Obama as Saruman Obama as Saruman

Obama as Saruman (LOR):

“…Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard: and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke within them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves…”

Obama and Palin riding their bikes Obama and Palin riding their bikes

An example why Obama is in trouble.

Professor Lessig Is In Professor Lessig Is In

Mark Hemingway (National Review Online): Professor Lessig Is In: Not running for Congress, but having an impact. Lessig views himself as a liberal Democrat, but is now concerned with the inherent corruption of money in politics, and the quid pro quod we now see between political contributions and legislation, etc.

What is hard to fathom from someone who seems to understand that the bigger the government, the more corrupt it is, how he can be a liberal Democrat, where the governing tenet seems to be that more government is better, and that government can be called upon to solve all of society's ills. And, if government failures are pointed out, the answer is invariably that those in government are corrupt, and that if smarter people were running things, government would work just fine.

If Lessig continues along this route, he is likely to end up in the group most hated by the left, a neo-conservative, sometimes defined as a progressive mugged by reality.

The Lewinsky Decade The Lewinsky Decade

Best of the Web Today: The Lewinsky Decade starts out: "Ten years ago today came the most interesting Drudge missive:"

BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT

**World Exclusive**

**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president's sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.

The rest is history. Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. Monica's name became synonymous with oral sex. Hillary is running for president. The Republicans are in trouble. And Drudge is still one of the most reviled names on the left of the blogosphere, while Republican candidate Mitt Romney admitted checking it out a couple of times a day.

Property tax bills soar as services fall Property tax bills soar as services fall

Mass. Property tax bills soar as services fall. Not surprising that this seems to be hitting Mass. harder than most. Apparently, what is really bothersome is that property taxes are peaking due to assessments based on the real estate bubble, but services are being cut.

Short run, I expect pressure on Mass. and other similarly situated states to pick up more of the bill for the local governments that are so exposed here. But the long run solution has to be getting personnel costs down. Government pensions were cranked up in many places as a result of a revenue bubble a couple of years ago, and now the governments are having to pay the price. Right now, government workers tend to have much better pensions than those paying them. But add to this that many government workers really don't have to work all that hard (we got into this discussion last week at volokh.com), and I suspect that you will ultimately see a lot of pressure placed on local government to fix its personnel problems.

Thins are likely not as bad in places like this. Better than a decade ago, the voters here in Colorado put a straight jacket on government spending and taxes at all levels. So, the state doesn't have the money to bail out the cities and counties, no matter how much they would like to. And that is how it should be - it is the taxpayers' money, and governments without a lot of checks on them will spend as much of it as they can.

Hillary: Sending Katie Couric to Iraq ‘Too Little, Too Late’ Hillary: Sending Katie Couric to Iraq ‘Too Little, Too Late’

ScrappleFace: Hillary: Sending Katie Couric to Iraq ‘Too Little, Too Late’:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, today said that the decision by CBS to send Evening News anchor Katie Couric to Baghdad, Iraq, was a “desperate move” that she called “too little, too late.”

“When what you’re doing isn’t working, you need to cut your losses and pull out,” said Sen. Clinton, noting that, “Almost a year into the Couric anchorage, CBS News has failed to unite any substantial group of viewers and the evening news landscape remains a hopeless quagmire of sectarian fighting.”

CBS producer Rick Kaplan, however, said that sending a widowed, single mother of two young children into a war zone would “demonstrate that we mean business.”

Mr. Kaplan called on Sen. Clinton to “allow the Couric surge plan time to work, rather than advocating a defeatist strategy of cut-and-run.”

The big question though is whether the perky Katy Couric gets out of the "Green" zone and actually has a chance to see what is going on in Iraq. Al Qaeda knows that the MSM stays in the "safe" part of Baghdad, and bombs accordingly..

DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates

Not a good move. WaPo: DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates. The DNC has stripped the state that gave Bush the presidency in 2000 of its delegates to the 2008 convention. They probably did have a chance there, since their governor no longer has a brother running for president. Until this...

More FISA Fear-Mongering by Andrew McCarthy More FISA Fear-Mongering by Andrew McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy talks sense on FISA reform in: More FISA Fear-Mongering (the New York Times strikes again). The NYT breathlessly reported that the recently enacted FISA amendment would allow all sorts of implausible incursions into our civil liberties, most of which had nothing to do with international and foreign electronic communications (generically, and not as defined by FISA), the subject of FISA and its recent amendment.

I have gotten a bit tired of hearing about how the "directed" language in the new law can be theoretically, maybe, by Darth Bush (McCarthy's term), perverted to allow indiscriminent tapping of American phones. Never mind that the intelligence community has repeatedly pointed out that they see the language as being essentially equivalent to the "targeted" language of the original FISA. But somehow, it is supposedly possible for a rogue Administration to target Americans by targeting al Qaeda operatives.

Yes, the language may be a tiny bit more lenient than was in effect for interceptions made outside the U.S. (and most of those making these arguments admit that most international communications could be and were tapped "outside" the U.S. when FISA was enacted). But the amendment addressed some real problems with where FISA had gone.

First, the technology had changed significantly since then, to the point where interception outside the U.S. is now technologically infeasible (we are now tapping fiber optics at the switches as the cables come onshore, instead of out of the ether, as was previously done).

Secondly, much purely foreign traffic is intercepted at those same fiber optic switches, as AT&T had kindly routed it through this country, partially at the behest of the NSA (and partially because they are an American company with their infrastructure here). That was fine, since foreign traffic is exempt from FISA - until a FISC judge determined that FISA applies if there is a chance that one end ended up here in the U.S. That might not have been an issue, except that the NSA doesn't always know where both ends are (for example, with satellite phones).

So, if OBL were sitting in his cave on the Afgan/Pakistan border, and used a sattelite phone to call someone, a FISA warrant would now be required, because the NSA couldn't guarantee that the phone call wasn't made from this country.

Those are two big things to keep in mind when talking about the amendment to FISA. First, the big thing it did was change the standard from absolute knowledge to reasonable belief. If they detect OBL, they don't have to worry about whether he sneaked into this country somehow. And that the "directed" language is being interpreted as equivalent to the "targeted" language in 50 U.S.C. 1801(f) (and note that this part of the amendment specifically refers to 1801(f)). The person of interest must be reasonably believed to be outside the U.S. for this provision in the amendment to apply. The idea that someone here can be targeted but the surveillance be "directed" at someone outside the U.S. is just ludicrous. Since "targeted" is really narrower than "directed", this just doesn't work.

Finally, it is only temporary - six months.

Quindlen: Hillary Should Make Barack Her Running Mate Quindlen: Hillary Should Make Barack Her Running Mate

Anna Quindlen: Hillary Should Make Barack Her Running Mate makes a good point, that the best thing that Hillary could do to win the general election would be to take Barack Obama as her running mate. And, I think that she is right. That would be a very, very strong ticket. Obama's biggest problem seem to me to be his inexperience. And, despite the reality to the contrary, Hillary doesn't have that problem in the view of many Americans. Obama appears cleaner than Hillary, and he appeals to the younger crowd better than probably any other major candidate. Oh, and he is Black, or at least partially so. But White enough not to scare the voters.

I am not sure who the Republicans could run to compete with this ticket. Maybe one their losing Black candidates in the last election as VP. Or Dr. Rice. Possibly a charismatic Hispanic? In any case, it would significantly increase the Democrats chance at winning, with Obama cancelling out many of Hillary's weaknesses.

What do you call John Edwards at the bottom of Lake Michigan? What do you call John Edwards at the bottom of Lake Michigan?

Answer: A good start.

Thanks to poster: Dubya resonding to Feeling "Betrayed," Kucinich Calls Edwards Bluff where Rep. Kucinich indicated a feeling of betrayal with former Sen. Edwards attempting to cut him out of future Democratic presidential debates.

Bush and the Fairness Doctrine Bush and the Fairness Doctrine

The Corner@NROBush and the Fairness Doctrine had this statement from the Administration:

As you probably know, some Members of Congress have recently indicated their desire to seek legislation to regulate what is said on the radio by reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987 after the FCC concluded that "a multiplicity of voices in the marketplace assured diversity of opinion" on our airwaves. Since then, the multiplicity of voices has significantly increased — and the case for the Fairness Doctrine is weaker than ever. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would muzzle political debate and free speech. I therefore want you to know that the President would veto any legislation reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

This is, of course, not unexpected. Talk radio benefits the right, since that is where the dominent talk radio shows are located. And so, the Democrats in Congress, newly in a majority, would like nothing better than to hobble their enemies with a reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine".

But what is interesting to me about this is the Constitutional side of this. The Fairness Doctrine had been justified by Red Lion, where the Supreme Court approved it based on there being a limited number of channels of communications available. Of course, this started in the 1920s, when there actually was a shortage. Eighty years later, there of course isn't.

Note that the Administration talks straight at this, pointing out that twenty years ago, the FCC found that the doctrine could no longer be justified on that basis. So what has changed to justify it now? Nothing.

But if Congress were to pass such a bill, and if it were signed (presumably by a later president), or they were able to overcome the president's veto, would it be enforcable? I would suggest not. Normally, the Supreme Court defers to Congress in its finding of facts supporting bills. But in this case, first there was a conflicting finding of fact by an administrative agency. And again, the Court would often ignore this in favor of Congress. But in this case, the standard of review is not the usual Rational Basis, but rather Strict Scrutiny. And because of that, I would suggest that the 1987 FCC findings would be fatal to its Constitutionality.

Edwards camp again turns to cash cow Coulter Edwards camp again turns to cash cow Coulter

This is pathetic: Edwards camp again turns to cash cow Coulter:

With the second quarter drawing to a close, the presidential campaign of former North Carolina senator John Edwards (D) on Wednesday again turned to one of its most reliable “fundraisers,” Ann Coulter.

Apparently, the reason to support John Edwards is that he is the brunt of some of Ann Coulter's humor. That is not the best reason I have heard of to support someone for president.

Hillary v. ??? Hillary v. ???

Right now, I don't see how any Democrat can overtake Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. Obama is too inexperienced and is making novice level mistakes. Edwards is a blatant hypocrite, and an experienced lightweight as well. Richards is the most qualified, but can't get traction and isn't photogenic.

Sure, some of these impressions may be false, but where do they come from? The fact that the Clinton team (with the help of the MSM) has managed to infect the electorate with these impressions is significant in itself. That they are that vulnerable indicates that Hillary and the rest of the Democrats are competing on different playing fields.

Which means that it is likely that Hillary will be Democratic nominee. The question then is how well can any of the Republicans stand up against the onslot that the other Democratic candidates are withering before. I don't see McCain being able to maintain his temper long enough, and being likely to lose it when pressed. While I like Romney, I see him as fairly brittle. Maybe not, but we shall see. Guliani maybe. But he bailed instead of running against her in 2000 for the NY Senate seat. Right now, my money would be on Fred Thompson. But he really hasn't taken that much flack yet, from either side.

But then, picking a nominee that could beat Hillary would possibly be making the same mistake that the Democrats made in 2004 - somehow John Kerry convinced a lot of people that he was the only one who could beat President Bush. Who knows how he did that, but he did. So, he got the nomination, despite the fact that a number of serious Democratic contenders didn't have his Vietnam ere baggage.

The Real Deal The Real Deal

Amity Shlaes in AEI: The Real Deal takes to task historians, and probably economists, for refusing to look at the reality of the New Deal. The evidence continues to mount that Hoover screwed up by walking away from his free enterprise roots, but then FDR came in and totally demolished the economy, greatly lengthening and deepening what should have only been a couple years of hardship into the Great Depression. Little of what FDR did helped the economy, most hurt it, and some was devastating. And one of the oft missed problems was that FDR never could hold the course very long, whatever course he chose to chart for the country.

One interesting point that Ms. Shlaes points out is that much of the socialism of the New Deal is forgiven as necessary to prevent a socialist takeover of this country. But this ignores the reality that FDR's Brain Trust had spent time with the Communists in Russia and the Fascists in Italy before coming to power in this country. They were, in essence, fellow travelers with the socialists taking power then in Europe, whether they be Communists in Russia, Fascists in Italy, or Nazis in Germany.

What she doesn't address is the why for this failure to investigate one of the more momentous epochs in our history. My belief is that it is almost entirely a result of the extreme liberalism we now find in academia, and notably in the social sciences. This questioning of the demi-god FDR and his legacy would be political suicide in many universities right now, the height of political correctness, worse than challenging affirmative action, white male oppression, etc.

Back Talk: The Democrats are Lying about the War in Iraq Back Talk: The Democrats are Lying about the War in Iraq

Back Talk: The Democrats are Lying about the War in Iraq points out that the Democrats and the MSM are either lying or very naive. Everything is viewed in the context of the sectarian civil war. Whenever there is a mass atrocity, it is most often blamed on "insurgents" or maybe a bit more accurately, "Sunni insurgents". But if you were to just stop there, where the MSM and the major Democratic politicians do, most of us would think that meant Iraqi Sunni insurgents. It doesn't. It mostly means foreign born Sunni terrorists belonging to, or allied with, al Qaeda, who are using indiscriminate mass violence against mostly civilians in order to try to incite that civil war that everyone keeps talking about. That means that most of those suicide and vehicle bombs that kill so many civilians are not a result of the civil war, but rather a cause of it.

Everyone on the left and in the anti-war movement is so heavily invested in the idea that the War in Iraq is mistaken, lost, etc., and that we should be concentrating on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and maybe in our putative ally, Pakistan. And so, the reality that al Qaeda is killing a lot more people in Iraq right now than it is anywhere else in the world doesn't fit the story.

Father of the Iranian revolution Father of the Iranian revolution

I like this by the Jerusalem Post: Jimmy Carter - Father of the Iranian revolution.

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism...

DEFEAT 'EM ALL DEFEAT 'EM ALL

JOHN PODHORETZ: DEFEAT 'EM ALL:

SOMETHING revolutionary occurred Thursday in Washington: A major piece of legislation with bipartisan backing and the strong support of the president failed to pass the Senate.

Why? Because major legislation in the form of the immigration bill made it to the Senate floor with the backing of the Majority Leader (and the President), and was defeated on its merits. It consisted of 400 pages of revisions to the U.S. Code, and up until now, no one, outside the Congressional staffers who wrote it, would know enough about the legislation, soon enough, to defeat it on its merits. But an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and bloggers went to work on it, tore it apart, and showed that it wouldn't do what was being advertised, but rather would make the situation far worse.

Now, if we can just overcome conference committee earmarks. The problem there is that the earmark process has apparently moved to conference committee in order to shield it from just this sort of scrutiny. Now, instead of being able to vote to remove them, all Senators and Representatives have available is an up or down vote on the entire bill, massive earmarks and all.

George Will: Democrats' Prosperity Problem George Will: Democrats' Prosperity Problem

George Will: Democrats' Prosperity Problem

They have a problem. How do you exclaim, as Hillary Clinton does, that today's economy is "like going back to the era of the robber barons" and insist that the nation urgently needs substantial tax increases, in the face of these facts:

In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.

Democrats, economic hypochondriacs all, see economic sickness. They should get on with legislating their cure.

President Reagan talked about a rising tide raising all boats. The reality is that it does. Crying about rising inequality is class warfare language aimed at garnering votes from the less fortunate. The problem is that if it is pursued, all suffer, and those at the bottom, suffer the most.

Democrats trying to soak the "rich" (again) Democrats trying to soak the "rich" (again)

According to WaPo: Democrats Seek Formula To Blunt AMT, the Democrats running Congress are trying to crank up the taxes on the "rich" to alleviate the AMT that is expected to bite 23 million taxpayers this next spring. One proposal by the Urban and Brookings Institutes would raise taxes on individuals making more than $100k (and families over $200k) by 4% in order to reduce the bite of the AMT. Never mind that $100k is far from rich, or that those getting hit by this surtax are already paying most of the taxes in this country. So, the more reasonable proposal is making the rounds, of only applying a (slightly larger) surcharge of 4.3% to incomes over $250k (or $500k for married filing jointly).

Of course, the solution would be to just eliminate the **** AMT. But that can't happen, because of the static analysis that Congress has intentionally imposed upon itself. Tax cuts must be offset with either spending cuts or other tax increases. And, of course, Congress is incapable of cutting spending. But this rule ignores that taxes significantly cut into economic growth, so cutting tax rates can often bring in more taxes.

Pelosi: Climate Change Is a Reality Pelosi: Climate Change Is a Reality

According to Pelosi: Climate Change Is a Reality,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.

Let's see if I get this right. Pelosi takes a bunch of her fellow Congress critters to Greenland on a private jet to look at evidence of "Global Warming". No mention BTW of the greenhouse gasses generated at taxpayer expenses to accomplish that trip. She follows in a long line of ecological warriers like Al Gore and Laurie David who also accomplish their evangicalizing using private jets. The difference though here is first that Pelosi's jet is paid for by American taxpayers and is likely quite a bit bigger.

Also, I question her timing in trying to scare us about "Global Warming" on Memorial Day. I would prefer if she had restrained herself to honoring our war dead on that one day of the year dedicated to that task.