Republic (Beinart)
-- you may have to register first -- takes two seconds, but worth it to read the article.

"Two Nations Under God" from The New York Times (Friedman)

"How to Start Winning the Red States" from Slate (Saletan) and, for a less censored view of Saletan's feelings, read
"Simple but Effective: Why You Keep Losing to This Idiot" by Saletan

"Whither Liberalism? Again?" from Slate (Noah)

And, of course, "The Morning After," by some crazy chick at the DI.

Bo and Jenna, sitting in a tree

I haven't been shy about declaring my undying love for her in the past, but Lord have mercy, Jenna Bush is a babe. I'd like to discuss this in more prurient detail, but the blog is probably not the place for that.

Thanks, Arlen

Sure am glad Bush stumped for this guy instead of Pat Toomey. I know I just wrote a pro-Bush piece not less than two hours ago, but the White House gets what they deserve for helping elect Specter. What a piece of shit. Not less than a day after winning his election, Specter feels entitled to dispense pedantic advice to the one man he absolutely, without question, owes his victory to.

Liberals must take some solace from this election day, since they got a buddy chairing the Judiciary.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

I like Bush

I'm not sure how everyone feels about Bush as a candidate, but I really think he is a wonderful guy. Here is a wonderfully illuminating story from Time:

"It was on Air Force One on election day that strategist Karl Rove started calling around to get the results of early exit polls. But the line kept breaking down. The only information that came through as the plane descended was a BlackBerry message from an aide that simply read: "Not good." Not long afterward, Rove got a more detailed picture and told the President and senior aides the bad news. Florida Governor Jeb Bush had been saying the state was looking good, and the Bush team had expected to be ahead in Ohio. But Kerry was leading everywhere. "I wanted to throw up," said an aide onboard. Bush was more philosophical: "Well, it is what it is," he told adviser Karen Hughes."

I know we've all agreed that there is stuff politically that we don't like about him (Medicare bill, for one), but man, I just love the guy. "It is what it is." Indeed, Mr. President. Stoicism like that is simply endearing. I think, though this could be an entire essay on its own, that this mindset stems largely from his faith - he believes that God will do what's best for the country as long as Bush does what he believes is morally correct. To see this conviction in a politician, much less a national politician in our hyper-feel-good/MTV/instant-gratification era, is simply amazing and heartwarming. I've been feeling better and better all day about this election and the larger themes that the result signifies, and this quote just topped it all off.

God Bless America.

The Horserace Blog: post-election analysis, part I

As usual, a great read.

Winners and losers

A quick list

Winner: George W. Bush

Loser: John F. Kerry

Winner: Hillary Rodham Clinton

Loser: John Edwards

Winner: Karl Rove

Loser: Bob Shrum, Joe Fathart, Mike McCurry, et al.

Winner: evangelical Christians

Loser: the “youth vote”

Winner: Vietnam veterans

Loser: that fatass Michael Moore

Winner: New Media

Loser: Mainstream media

Winner: Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision

Loser: Zogby

Winner: Republican GOTV efforts

Loser: exit polling

Perfect. . .

I like how this appears in the DI on the day W wins decisively. At first I thought this girl was kidding, but it appears she is sincere. What a nutjob.


Currently has the headline "Bush Wins" on its homepage, next to a map that only gives Bush 254 EV. What the hell is wrong with these networks? The election is OVER. Give it up. Your man lost.

I think it's safe to say...

that President Bush razed John Kerry in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.


Kerry to concede at 1 PM.

The Latest

As if any of you are actually in suspense, Rich Lowry posted the following on the Corner:

"Our best understanding at moment...154,725 provisional ballots out there, and Bush's margin is 136,700. "

And this from a mathematician in OH and posted by Derb:

"I figure there are 175000 provisional ballots out there, as that seems to be the high end of official estimates. If we assume that each has a 50% chance of being counted (and that's way high, it's really probably more like 15-20%) then having more ballots than Bush's margin of victory is a 360-sigma event, which comes out to a probability of 2.8*10^-28145. [That's a number with 28,144 zeros to the right of the decimal point, then some nonzero digits: 2, 8,...---JD] But hey, it could happen."

Ace of Spades lays smackdown to Rather

I have to go to bed

but I have to say this first:

The Democratic Party may be self-destructing before our eyes. If they contest Ohio, given the absolute mathematical impossibility that they could win under any scenario, and given the 3.5 million-4 million popular vote win for Bush, they will feel the backlash. Mark these words.

I hope they do. They will be done.


Also. . .

Watch for Friday's column. I'm writing it tomorrow night, but plan on eviscerating all the cheap tactics the Left pulled out this year. Michael Moore will probably be featured in all his corpulent splendor.

MSR does us proud

Big ups to Sager for working the GOTV today. Groundwork seems to be the big difference maker, especially when you look at Florida - how does Bush turn a 500 vote margin into a 300,000 vote victory? Answer: the work of the foot soldiers, again, like our own MSR. I can only imagine how much fun it is to work for a winning campaign (you will recall, if you've forgotten from the other 5000 times I've bitched about it, that Harkin beat Ganske in 2002).

And like the top dog on LGraham's staff, I'm throwing in a fat hog and watching CBS until they call this baby. For me, watching Dan Rather declare a Bush victory is akin to - well, at this point, nothing I can think of. Perhaps if Alabama and Iowa State were named co-champions and Iowa's program got the death penalty, then maybe. But probably not.

Four more years, boys. . .

About to throw in...

a fat lipper to celebrate the most wonderful night of my young life (yes, that includes January 1, 1993). Viva Bush, amigos!

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Headed Out

to help GOTV with the RNC in Pennsylvania.

Don't forget to pray, guys.

Monday, November 01, 2004

Moore's legacy

During my gourmet dinner of grilled cheese and Campbell's soup, I watched Michael Moore appear on Anderson Cooper's show. There's not a whole lot new to say about Moore that hasn't already been said (by both liberals and conservatives), but if Kerry wins, then in many ways this will be a victory for Michael Moore and the politics he practices. Just now on Cooper's show, when told that there would be Justice Department representatives scattered around the country to prevent voter discrimination, he scoffed "You mean Bush's Justice Department?" It's hard to be amazed by anything Moore says anymore, but this is pretty absurd. Talk about insulting all the JD's who decided to go into government work instead of private practice.

I guess that's why this election has me wound up in knots. Moore managed to singlehandedly depress the civility (and intelligence) of political discourse in this nation. You have MTV and their ilk raising questions about the draft, but I think Moore represents a much worse phenomenon - he doesn't bother engaging in policy discussions, he simply throws mud. And not only that, he throws mud at all Republicans. For example, Begala and Carville (who are assholes, to be sure) keep their criticism of Republicans limited to the administration and their policies. Moore manages to attack ALL Republicans as money-grubbing greedy pigs, including private citizens.

By the way, Tucker Carlson says Kerry wins. So here's my prediction: Kerry wins, with a 4-point margin. Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all go for Kerry. I'm too busy to figure out my electoral college tally, but I also believe that will not be very close either. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I just think overcoming the MSM, their hagiographic treatment of Moore, their failure to take a magnifying glass to Kerry's past like they did with W's in 2000 (and in July and in September), the voter fraud that I think is inevitable in Ohio, the stupid masses of college voters who have been deluded into believing a draft is imminent, and so on. It just seems like it's too much for Bush to overcome this time. I will be ecstatic if I am proven wrong, though, but right now I'm bracing for a Kerry win.

BTW, I don't even plan on watching television tomorrow. Too hard to take it all down.

Strategic Vision

Let's hope they've got it down.

President Bush leads in Florida 50%-47%.
President Bush leads in Iowa 49%-47%.
President Bush is tied in Michigan 45%-45%.
President Bush is tied in Minnesota 48%-48%.
President Bush leads in Ohio 48%-46%.
President Bush trails in Pennsylvania 46%-47%.
President Bush leads in Wisconsin 48%-46%.

(Via Polipundit.)

Tom Wolfe

My respect for Wolfe -- which was already substantial -- just went through the roof.

Bo, I know you'll appreciate this piece.


Mitchell, I appreciate the good news you're posting - it helps my nerves a little bit. What gets me in the end is that I just don't know if Bush can overcome all the obstacles this year: the liberal media, Michael Moore (and his fluff treatment by the liberal media), the loony claims by Kerry (which get zero scrutiny from the MSM), statements like Tom Harkin's about the draft (which also get zero scrutiny from the MSM), MTV's specious draft platform, the professors around campus implicitly rooting for Kerry, etc.

To me, if Kerry wins, it is a symbolic victory for all the things about liberalism I despise: the mendacity of Michael Moore, the refusal to strike preemptively if our security is at risk (and anyone who thinks that Saddam didn't pose a threat is too stupid to be voting), the liberal media's double-standard, CBS News.

It's just tough to deal with.

From the AP...

"The men were campaigning Sunday in tightly contested battleground states. Both had appearances scheduled in Florida and Ohio; Kerry was also speaking in New Hampshire.

A new poll showed the president moving ahead of Kerry in the popular vote, and Democrats said their private surveys hinted at momentum for Bush."

Looks like...

rain in Cleveland and Cincinnati tomorrow.

I know I'm reaching here, but I can't help but think that may slightly help Bush in OH by keeping turnout low in the state's two largest urban areas.

UPDATE: 80% chance of rain in Detroit, also.

UPDATE II: Rain starting tonight in Columbus, OH and going all day tomorrow. 60% chance of rain in Pittsburgh tomorrow, although Philly looks clear. Milwaukee is getting some rain today, but looks to be clear tomorrow as well.