Robertson endorses Rudy

Giving Mayor Giuliani yet more street cred among social conservatives.
Robertson: "I thought it was important for me to make it clear that Rudy Giuliani is more than acceptable to people of faith," said Robertson. "Given the fractured nature of the process, I thought it was time to solidify around one candidate." He insisted that while some on the "fringe" of the social conservative movement may see Giuliani as an unacceptable nominee, the "core know better." Robertson said although he and Giuliani disagree on social issues, those disagreements "pale into insignificance" when measured against the import of the fight against global terrorism and radical Islam. "We need a man who sees clearly how to deal with that issue," said Robertson."

Continued Dem debate fallout

Senator Clinton's lead in New Hampshire, in a new poll, shrinks to 10 pts (it was 16).
Her approval rating among New Hampshire voters falls 9 points.
And I note the text of the report matter-of-factly refers to answer on driver's licenses at the debate as a "gaffe."

By the way...

...I was 8-5-1 last week on my NFL picks.
Not bad!
A winning week!!
Stay tuned for next week...

One explanation of the decline in violence in Iraq

Democratic Representative David Obey says it's because bloodthirsty Americans are "running out of people to kill."

There is indeed a good response to that argument:

"“Running out of people to kill” is also called victory. V-I-C-T-O-R-Y."

I doubt Mr. Obey will get it.

Continued Dem debate fallout

I'm seeing this a lot today (the previous link was one example):
That is: 1] That now that Senator Clinton has said she agrees with Gov. Spitzer on a program allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, polls show that 77% oppose such a program; and 2] astonishment at the near-hysteria with which Senator Clinton's campaign and defenders have greeted criticism she's received on this and her debate answer on it. Quote: "Hillary completely stepped in it on this issue. That's why Bill Clinton has to contend that the question to Hillary was akin to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads, Eleanor Smeal has to compare Hillary to Anita Hill, and contributors to The New Republic have to contend that Tim Russert is akin to Nazis. It's "all hands on deck" to change the narrative."

And the above is from someone who thought at first she'd won the debate.

Raised expectations for Ron?

So Ron Paul raised over $4 million yesterday. Are some Republicans now trying to raise the bar for him? Reports Fox's Carl Cameron: "In New Hampshire, GOP officials marvel at Ron Paul’s organization in the Granite State and his ability to raise money. These officials say they would not be suprised at all if Ron Paul took 3rd or 4th in the primary and meant the death knell for at least one top tier candidate. It speaks to the power of independents in NH; Bush beat McCain in 2000 among republicans but Indies put McCain over the top."

Today's good news from Iraq

Yes, Virginia, the violence is definitely down: "During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from "non-hostile causes", this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths.
Such statistics do not take account of deaths among the Iraqi security forces or civilians. But Iraqis, too, have had days when no one in their ranks has died. On October 13, for instance, neither the coalition nor the Iraqi military suffered any deaths. But one Iraqi policeman was killed, along with four reported civilian deaths in Baghdad."

A tough season

...when it comes to winning games, and the Notre Dame football team's fans aren't much at predictions, either: "If the Midshipmen needed to be reminded of their 43-game losing streak to the Fighting Irish, the longest drought against one opponent in NCAA history, they got it when their team buses stopped at a toll booth outside South Bend, Ind., only hours before the game at Notre Dame Stadium. A Fighting Irish fan in a car next to the buses rolled down his window and taunted the Midshipmen. "This car pulled up beside us and this guy was hanging out the window, yelling, "Forty-four in a row! Forty-four in a row!" Johnson said. "I just started laughing. It was a grown man falling out of his window."

Fundamental: fans of teams with 1 win and 7 losses shouldn't be doing much taunting.
It's gonna come back to bite you.

No pall over Paul today

Ron Paul is having a big one-day fundraising drive today, and it's netting him some $$$.
How did I know this? Well, it's part of the blogosphere buzz today.
One question though, the answer to which nobody's had today:
What's the money going to mean in votes?
Until somebody shows me different, my guess is: not much.

Continuing Dem debate fallout: Hillary slipping?

So far, not much, but maybe just a bit. Quote: "I know the early sense is that the debate answer on driver's licenses hasn't hurt Hillary Clinton yet. But I note Rasmussen has her at 41 percent in his daily tracking poll. It's bounced around a bit, but she was as high as 47 percent on the 25th of October. But I notice that compared to the last Washington Post poll finished Sept. 30, Hillary is down four and Obama is up six. Maybe that did move the needle a bit."

Yesterday, when we were young...

But in this case, it wasn't just yesterday. Wild headline in that one, hmmm? Cheerleading coach and cheerleader pose topless...at an assistant football coach's house...both the cheer coach and assistant football coach fired. How could they be so stupid?, you wonder.
But read closer. Both coaches were only 19 years old.
Schools need to be much more careful when hiring such young people.
How many of us remember doing dumb things at 19???

76 trombones for the big [hate] parade...

Did you all know that, every year on this date, the Iranian government stages a parade?
A parade, that is, which features Iranian children, but which is staged to, ahem, commemorate...the taking of 52 innocent American diplomats as hostages. It was an illegal act, against all norms of international law. They were held for 444 days. It made Iran an international pariah.

And they have their children celebrate it.
Charming.

Senator Clinton: it depends on what the definition of "withholding" is

Is Senator Clinton "withholding" most of her important White House First Lady papers until 2012? Her opponents say she is. It sure looks like she is. But her campaign has a different spin. What is it? "Three Iowa supporters of another candidate, Senator Barack Obama, of Illinois, sent Mrs. Clinton, of New York, a letter Saturday, urging that she expedite the release of documents, to “be as open as possible with the American people.” In a 2002 letter from Mr. Clinton to the National Archives, which controls his papers, Mr. Clinton wrote that documents including communication between the two Clintons “should generally be considered for withholding” until 2012. Experts on presidential papers, as well as advisers to Mrs. Clinton, say that “withholding” in that context did not mean the papers would be kept under wraps indefinitely. Rather, the word is a legal term in the Presidential Records Act requesting that the papers be subjected to review. The advisers emphasized that the papers involving the couple would likely be released once they were reviewed. In interviews recently, lawyers and experts on presidential papers said it was not unusual for a president to want a close review of documents that might have personal or political dimensions."

My take? Don't get sucked in by this argument. Yes, technically (and the Clintons love to make arguments like this) "withholding" papers doesn't mean they'll be closed off to the public forever. It means they have to be reviewed before being released. But make no mistake: it takes a long time to review millions of papers. It can take years. The Clintons knew that, and know that, and Bill Clinton had to know that when he wrote his 2002 paper asking that the First Lady's papers be withheld and, thus, reviewed.

This is Clinton campaign spin, trying to befog the truth.

Surprise! John Edwards makes sense

On why his criticisms of Hillary Clinton won't hurt him among women voters: First of all, I have more respect for female voters than that," Edwards said. "I think women voters in this country are strong and smart, and they will look at every one of us and say, 'Who will make the best president of the United States for myself and for my family?' I think that's how they'll judge us."

NFL Picks: week 9

Only 5-8 last week. Ugh! Time for a comeback this week. Here we go!
(home team in ALL CAPS)

ATLANTA 3 over San Francisco. PICK: FALCONS. Despite their poor record, the Falcons are 4-3 vs the spread. And they're at home, while the 49ers are reeling.

BUFFALO 1 over Cincinnati. PICK: BILLS. They're 4-0 vs the spread at home; and I'm off the Bengals bandwagon--they're play has been consistently poor.

DETROIT 3 over Denver. PICK: LIONS. I may regret. But--the Broncos are only 1-6 against the spread this year; and they can't stop the run. Meanwhile the Lions' Kevin Jones is coming on strong.

TENNESSEE 4 over Carolina. PICK: TITANS. A little shaky. The Panthers are actually 4-0 vs the spread on the road. But: Carolina has QB problems. And Tennessee is developing a powerful RB in LenDale White.

Green Bay 2 over KANSAS CITY. PICK: CHIEFS. The Pack ran the ball better last week, but Denver's run D is porous. Not so with KC. Green Bay's barely been getting by. I suspect this week, on the road, and don't forget the short week given the Monday night game, their luck runs out vs a KC team that's been quietly improving.

San Diego 7 over MINNESOTA. Pick: CHARGERS. San Diego has righted the ship. Minnesota's got uncertainty at QB. Spells trouble.

NEW ORLEANS 3 over Jacksonville. PICK: SAINTS. This is more or less a gut/momentum pick--Saints have won 3 straight and are at home. And I think the Jags' uncertainties at QB are bound to bite them sometime.

Washington 3.5 over NY JETS. Pick: REDSKINS. I think the Jets new QB Kellen Clemens will give the Jets a spark and keep this game close. But Washington will win by a TD.

TAMPA BAY 3.5 over Arizona. PICK: BUCS. I can't see the Bucs losing 2 straight at home with that defense (and they would have beaten the Jags last week had it not been for turnovers). Arizona not a great road team.

CLEVELAND 1.5 over Seattle. PICK: BROWNS. They've been very good at home, including vs the spread; Derek Anderson has impressed. Seattle meanwhile has been uneven, especially on the road.

New England 5.5 over INDIANAPOLIS. PICK: PATRIOTS. Huge game of course. But how can you pick against the Pats? They're 8-0 against the spread. The Colts will give them a tough go. But New England to win by 7.

OAKLAND 3 over Houston. PICK: RAIDERS. They're at home; Matt Schaub is out, Sage Rosenfels in for the Texans. Which will probably spell key turnovers which will help spur a Raider win.

Dallas 3 over PHILADELPHIA. PICK: COWBOYS. So many distractions for Philly, what with Coach Reid's situation; and Dallas has a lot of weapons.

PITTSBURGH 9 over Baltimore. PICK: RAVENS. Not to win the game, but to keep it close. It's a tough divisional rivalry, and Steve McNair will play for the Ravens. Steelers to win, but only by a TD or less.

Re-education in Delaware dorms

Many have heard now of the recent dust-up at the University of Delaware, concerning a political sensitivity/political correctness/re-education program being run in the school's dorms through the RAs. What's especially instructive, though, is to look at some of the specifics of the program (which has now thankfully been ended): "Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and “one-on-one” meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including “When did you discover your sexual identity?” A student who responded, “That is none of your damn business,” was, according to the university’s own materials, written up—along with the student’s name and room number—as having one of the “wors[t] one-on-one” sessions. The program’s materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These “competencies” included: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” And in the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as “treatment” and defining “learning” as “specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.”

It's hard to believe that those who instituted the program couldn't see how political it obviously was, and how objectionable it could easily become. Kudos to FIRE for bringing it to peoples' attention.

Yet more Dem debate fallout for Senator Clinton

John Edwards uses debate footage for a very tough anti-Clinton ad. See it for yourself.
And I agree with NRO's Jim Geraghty: "My hat is off to Team Edwards. This is the toughest, most effective web ad I've seen this campaign so far. Somehow it manages to be simultaneously brutal and fair, contrasting Hillary's own words with herself, often only seconds apart."

Continued Dem debate fallout

I contend that Senator Clinton lost that Democratic debate of earlier this week. Today, she continues to take a pounding--not merely for her performance in the debate, but now for her campaign's post-debate spin. Good roundup here--some choice quotes:

A moment of silence, please, for Invincible Hillary. She left us at 11 am ET yesterday, in Wellesley, Mass., a victim of her own hand. She was 10 months old. She is survived by Victim Hillary. "In so many ways this all women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said yesterday at her alma mater, Wellesley College....

"Clinton essentially hid behind her pantsuit in response to a public shellacking," AP's Ron Fournier writes in his "On Deadline" column, noting that Clinton "is no stranger to 'piling on' " herself in playing the aggressor in political combat..."

"But Clinton's candidacy has always been about far more than being the first woman to launch a viable presidential candidacy. She's wanted us to view her as tougher than the other candidates in the race, the candidate equipped to handle the challenges of the job on Day One. She's been the candidate who's ready to "deck" her critics (and remember who dealt the first blow after Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said he'd meet with leaders of rogue nations?)."

Obama this morning, on the "Today" show: "I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else. And I think that that's why she is running for president. You know, when we had a debate in Iowa a while back, we spent the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say 'look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.' . . . We're not running for the president of the city council. We're running for the president of the United States of America."

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus isn't buying it. "Those other guys were beating up on Clinton, if you can call that beating up, because she is the strong front-runner, not because she is a weak woman. And a candidate as strong as Clinton doesn't need to play the woman-as-victim card," Marcus writes. "Using gender this way is a setback. Hillary Clinton is woman enough to take these attacks like a man."

"here is such a thing as protesting too much. Lashing out at her critics "contradicts a central part of Clinton's own message: The notion that she is a battle-tested veteran ready for anything the Republicans can throw at her," Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh writes. "If so, she should prove it by engaging with her rivals and defending her positions -- not by having her campaign protest each and every time another Democrat says something critical about her."

More good news for X-Files fans

They're going to make an X-Files movie.
David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson will be in it.
Chris Carter will write it.
They hope to have it out in June 2008.
Happy day!
The truth is out there.

Finding comparisons, finding connections

So the Washington Post today has a bit of an expose out on some memos, written during W's administration by Donald Rumsfeld. Okay, but---think a minute. Remember when Hillary was first lady? "Let me see if I have this straight, we can get the memos of a defense secretary in a time of war before the administration he worked for is even out of office, but we cannot get the memos of the first lady 7 years after her administration is over?"