Pelosi: In Harman's Way

Week three of the Democractic Revolution in Congress, and still no signs of any progress.

But we do find Speaker Nancy Pelosi again playing politics, this time backing disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee over frenemy Jane Harman.

Harman is a member of the committee and was thought to be the shoo-in for the leadership post, but according to the Washington Post she and Pelosi have an only slightly less skanky Paris Hilton-Nicole Richie thing going on.

Before serving in the House, Hastings was impeached by Congress on corruption charges while serving on the federal bench -- an impeachment Pelosi voted for.

Pelosi apparently didn't learn her lesson after getting trounced on the Murtha/Hoyer majority leader thing. Be shame if she squandered all of her political capital this way, before the new Congress takes office in January.

And what does backing Hastings say about Pelosi's pledge to clean up Congress -- the #1 issue on the minds of voters in the November elections?

Still no progress on saving Iraq, keeping us safe from terrorists, lowering the cost of college, making us energy efficient and environmentally friendly, boosting the economy, reducing the deficit, and all the other things the Democrats said they were gonna do.

Oh well, I'm sure after all the politics they'll get around to it...

Tick tock.

Dem Revolution -- Week 2

Two weeks since the Democrats took over Congress, and let's see how much progress they've made on their ambitious agenda.

Okay, well, first the majority of the House members flipped new Speaker Nancy Pelosi the bird after she backed resident whack-job Jack Murtha for the majority leader over Steny Hoyer. In secret balloting, Hoyer crushed Murtha for the job.

So much for unity within the party. Although the crazy-old optimist in me says maybe this is good -- maybe it means the Dems won't march in lockstep like automatons behind every nutty idea Pelosi fronts.

But it seems like an awfully big waste of her political capital so early on -- it was a real "in your face" moment for her. She has a reputation for being a dragon lady, and in this case it looks like her own allies slew the dragon.

Next we had Congressman Charles "Big Pimpin'" Rangel once again calling for the resinsitution of the military draft -- a measure expected to get absolutely no support from anyone in Congress or the current administration. Rangel has pulled this stunt before -- apparently trying to make some political point that's lost on everyone.

Unless the point he's trying to make is that he merely likes to make grandstanding plays like this in a pathetic attempt to draw attention to himself.

So, for week two we had domestic squabbling and a hail-mary pass that bounced harmlessly on the 20-yard line.

Or in other words: business as usual for Congress.

No progress on lowering the deficit, keeping us safe from terrorists, finding a solution for Iraq, raising the minium wage, making college more affordable, fixing the healthcare system, making us energy self-sufficient or protecting the environment.

Tick tock, people.

Tick Tock for Dems

Well, it's been a week since the Democrats regained control of Congress.

So....have they fixed everything yet?

Sorry, was just pretending I was a typical American voter.

Still the Dems have laid out a rather ambitious -- and in many cases, noble -- agenda:

-- End corruption in Congress (I'd suggest they start with Harry Reid, William Jefferson and Alcee Hastings)

-- Keep America safe in the war on terror

-- Create a cleaner, greener, energy policy less dependent on foreign oil

-- Raise the minium wage and lower college tuition

-- Reform healthcare

-- Keep Social Security solvent and protect retirement income.

Pretty lofty goals. Good luck with them. I wish them well.

But the Dems won the election by capitalizing on the short attention span and impatience of the American voters. And that could just as easily come back to bite them if they don't show progress -- fast.

I figure they have maybe six months to show some progress on some of them. Otherwise, it will be back to "throw the bums out," with the Democrats in the starring role.

Well, that didn't take long

Less than a week after capturing both the House and the Senate, Democratic congressman are sounding the retreat in Iraq, calling for troop drawdowns within months.

''There is no military solution in Iraq,'' said Senator Carl Levin said. ''There is only a political solution.''

"Hold me -- I'm frightened," he added. (no he didn't)

So all this talk about a "new direction" in Iraq was what we suspected all along -- a call for cowardice and abandoning our allies.

Imagine my shock.

Nice Nancy

Presumuptive House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised more niceness in government yesterday, pledging that a Democratic-controlled Congress would work across party lines, cooperate with the President, and generally behave like ladies and gentlemen.

Her comments followed conciliatory remarks from President Bush yesterday who also pledged to work more closely with the Democrats for the good of the country. He offer up the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a mark of sincerity.

Uh huh

The White House has often been abrupt and dismissive, but Bush has a record of being to act in a bipartisan fashion while Texas governor, and pledged to act that when when first elected in 2000.

But the Democrats led by Pelosi have set a tone of shrillness in Washington, often referring to the President and his counselors as incompetent.

It could be that circumtstances now force to two parties for work together.

When the Democrats were in the minority, the Republicans could pretty much do whatever they wanted, and that led to complacency. The Democrats, being sidelined could snipe at will, but carried none of the responsibility for what was going on.

Now they both have skin in the game.

Election Aftermath

Voting results showing that it would appear the Democrats have narrowly won the House of Representatives and may still capture the Senate.

In essence, the Democrats are now the dog that chases cars and finally caught one. Now that they caught it, they need to figure out what to do with it.

But while they're still doing their chicken dance, they want to remember this: it was very close, and it remains very close.

Here's what I mean:

-- Democrats and the media have characterized the election as a referendum on Iraq. But exit polls show that three-quarters of the voters were most concerned about corruption, reports the AP -- an issue the Democrats are hardly exempt from -- see: Reid, Hevesi, Menendez, Jefferson...

-- Voters rejected antiwar extremists like Ned Lamont, who repeatedly attacked the U.S. policy on Iraq but failed to explain how retreat and cowardice will keep us safe. Lamont was essentially crushed by incumbent Joe Lieberman, who won handily by an 8-percent margin.

-- Lieberman says he is unbeholden to the Republicans as he returns to the Senate. But in reality, it is the Democrats who abandoned him that he owes nothing to -- giving him freedom of action to operate as an independent.

-- Even if the Democrats win both houses, what can they do about the President's Iraq policy? Speaking on CBS last evening, Clinton White House Spokesman Mike McCurry summed it up this way: very little. Foreign policy is the domain of the administrative branch of our federal government. By attacking the current policy and promising change, they've essentially written a check they can't cover -- look for some very angry voters in two years.

-- The Democrats will likely put forward legislation on issues like the environment, healthcare and minimum wage. But with only a slight majority in the House and near parity in the Senate (no matter which way the final races turn out), the Democrats will need to work with Republicans to make them stick -- they don't have the voting weight to override a presidential veto.

Saddam: Justice Served

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging by an Iraqi court yesterday for the murder of 148 Shiite men and boys.

It is a far more merciful fate than met his victims, and it covers only a tiny fraction of his crimes.

The list of his bestial crimes is long, but I'll try to summarize:

-- Repeated attacks against his neighbors, including a war with Iran that killed one million soldiers.

-- The murder of between one million and eight million of his own countryman -- victims' group continue poring through official Iraqi documents to come up with a final tally. But even the low end of these numbers puts him in the same league as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Tactics ranged from rounding up and shooting the victims to gassing whole villages of civilians (see photo above);

-- Torture on an incredible level -- eyes gouged out, electric shocks to the genitals, the rape of women and children, infants tortured in front of their parents, hands lopped off, people tossed into shredding machines and vats of acid, and on and on;

-- Repeated violations of the international peace accords ending the first Gulf War, including continuing human rights abuses, failure to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, and ardent support of global terror;

-- Continuing concealment of WMD programs despite international requirements to fully disarm and prove that he had done so;

-- The wholly corrupt oil-for-food program, which allowed Saddam to continue to collect money to support his murderous regime while lining the pockets of U.N. officials and their associates, including the son of Secretary General Kofi Annan.

One day before the elections, it's important to keep all this in mind as many anti-war candidates question why we're in Iraq.

We know why.

Left Looking Haggard

Now that we have a little more to go on in the in the Ted Haggard episode, we can intelligently analyze the facts at hand.

Lessee...bought drugs but didn't use them...had an illicit, but non-sexual, relationship with a gay male prostitute...

There's only one conclusion we can draw: Haggard is almost -- but not quite -- qualified to run for higher office as a Democrat.

*sigh* If ONLY he had taken the drugs and had sex with the guy. Maybe put his lover on the payroll in a job he was unqualified for for good measure.

Can't you just see it unfurling like a tableau? The public accusation and the fervent denial: "I did NOT have sex with that man, Mr. Jones."

Then, the evidence would appear -- surreptitious recordings, a garment of some type stained with an incriminating bodily fluid.

There would be weeks or months of media drama, hearings and various events -- accusers and defenders would battle.

And, when the evidence was irrefutable, finally the tearful confession: "I am a gay American Evangelical."

Liberals -- being the caring, accepting, tolerant bunch that they are -- would rush to embrace him. "It's nobody's business but his own," they'd say, as they praised his bravery.

A lucrative book deal would follow. Jake Gyllenhaal would play him in the motion picture adapation -- "Brokeback Pulpit," possibly.

He'd make the rounds of the chat shows -- sitting on Oprah's couch, dancing with Ellen, having tea with the ladies on The View. He'd trade laughs with Letterman, Leno and O'Brien.

He'd be the toast of Hollywood.

And before you know it, it would be 2008 and "Haggard for President" on the Democratic ticket.

If only. If only.

You see kids, this is what happens when you don't plan ahead and follow through.

Dem Vandals

Vandals defaced the Pawling offices of Republican NY Assembly candidate Greg Ball, spray painting "fascist," "fascist pig" and swastikas on the walls, reports the Journal News.

And the supergeniuses behind this spelled "fascist" wrong -- they left out the first "s."

Haven't we hit our quota for political irony and hypocrisy yet this week?

First, John Kerry appears to insult the intelligence of our troops in Iraq. Then he says he really meant to insult the intelligence of the president, who actually got slightly better grades than he did at Yale.

Now we have local "political activists" labeling a candidate they oppose a fascist, and themselves employing fascist tactics to do it. Almost like a local little version of Kristallnacht.

Ball's opponent Ken Harper immediately denounced the attack, saying "This is deplorable and it doesn't represent my values or my campaign. I personally pledge to hunt down and apprehend the perpetrators, and hand them over to the authorities."

No he didn't, although he should have.

He actually said he hopes the miscreants are caught and punished, but "People get emotional about this stuff," as if this was all just boys-will-be-boys behavior.

He then launched an attack on his opponent.

Democrats -- could they get it less?

You know, I thought these people were all supposed to be so much smarter, sensitive and tolerant than the rest of us. Apparently not.

The Smell of Arrogrance

In one event, we have a summary of everything people don't like about John Kerry and the Democrats: condescension and arrogance.

It all started Monday, as Kerry was on the hustings for Democractic candidates ahead of next week's mid-term elections. He uttered the following to a group of college students:

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.''

The apparent implication was clear -- America's military men and women are stupid. Having viewed the original video of his comments, I can think of no other interpretation of what...he...said.

The point was lost on no one, and the White House and others immediately demanded an apology.

Landing in Seattle Tuesday, Kerry explained that this comment was a "botched joke" aimed at the president-- the punchline was supposed to be "Just ask President Bush."

He declined to apologize to anyone, then launched into a diatribe:

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, the most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves."

He goes on to insult the intelligence of the president and his White House advisors, call White House spokesman Tony Snow a stuffed suit and Rush Limbaugh "doughy" -- why he dragged him in we'll never know -- and said anyone who thinks he was talking about the troops is crazy.

In other words, it's not him -- it's everyone else.

A full-blown meltdown. Read it here in the NY Times.

A couple points though:

-- If he didn't mean to insult the troops, why not simply apologize for the misunderstanding? He's responsible for it -- he's the one who muffed the line. We don't know what he meant -- we only know what he said.

-- When the president "botches" a line, people call him an idiot. Does this mean Kerry's an idiot too?

-- If Kerry really was referring to the president's academic record, what does that say about Kerry? As the Boston Globe reported last year, his GPA at Yale was slighltly lower than Bush's. So, who's the imbecile here?

Today, Kerry and the Democrats are reeling -- he finally issued a faint apology and has cancelled further campaign stops. Other Democrats have joined the call for a fuller apology.

But the damage is done and it may have an impact on next Tuesday's elections.

"I'm not offended, but this is why John Kerry lost the election," said Jana Cook, a 43-year-old advertising executive and mother of two in Olathe, Kansas, quoted in a Reuters story. "He was perceived as an elitist and those are the kind of statements an elitist makes."

Exactly.

Most Weapons NOT Missing in Iraq

Okay, not a really great headline -- certainly not as good as the NPR is running on its story about weapons supplied to the Iraqi government by the U.S.: Thousands of U.S.-Bought Weapons Lost in Iraq.

The story posted on their Web site details that about the "missing" weapons, noting that only about 10,000 of the weapons -- primarily pistols, rifles and machineguns -- were registered by serial number. The U.S. has supplied about $133-million-worth of weapons to the Iraqis.

But what the story doesn't say, but Special Inspector Stuart Bowen (who conducted the audit) DID say in an on-air interview with NPR, was that only about 4 percent of the weapons are actually unaccounted for.

Don't look for that interview on their Web site, btw -- it's not there. I happened to hear it on the ride home from work last night and immediately noted the disparity between what Bowen said and what NPR was reporting.

Hmm, interesting.

You'd think there was an election coming up or something.

NYT: Fewer Dead Trees

Circulation at daily U.S. newspapers continues to slide, says the NY Times, down another 2.8 percent over the last six months and the steepest decline in 15 years.

The LA Times lost a whopping 8 percent daily and 6 percent on Sundays, the Boston Globe was down 6.7 percent daily and a holey socks! 10 percent Sundays. And the NY Times itself dipped 3.5 percent daily and Sunday.

Why? One word: trust.

People don't buy and read something they don't trust, and trust of the mainstream media continues to erode.

One could make the case that the Internet is eating into the circulation for the deadtree editions, but most newspapers haven't really figured out how to capitalize that and move eyeballs from the hardcopy to the screen copy.

And with the loss of eyeballs go the ad revenues.

Perhaps if these fine papers went back to, oh I don't know, reporting the news instead of attempting to fix elections they trust factor would go up.

ACLU: PAT ACT OK NOW

The ACLU has dropped its federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, AP reports.

Okay, okay, here's my imitation of the ACLU:

The Patriot Act is a wholly unconsitutional attempt by the Bush administration to undermine the fundamental liberties of every American. If this is allowed to stand, the rights of everyone will be abridged. No one will be safe, no one will be beyond the reach of the JACK-BOOTED THUGS WHO WILL KICK IN YOUR DOORS, DRAG YOU INTO THE STREET BY YOUR HAIR AND FROGMARCH YOU OFF TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS. MY GOD, THERE'S NO ESCAPE FROM THEM -- THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! BOLT THE DOORS, HIDE CHILDREN, GET THE GUNS ( Oh crap, that's right -- we don't HAVE any guns!), GET THE...wait...oh...um....never mind.

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, the New York-based associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a written statement.

"I'm a complete idiot," she added. (Not really)

And the best time for such announcement -- less than a week from the mid-term elections. One less thing for Democratic candidates to whip up hysteria about.

The Danger of High Expectations

The wave is coming, says the Washington Post -- echoing the numerous stories appearing in the media in recent weeks about how the Democrats are on the verge of sweeping Republican incumbents from office and taking control of a least one house of Congress.

"This is going to be a wave year," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in the Wash Post story. "The only question is whether it will be medium-size wave or a high wave for the Democrats."

So there's the prediction. But here's the question: what if he's wrong?

What if he and all the other political pundits -- as well as the news media -- are wrong and the wave doesn't materialize? They've been wrong before, with some frequency and regularity.

And there is the danger for the Democrats, riding high on the fumes of their own overheated rhetoric, stoked by the predictions of the analysts.

If they win, the best they can hope for is to stalemate the Bush adminstration for the next two years. They won't have the votes to push through anything on their agenda. So they'll go into the 2008 election as the party of obstruction and partisanship.

If they lose, I'd suggest that one of two things could happen.

They could end up losing not only this year's mid-term Congressional elections, but possibly the 2008 presidential election as well -- thrown back into the continuing disarray and denial that has plagued them for the past six years. Held in the thrall of the leftwing extremists who dominate their party.

Or, they could take stock. Suck it up. Fire Howard Dean as party chairman. Move the party back to the center and seek candidates more aligned with most Americans, who stand a little right of center these days. In other words, candidates who actually stand a chance of winning in 2008.

That's what they could do. I've long since given up predicting what they will do, although I'd say scenario #1 is the better bet.

Lamentable Lamont Lags Lieberman

You can almost smell the desperation.

The current Quinnipiac poll showing Ned Lamont lagging behind incument Joe Lieberman by 17 points, the AP reports.

Despite the desperate spending spree by Lamont -- who has poured more than $10 million of his own money into the race -- it seems most unlikely that he can make up the ground lost to Lieberman.

I don't normally put too much stock in polls until: a. within a month of the election; and b. when spread is more than double the margin of error. Both now apply.

My what a difference a couple months make. When Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary by a scant 4 percent of the vote, it was hailed as the bellwether race for the nation. This was the one to watch -- the antiwar forces were mad as hell and poised to take over Congress.

While incumbent candidates who supported the war and the president -- primarily Republicans -- continue to struggle in many races, it is far from a sure thing that they'll be defeated now.

And if this is the race to watch, well, it doesn't bode well for the challengers. I mean if a 4 percent victory was such a resounding victory, what's a 17-percent margin?

Perhaps Connectcutians are seeing Lamont for what he is -- a one-note candidate who sings off key. A liberal nag who criticizes his opponent, but has no solutions of his own. An antiwar wag who thinks retreat and cowardice will keep us safe.

Ultimately, to borrow a phrase from Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, just another dim dilettante trying to buy, marry or luck his way into office.

AP reports in the same story that Lamont has called on Senator John Kerry -- you know, the loser of the last presidential election -- to come stump for him.

Desperation indeed.

More Reid Sleaze

Sleazy land deals. Free boxing tickets.

Why, it's the kind of thing Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid normally rails against.

But the Atlanta Journal-Consitution notes Reids involvement in a sleazy land deal that scored Reid a pile of money he failed to disclose.

It also says he interceded in another deal for friends to procure a public right-of-way for a land deal they were working on.

And then there were the free boxing tickets he received while considering legislation on the sport.

You know the kind of things he normally chastizes Republicans for.

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others," says the AJC.

Indeed.

Johns Hopkins Doctors Iraq Casualty Report

Media reporting that British medical publication The Lancet has published a report by Johns Hopkins University claiming that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the Allied invasion in 2003 -- a stupefyingly large number far bigger than anything anyone else has suggested.

The report is built largely on estimates and interviews with about 13,000 Iraqis -- they then projected the data over the entire nation to come up with their total.

In other words, they guessed.

This number is so high, it defies gravity. Brookings Institution Scholar Michael O'Hanlon called it "preposterously high."

The decidedly antiwar group Iraq Body Count, for example, puts the figure at closer to 50,000 based on actual counts from morgues and media reports.

Johns Hopkins and the Lancet pulled a similar stunt two years ago, when they reported casualties at about 100,000 -- again, roughly four times what Iraq Body Count was reporting.

The timing on this is certainly interesting -- less than a month before a major U.S. election where the war on terror is a key issue.

I would think if you wanted to hijack an election by telling lies you'd at least want to make the lies believeable.

But then, I don't do stuff like that, so I wouldn't know.

Liars, in context

Much ado in the media and among liberal pols about part of the National Intelligence Estimate leaked earlier this week that says the war in Iraq has actually increased terrorist recruiting.

Problem is, they only provided part of the statement, in essence lying by stripping the statement of context and completeness. George Bush trumped them by declassifying a more complete text (although not all of it, as that would have revealed the undercover sources).

The whole statement they refer to reads: The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

So basically it says engaging jihadists makes them madder, but defeating them will reduce the threat.

As White House Spokesman Tony Snow pointed out yesterday, the same could have been said about WWII -- by entering the conflict, the U.S. substantially widened the war but also hastened its favorable conclusion.

The report also says, among other things:

-- The spread of democracy in Muslim nations will reduce the threat of terrorism;

-- The loss of key leaders al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri, and (dare to dream) Usama Bin Laden, will fracture the terrorist movement

-- The strict Sharia law caliphate espoused by Bin Laden and his terrorists is largely unpopular among the majority of Muslims.

So, essentially, the Bush policy of engaging the terrorists and the states that sponsor them and promoting democracy in the Middle East is the right course. And bailing out of Iraq would be a disaster.

Hmm, I wonder why the leakers didn't leak those parts...

Interesting what happens when you read the whole text and don't just pick out the parts you like.

The statement clearly outlines ongoing risks associated with the war on terror, but does not categorically conclude the all is lost and the president is wrong.

But don't take my word for it -- read it for yourself.

Losing your head over opera

The Times of London reporting that an opera has been cancelled in Germany because of fears it will offend Muslims.

In the opera, Mozart’s Idomeneo, the King of Crete of displays the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and Poseidon, and declares "the gods are dead."

The decision has unleashed a storm of controversy about free expression in German, but one viewpoint has been missing from the discussion.

Apparently, it's okay to offend Christians, Buddhists and...uh...whatever it is you call people who worship Poseidon.

But not Muslims.

Nice. Neat!

All Apologies

Muslim extremists threatening continuing violence against the West and non-Muslims alike over the Pope for comments he made last week about Islam and violence last week.

You know, some people just have no sense of irony.

Even moderate Muslims continuing to ask for a "better" apology.

Yeah, we'll get right on that.

As soon as they apologize for 9/11.

And the USS Cole attack.

And the African embassy bombings.

And the Khobar Towers bombing.

And the Marine Barracks truckbombing in Beirut.

And the Iranian hostage crisis.

That would be a good start.

Just once, I'd like to see these so-called moderates express outrage at the way extremists have hijacked their faith, instead of whinging and whining about how picked-on they are.