Fallout from the Dem debate dept

There was an odd thing yesterday---many on conservative blogs, such as National Review Online and the like, disagreed with the conclusions of much of the mainstream media. The MSM unanimously said Senator Clinton bombed at the most recent debate. Some conservatives thought she won.

I disagree---she lost. The kind of wandering, trying-to-mislead answer she gave on the driver's licenses/illegal immigration issue is the main story that came out of that debate, and that's not good for Hillary. Today, we continue to see evidence of this. See for example her campaign in spin/damage control mode; see them blaming Tim Russert for her failures. From a campaign conference call with supporters: "One caller from Oklahoma City said that “the questions … were designed to incite a brawl,” and that Russert’s and Brian Williams’s moderating was “an abdication of journalistic responsibility.”Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call."

Blame the media. Pretty old shtick--good luck with it.

Huck stuck on opponents of illegal immigration

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee engages in some mischaracterization:
“I do not believe in amnesty, I don’t believe in sanctuary cities, I believe [illegal aliens] who commit crimes ought to be deported, and I believe we ought to go after the employers,” Huckabee said.

(Well, that's good. So?)

“But do I have a seething anger toward immigrants?” he went on. “No. I definitely have anger toward the incompetence of our government; I am just livid over it. But immigrants just love our country like we do.”

Well, the vast majority of those concerned about illegal immigration aren't fired by a "seething anger" either, Mr. Huckabee. And it's unfair of you to portray us that way. It's what we call a "straw man" argument. Knock it off.

Bad news from Iraq that might not have happened

Did you hear that 20 headless corpses had recently been found in Iraq?
Time magazine reported it as fact--but it likely didn't happen.
Just so you know...

Liberalism dept, Paul Krugman speaking

And you always know what you're g0ing to hear.
Nothing much new--as always, the NY Times oft-hysterical typical liberal columnist recently again suggested Republicans and conservatives are racists, this time in complaining about the Bush administration's war on terror: "But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general."

Accusations of racism are slowly replacing arguments in some quarters.

The Democrats debate (again), but...

...this time it may have been important. Because Senator Clinton for the first time got bad marks. Why? See her answers to a question concerning a plan by New York Governor Spitzer to make driver's licenses available to illegal immigrants. Answer 1: "What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Answer 2: "Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.
Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

Answer 3: "Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?" Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

Wow! What duplicity and double-talk.

No wonder Edwards and Obama pounced. This is exactly what they wanted out of this debate. Maybe it was bound to happen. Here's a summary of the media's unanimous hammering of Clinton for her poor performance. The Politico's Roger Simon had perhaps the best summary:
"We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night...And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says."

A Paul over Hillary's polling numbers

Meaning--how does she do in a hypothetical matchup with Ron Paul?
Well: "The Influence Peddler and Patrick Ruffini think yesterday's revelation - that Hillary gets 48 percent against Ron Paul, including 48 percent among those who know who Ron Paul is, and 48 percent against those who don't know who he is - is worth more attention.
The middle number probably ought to concern Hillary backers the most. Ron Paul doesn't have the highest name recognition. Among those who do recognize him, they probably have some idea of his, uh, eclectic collection of views: get out of Iraq, withdraw troops from Afghanistan, abolish the Federal Reserve, legalize narcotics, issue letters of marque and reprisal for al-Qaeda, repealing the 17th Amendment allowing for direct election of Senators, eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, FEMA, DHS, withdrawing from the United Nations, and "ending the legal monopoly of the U.S. Postal Service on first class mail delivery"......and she still can't break 50 percent against that?"

Those who are against her--are really against her.
It will be tougher for her in the general election than many think.

Who's watching all these presidential debates?

Answer: maybe there's a tiny bit more interest than in 2004.
But not that much: "Nielsen provided a breakdown of the audiences for all of the debates so far, and the answer is: Far fewer than would watch the lowest-rated prime-time show, but, that said, they have at times drawn at least a couple of million viewers."

Always remember: most Americans don't care that much about politics, and don't follow it too closely.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Nancy Pelosi: making the Republican case

Sometimes she has a tin ear:

Last week the House held its one-thousandth roll call vote this year, the first time Congress had reached that level since the ratification of the Constitution. Pelosi's office demanded that Democrats mark the event as a victory for the party, against the advice of Hoyer and other party leaders. "It only served to highlight just how little we've actually achieved compared to what we promised," says the House aide. "Out of those thousand votes, about ten percent were bills that became law and half of those were namings of federal buildings and such. Fifty bills in a year doesn't compare to what we promised, and she wanted to put a spotlight on it. She just doesn't get it sometime."

Question for John Edwards

How would he "instantly" reform the U.S. health care system?
Oatmeal can be "instant." Not health care reform.
"Spoken like a man who has never run anything."
Yep.

We'll always have Paris dept

But she's doing good! I had not heard this before: "Paris [Hilton] gave Pop Tarts a peek at her "provocative" fragrance fresh from France. And while the name, Can Can, was inspired by the moves of the "Moulin Rouge" (which was originally a party palace of Parisian prostitutes), the sweet smell of this particular Paris is more nice than it is naughty, especially because a portion of proceeds will benefit the Los Angeles Children's Hospital."

Good for her!

When the DEA is dumb...

...it's really dumb. Recently, Montana legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. One particular woman needed it, and had been a leader in the fight for Montana's legalization of its use. But: "...DEA agents seized less than a half ounce of marijuana sent to her by her registered caregiver in Flathead County. At the time, the DEA special agent in charge of the Rocky Mountain Field Division said federal agents were “protecting people from their own state laws” by seizing such shipments."

Recently she committed suicide. Read the whole post.
Is the war on pot worth it? It doesn't seem so. Some conservatives have already gotten onto the drug legalization bandwagon. Y'all come--there's still plenty of room.

Is Rudy Giuliani a conservative dept

The Mayor is about to step up his efforts in New Hampshire, with the focus on health care.
His message: "You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat," Giuliani says in the ad.
The mail piece echoes that message. "Rudy Giuliani's health care plan offers freedom to choose a health plan that fits your needs and the freedom to keep it if you change jobs," the flier reads, above a graphic that shows Giuliani's plan does not amount to "government mandated health insurance" or require a tax increase."

Doesn't sound too liberal to me.

Obama opens up...

...stepping up his attacks against the front-running Senator Clinton. The Clinton campaign (as they have done with this as well) has a st0ck response: accusing Senator Obama of abandoning the "politics of hope." This time an Obama spokesman had a good reply: "Obama Communications Director Rob Gibbs surmised that the Clinton campaign's own "politics of hope" meant hoping that nobody asked any questions."

That's about it.
To be fair, surely Obama is changing tone a bit, too, because he's behind.

NFL Picks: week 8

Let's see if I can do better. Week 1 was my best---I've been kinda downhill from there.
(HOME TEAM IS IN CAPS).

BEARS 5 over Lions. PICK: Chicago. I'm still not a believer in the Lions on the road (see their game vs the Redskins of a couple weeks ago.)

Steelers 3.5 over BENGALS. PICK: PITTSBURGH. Kinda hard to be a Bengals believer based on their overall performance this year, home or away.

TITANS 7 over Raiders. PICK: TENNESSEE. I gather Vince Young will play; and they're at home.

Browns 3 over RAMS. PICK: CLEVELAND. I've been picking the Rams to rebound over and over; and they never have. The Browns have exceeded expectations this year.

Giants 9.5 over Dolphins (in London). PICK: NEW YORK. That's a lot of points, but the Dolphins have been pretty horrible and have shown no signs of improvement.

Eagles 1 over VIKINGS. PICK: MINNESOTA. They're at home. I've picked Philly several times, and they've bombed. And have shown little improvement--while the Vikings have Adrian Peterson, and played Dallas tough on the road.

Colts 7 over PANTHERS. PICK: INDY. The Colts covered on the road last week in a hostile atmosphere. I'm not a David Carr believer (he will start for Carolina). Only thing for Indy to watch for is the trap game scenario--the Pats loom next week.

JETS 3 over Bills. PICK: NEW YORK. Pennington will play; Buffalo meanwhile has the handicap of a young QB (Trent Edwards) playing on the road--always tough.

CHARGERS 9 over Texans. PICK: SAN DIEGO. Schaub is questionable for Houston. The game will be played in SD; the fires are going out; my guess is the Chargers will retain focus.

BUCS 3.5 over Jaguars. PICK: TAMPA BAY. No Garrard for the Jags. Bucs have a tough defense. It's in Tampa. All signs point--Bucs.

PATRIOTS 16 over Redskins. PICK: NEW ENGLAND. 16 pts is a lot. But how can you pick against the Pats? They've covered every single time this year, 7-0 vs the spread. The Redskins will try to run it; the Pats will expect it.

Saints 2 over 49ERS. Pick: NEW ORLEANS. Tough one--both teams 2-4; Alex Smith returns to the Niners. But: Saints appear to be coming on; Smith may be rusty; in any case Drew Brees is a big edge for the Saints.

BRONCOS 3 over Packers. PICK: DENVER. Shaky--the Pack is 4-1 vs the spread, Broncos only 1-5. But Denver won a big game last week--momentum. This too is at home for them. The Pack still with little running game. That can especially hurt on the road.

The Edwards campaign flunks journalism

The campaign dislikes a story done on it by a University of North Carolina student journalist. The campaign's response? "Ms. Babb’s professor, C. A. Tuggle, said in an interview that after the report first appeared on YouTube on Tuesday night he received calls of complaint from a deputy in Mr. Edwards’s national press office, and, then, his communications director.
Mr. Tuggle said the aides told him they felt “blind-sided by the way the reporter presented the piece in the pitch,” adding unapologetically, “The focus of stories change all of the time.”
“We told them we were not interested in taking it down or holding it from broadcast on our show on Monday,” Mr. Tuggle said, adding that the campaign responded by telling him that, “campus media would have real trouble getting any sort of access to the Edwards campaign, and so might other parts of the university.”

It's hard to believe that the campaign believes that that kind of intimidation can do anything but make the situation worse. But then, the Edwards camp, behind in the polls, would appear to be a bit touchy.

Today's good news from Iraq

Hmmm. Well, now, what do we have here? Reports ABC News: "In yet another sign of trouble for al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden publicly conceded that his like-minded militants in Iraq "made mistakes." In an audiotape broadcast by Al Jazeera this week, he sounds deeply anxious about the survival of al Qaeda in Iraq -- a group that is largely independent of his own organization but adheres to a similar ideology. Al Qaeda's top leader appealed to Sunni Arab tribes and other armed Iraqi Sunni groups to stop fighting al Qaeda members and unite against the real enemy -- the U.S.-led coalition. Al Qaeda in Iraq faces growing indignation from fellow Sunni Iraqis fed up with its indiscriminate killing of civilians and its Taliban-like religious laws. In the past year, Sunni tribes and fighters have risen against al Qaeda's branch in Iraq and, working jointly with U.S. troops, killed and expelled scores of its militants from their neighborhoods, particularly from Anbar Province. Besieged both internally and externally, al Qaeda in Iraq struggles to survive and absorb these catastrophic military setbacks."

And yet some people in this country wish to claim that we're losing in Iraq? That we've lost? That we should bug out immediately?

They're wrong.

Another university forbidding free speech

In this case, Valdosta State University expels a student for peacefully protesting a new parking garage. Read the whole story, including the university president's bizarre conclusion as to who and what constitutes a "threat."

The Clinton presidential campaign flunks writing

Here apparently is a verbatim quote from an e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton's campaign to reporters in the last 24 hours, criticizing Barack Obama: "Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton,” the e-mail said. “Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006,” it adds. “Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.”

Never mind the rather petulant anti-Obama blast. My question is this: who in the heck in the Clinton campaign has the strange idea that "nevermind" is a word????

Putin flunks history

He was trying today to denounce a U.S. plan to deploy an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe.
And then came this howler: "Mr. Putin, who criticized American plans for additional sanctions against Iran on Thursday, spoke again today about Russia’s objections to an American antimissile system to be deployed near Russia’s borders in Poland and the Czech Republic.
“Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed rockets on Cuba, provoked the Cuban missile crisis,” Mr. Putin said. “Thank God, we do not have any Cuban missile crisis now, and this is above all because of the fundamental way relations between Russia and the United States and Europe have changed.”

Er, no, Mr. Putin. We don't, and shouldn't, have any missile crisis now between our two countries because there is no analogy to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the proposed American plan.

The Soviet Union in 1962 sought to place offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba.
Meanwhile, in eastern Europe, the U.S. seeks to place an anti-missile shield, which of course would have no capability to engage in offensive actions vs Russia.

Can he really not see the difference???
If you read the rest of the article, you'll see that fortunately Sean McCormack, of the U.S. State Department, fortunately can see the difference, and pointed it out.

It's not all bad news for the GOP

Take for example Louisiana, turning solidly Republican in Katrina's wake: "Mr. [Bobby] Jindal's [gubernatorial] victory is only the icing on the cake. The Republicans are expected to take five of the six elected state offices in Louisiana when the run-off votes are counted next month."