A Modest Proposal

Since Republicans won't approve an increase in the debt limit unless the Administration rules out tax increases as a means of cutting the deficit, since the debt limit must be raised if the economy is to avoid utter disaster, and since tax increases will be necessary in order to substantially address the deficit, Forbes Magazine has a suggestion: simply call the tax increases kumquats.

Hey. It makes more sense than the Republican position does!

Letterman says that calling "Obachmann" a flake insults Kellogg's

David Letterman the other night: "I hear Chris Wallace of (elabortate show of coughing and clearing throat) Chris Wallace of (elaborate show of coughing and clearing throat) Fox News asked Michele Bachmann (sic) whether she was a flake.

"All I have to say is that calling Michele Obachmann (sic) a flake is an insult to the fine folks at Kellogg's."

Letterman used to be a comedian, more or less the way Newsweek used to be a news magazine. Unfortuately, both have given up their previous callings to become purveyors of partisan extremist snark.

Suddenly, Iowa's gay couples don't find "marriage" quite so attractive

Same-sex "marriages" have declined by ten percent here in Iowa.

This follows the same pattern displayed down the years in European countries in which gay "marriage" has been legalized amid much hoopla- and then drawn a massive yawn from the gay community.

It's not about legal rights for gay couples, few of which turn out to be interested. It's about mainstreaming homosexuality.

'Eddie the Eagle' makes he Hall of Fame on the first ballot

Ed Belfour, the goaltender who kept the Blackhawks Stanley Cup contenders even during the early days of the "Dollar Bill" Wirtz era, has been elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.

He had to wait to get to Dallas to actually win the Cup, but played well enough to do it in 1992. That year the Hawks reached the Finals, only  to be swept in four games by the Pittsburgh Penguins Each of those four games, however, was decided by only one goal. If the truth be told, the Penguins were a sgnificantly better team that year than the Hawks were; "Eddie the Eagle" kept it close.

Though he had a bad temper (I remember him once reacting to the elimination of the Hawks from the playoffs by breaking his stick over the crossbar of the goal he'd been defending) and a reputation as something of a problem in the clubhouse, he had a 2.17 goals against average in the playoffs. Compare with the legendary Patrick Roy's 2.30.

Belfour's backup during his years with the Hawks, btw, was a fellow named Dominik Hasek. He was that good. Ironically, when Belfour finally won his Cup with Dallas in 1999,  Hasek was in the net for Buffalo.

"Eddie the Eagle" was a good one, and along with Glenn Hall and Tony Esposito was one of the three goaltenders who dominate my memories of the Blackhawks down through the years. Hopefully Corey Crawford will be the fourth.

On Afghanistan

Though faint-hearted voters
And POTUS betray us,
We still would do well
To trust David Petraeus.

He'd make a heckuva president, for that matter. Hopefully now that he's going to be DCI, President Obama will actually listen to him again.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Imagine....

According to Fred Seabrook, the personal assistant to Beatle John Lennon, at the time of his death Yoko Ono's husband had become a closet Republican and admirer of Ronald Reagan who enjoyed arguing with radicals and was rather embarassed by his own radical past.

Maybe before he died he even stopped imagining that there was no heaven. One can only pray that such was the case.

HT: Drudge

Who was that masked candidate?

According to Rasmussen, the Generic Republican has increased his lead over President Obama to four ponts.

HT: Drudge

Those Minnesota "Twins"

This article by Michele Bachmann's former chief of staff comparing her with Tim Pawlenty has me shouting "Amen."

I hope my fellow Iowans take it to heart.

Y'think?!

Perhaps Mona Charon should change her name to "Captain Obvious."

She writes:

Surveys in countries that have legalized gay marriage have found comparatively small numbers of homosexuals seeking marriage (between 2 and 5 percent in Belgium, and between 2 and 6 percent in Holland). It's quite possible that legalizing same-sex marriage is sought mostly for symbolic reasons -- as a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on homosexuality.

It's also no particular secret that at least among male homosexuals, "marriage" carries with it no necessarily expectation of more than relative monogamy. This fact is not even particularly controversial; gays candidly acknowledge it, and  books are written examining the reasons for thia generally-recognized phenomenon. To precisely the extent that a sub-culture which does not particularly value marital monogamy takes advantage of the legal status which marriage affords, marriage as an institution is weakened.

It's always seemed to me that the impact of that fact on marriage generally would be an excellent counter to the "equal protection" argument. We are all hurt by gay "marriage," because marriage as an institution is hurt by it. And that is something which we, as a society, can little afford.

But it does gain homosexuality that coveted "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-" which, if it not the whole point, is a very large part of it.

Gay "marriage" is not about civil rights for gays; comparatively few gay couples are even interested.

Gay "marriage" is about mainstreaming homosexuality.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Time for Iowa Republicans- and others- to do a little reality on tax increases

Here's an article by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake of the Washington Post on what Iowa Republicans find acceptable- and not acceptable- in presidential candidates these days.

Bad news for Jon Huntsman, who favors civil unions for same-sex couples. But of course, Huntsman has already made the decision to skip Iowa and focus on New Hampshire. It should be noted that civil unions would be one way to cut the ground out from under the movement to redefine marriage in order to include same-sex couples. In fact, they would completely destroy the entire legal argument that got the Iowa Supreme Court to mandate same-sex "marriage."  Just sayin'

Of far greater concern is that not only have Iowa Republicans apparently not tumbled to the hard, cold fact of life that addressing the deficit meaningfully is going to have to include both massive budget cuts and higher taxes for everybody, but a goodly percentage consider a realistic attitude on tax increases to be a deal-breaker.

To so dogmatically oppose tax increases as part of a deficit-reduction package is delusional. The hole we've dug ourselves into (Barack Obama more than all the other U.S. presidents combined is too deep for us to escape without both much  higher tax receipts and much lower expenditures.

Pawlenty positionng himself as the anti-isolationist Republican

In a field seemingly dominated by Ron Paul wannabes on foreign policy, Tim Pawlenty has decided to be the candidate of common sense.

From Pawlenty's  in speech  today to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York:

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal; it does not need a second one.

Pawlenty may not have very impressive numbers at this point here in Iowa, but he's the front-runner for this perennial caucus-goer's support.

Republicans in Hollywood

Yes, there are a few... and I was surprised at who some of them are.

Kelsey Grammar is another one. Walt Disney's frozen head is still  another.

HT: Drudge

And while we're on the subject...

While not as widely known as, say, Scotland the Brave (a glorious piece of music and poetry in its own right), Scotland's national anthem is actually Flower of Scotland, presented below.

The First Minister of Scotland, a member of the Scottish Independence Party, believes that Scottish independence is virtually inevitable.

Hearing this music and these words, it's hard to think he's not right.

That'll teach 'em!

More ugly Leftist hate

The article linked to herein dates from 2008, and I frankly agree with Colin Powell and with its author that the comments by Michele Bachman to which they take exception were way out of line.

But so is the article itself. I have to wonder to whom the author of this diatribe considers the Missouri Synod- which he misidentifies as Michele Bachman's  affiliation (she was Wisconsin Synod before apparently leaving the Lutheran church to become a generic "Evangelical")  to be embarassing. Perhaps to the pseudo-Lutherans in the ELCA?

The picture at the left, which decorates the piece of garbage linked to above, in any case ought to be embarassing to its author. It's just further evidence of the culture of hate and character assassination which is the Far Left.

LINO or not, Bachmann's piety deserves respect, not mockery

On one hand, the more I read about Michele Bachmann (whose office has as yet not replied to my inquiry about information I've received from a reliable source that she's left the Lutheran church), the less I think she was ever theologically a Lutheran to begin with.

The interview reported here reinforces that impression. On the other hand, the smarmy tone of the reportage and of the comments by readers of the web page on which it appears make it clear that there are some Americans who actually think it remarkable that a person should seek to conform to God's will in making a major life decision.

I am not an admirer of Ms. Bachmann, and- being a Lutheran in fact as well as in name- I have no particular affinity for her style of Christianity. But I find the religious bigotry of those who both report and comment on her statement and the story linked to above as offensive as it is remarkable.

HT: Real Clear Religion 

ADDENDUM: About Ms. Bachmann's apostasy: make that two reliable sources.

Yes, David. You said it out loud- and we all heard it.

People in Kansas and Missouri- and the rest of us "in the middle-" do you want to know what the elitists at the New York Times think of you?

Then check out what the NYT's David Carr has to say on the subject.

It's not pretty. But I think it might be interesting comparing the SAT scores from Kansas and Missouri with those from New York.

Iowa, of course, ranks in the top two or three states in literacy and percentage of its population with college degrees. Off hand, I'd guess that Kansas and Missouri probably rank higher in both of those departments than New York does, as well.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Palin film will be opening shot in her Iowa campaign

A new documentary answering her critics will premier in Pella, Iowa tomorrow night- and Sarah Palin will be there. So will husband Todd.

Palin campaign workers are already actively courting Iowa Republican activists.

Yeah. She's running. And hopefully she'll syphon off enough votes from Michele Bachmann to enable somebody electable to win the Iowa Caucuses.

HT: The Beanwalker, Drudge

This is NOT a good mistake to make while appealing for the votes of conservatives!

Michele Bachmann has had her first Dan Quayle/George W. Bush/Joe Biden moment of the campaign.

It happens to all of them, of course, In 2008, Barack Obama once claimed to have campaigned in all 57 states.

But let it be noted for the record that John Wayne was from Winterset, Iowa. The guy from Bachmann's home town of Waterloo was John Wayne Gacy, the Chicago serial killer.



HT: Drudge

Lutherans unclear on the concept

I dunno. Would Dr. Walther maintain that, taken as a whole, the Gospel should predominate in the messages on church signs?

This one is even worse, of course. But at least they're not Lutheran.

Meanwhile, on the subject of hate....

..what this article says.

Disapproval of a behavior does not equate to hate. Neither does a belief (especially one rather easily defended by fact and logic) that this behavior is not healthy, should not be considered normal,  and that while those who practice it have every civil right to do so, it is perfectly appropriate to express that disapproval without being accused of anything other than disapproval of a behavior.

If it were, all those anti-smoking commercials and billboards would be hate speech. Funny the way political correctness works, isn't it?

HT: Real Clear Religion

Bachmann hate has already begun

Goofball Leftist media like Rolling Stone have already begun demonizing Michele Bachmann. Bush Hate gives way to Palin Hate gives way to Bachmann Hate. It seems that the Loony Left is always hating somebody- usually while in the act of accusing the people they're hating on of... well, hate.


"Hate," of course, is- for a liberal- defined as "disagreeing with a liberal."  And the really hilarious part of it is that while there are admittedly a whole bunch of right-wing loonies who treat President Obama the same way the Left treated President Bush, and is still treating Sarah Palin (and now, Bachmann), the Bush and Palin and Bachmann-haters act as if the phenomenon began with the advent of Barack Obama.

Thoughts by Abe Sauer of Awl  on Rolling Stone's  recent extremist, hate-filled anti-Bachmann hit piece can be found here.

Hey. As I think I've made clear, I'm no Bachmann fan. But c'mon,  Rolling Stoners. At least pretend to some journalistic integrity.

HT: Real Clear Religion

A look at the man who may be the GOP's strongest (at least in the general election) and best-qualified candidate

Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal profiles Jon Huntsman- the potential opponent Barack Obama is said to fear the most, and arguably the best-qualified candidate for president since George H.W. Bush.

He is currently at two percent in the Iowa polls, and does not plan to contest the Iowa Caucuses.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Chris Wallace to Bachmann: "Are you a flake?"

Chris Wallace of Fox News has asked Michele Bachmann whether she's a "flake."

She replied that it would be "insulting" to say that- which it obviously would.

On the other hand, Ms. Bachmann is far enough from the mainstream of the American electorate that she can count on hearing that charge throughout her presidential campaign. Although one trusts that President Obama will be more polite than to actually use that word should Ms. Bachmann be nominated, you can count on the charge being the essence of a Democratic campaign desperately seeking to distract attention from the economy, and to make Ms. Bachmann the issue.

Personally, I think that handing the Democrats a way to try to wiggle out of taking responsibility for Barack Obama's disastrous presidency would be a very, very large mistake.

So in one sense, for Wallace to ask the question was inevitable. I don't think the fact that the issue was raised in itself is an indicator of journalistic bias. But I will say this: Wallace could have been a great deal more diplomatic about the way he asked it. Can you imagine a network reporter asking Barack Obama- who, despite the degree to which the media protected him from his own record and positions during the 2008 campaign, was arguably just as far ideologically from the average American voter as Ms. Bachmann is- whether he was a flake?

I can't either.

Here is a profile of Bachmann from the Weekly Standard.

Romney, Bachmann in statistical tie in the Des Moines Register's first poll of Iowa Republicans

The caucus season is upon us.

The first Des Moines Register poll of registered Iowa Republicans gives former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a one point lead over Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

The poll gives Romney 23 percent  to Bachmann's 22 percent.. Businessman Herman Cain comes in third, with 10 percent. Rep. Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich- the unraveling of whose campaign in Iowa has been a national news story- are tied for fourth with seven percent. Next comes former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlently with six, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with four, and former Utah Governor and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman with two. For some reason, the poll omitted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is expected to enter the race and to be a major player on the party's Right.

I was called by the poll, but didn't answer my phone quickly enough. I got the questions on my voicemail. If I had been quicker on the draw, I would probably have voted for Pawlenty, though I haven't ruled out Romney or Huntsman yet. These three are generally regarded as the Republicans' strongest potential nominees against President Obama.

The strong showings by Bachmann and Paul reflect the tendency of many in the Iowa Republican party to be outside the national political mainstream . The nomination of either would enable President Obama to try to deflect attention from the condition of the economy make the extremism of his opponent, and would likely guarantee Mr. Obama's re-election.

Fortunately, Paul has no chance of being nominated. The articulate and charismatic Bachmann, on the other hand, is a another matter.

Cain's strong showing is interesting. The pizza mogul and Federal Reserve Board official,  an African-American, seems to have gained a great deal of traction in Iowa despite his total lack of experience in elective government. Of course, President Obama had only a brief career in the Illinois legislature and less than one term in the U.S. Senate when he was elected in 2008.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for the evening of February 6.

HT: Drudge

"I now pronounce you man and pillow."

Before, it's always been imposed on various states by sheer, raw judicial power through the dubious constitutional logic of the courts. But New York has become the first state to actually use the democratic process to legally redefine the basic unit of human society and ignore thousands of years of Western law and custom by legalizing same-sex "marriage."

The quotation marks are deliberate. Legal definitions and rights can be changed by the action of a court or a legislature, but changing the most basic institution of human society itself is beyond the power of any government. And theologically, of course, the government may no more change the divine institution of marriage to include couples of the same sex than it can do so to include couples of different species- or, for that matter, between animate and non-animate entities.

Even though the tomato is botanically a fruit (having mutliple seeds), in the United States it is legally a vegetable by virtue of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Nix v. Hedden. Of course, Nix does not make the tomato any more a vegetable in fact, or any less a fruit. In the Dred Scot v. Sanford,  the Supreme Court held that African-Americans had no legal rights which whites were bound to respect. That did not, of course, make African-Americans any less the moral equals of whites, notwithstanding what the law at the time had to say about the matter.

And similarly- even in New York State, in Iowa, in Canada, and elsewhere where governments have presumed to give marriage a legal definition which includes relationships between individuals of the same sex- actual marriage remains what it has always been: a relationship between a man and a woman, with no other combination of partners qualifying.

A historical note

Not that I'm trying to rain on the Bruins' parade or anything, but I just came across the You Tube recording below of the home-town WGN Radio call of Patrick Kane's Stanley Cup winning goal in Game 6 of last year's Finals. Just to have it in my archives, and also to share with fellow Hawk fans who read this blog, I thought I'd post it.

In case you've wondered whether Chicago fans take their hockey seriously, this may enlighten you.



A slightly-edited version, synched to the video of the Cup-winning goal can be seen by clicking the next video, "Patrick Kane Stanley Cup OT Goal- Great Call by Announcer" on the right side of the screen after the video ends.

Here's to the Hawks reclaiming their hardware next June!

And while we're on the topic of Republican silliness...

...dudes, we're bombing Khadaffi.

There are no boots on the ground. The cost is minimal. And I don't believe we've even had any casualties.

Lighten up, eh? And stop thinking you have to oppose everything President Obama does just because he's the one who's doing it.

NYT's Silver gives Romney a 40% chance of being the nominee

Nate Silver of The New York Times handicaps the odds of the "first tier" of 2012 GOP presidential candidates getting the nomination- and, not surprisingly, sees Mitt Romney as a strong favorite.

Silver says that "objectively," the odds of Romney's nomination strike him as being about 50/50. But concerns about the resemblance of what Tim Pawlenty has christened "Obamneycare-" the Obama-like health care plan Romney was responsible for getting passed while governor of Massachusetts- cause him to scale Romney's estimated chance of being the nominee down to 40%.

Silver lists the chances of Romney's closest competitor, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, getting the nomination at 18%. He gives Texas Gov. Rick Perry a 12.5% chance of being nominated, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann- who, he observes, is about as far from the center of the current American electorate as George McGovern was from that of 1972- about 12% chance.

Silver lists the odds against Romney's nomination at 3-2, against Pawlenty's at 9-2, against Perry's at 7-1, and against Bachmann's at 15-2.

Personally, I'm surprised that he considers Bachmann a top-tier candidate, but not former Utah Gov. and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who is generally regarded as President Obama's strongest prospective opponent.

HT: The Beanwalker

Geschichte, historie, and the collapse of the economy

Someone once said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and history.

The Germans, I'm told,  distinguish between geschichte (history as it is written, taught and perceived), and historie- what actually happened.

Herein Mona Charon writes about a book which makes that very distinction where the collapse of the economy in 2008 is concerned.

Geschichte, it would seem, says that the Republicans were to blame, whereas historie blames the Democrats.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Deminted

Sen. James DeMint warns fellow Republicans that they will be "gone" if they support an increase in the national debt limit.

But if we don't get that increase, the government will default- and everything we have all suffered since the late summer of 2008 will seem like a picnic in comparison.

This is not a subject about which it is remotely responsible for either party to be playing "chicken." The debt limit must be increased, come what may. There is no sane option- and to hold the matter hostage as a part of a partisan power play is simply crazy

And the nature of that power play is also problematic. The Speaker of the House- along with the rest of the GOP's congressional leadership- is pulling a real Boehner in demanding that there be no tax increases as part of the deal to raise the debt limit. Taxes are going to  have to be raised if we're going to do anything about the deficit.

On this one, folks, the GOP is just plain wrong.

HT: Drudge

Shame on Obama. Shame on Huntsman. Shame on Bachmann. Shame on 85% of us- and double shame on congressional Democrats!

These are times in which is hard to have much respect for America's leaders- of either party.

On September 11, 2011, 2,977 Americans died as a result of a plot hatched by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, a sanctuary provided him by his Taliban allies. The United States demanded his extradition. The Taliban refused. We went to war- and ousted the Taliban, installing a democratically elected government led by Hamid Karzaii.

By all accounts that government is fragile, corrupt, and in all ways less than ideal. It "governs" a country with little history of democracy- or, for that matter, meaningful national government of any kind. But the Karsai government is the only alternative to the Taliban taking over again, and once more providing a nation-state to protect and enable al Quaeda and its ilk.

But the Taliban didn't give up. It fought back, and for a while seemed poised to take over again. But President Obama wisely signed off on the surge Gen. David Petraeus- the officer who was also responsible for the surge which seems (reluctant though leftists in and out of the media are to admit it) to have won the supposedly unwinnable war in Iraq- reversed the Taliban's gains and seems to have put the Karzai govenment on a path toward securing the country.

Foolishly and naively, however, President Obama telegraphed his plans to the Taliban at that time, publicly committing himself to a timetable for withdrawal beginning next month.

Our military leaders are clear on the point that the approximately 30.000 additional soldiers President Obama sent there in the surge need to stay there, possibly thorugh 2012, in order to be certain of securing our gains and not seeing everything we've accomplished go for nothing. Yet President Obama has decided to ignore their advice, to follow that foolish public timetable he previously established, and to begin phasing the surge troops out next month, returning to the level they were at when the Taliban was winning by election day.

Let me say that again, for the sake of clarity. Withdrawing that 33,000 troops would result in negligible savings either in money or in casualties. It would substantially increase the probability of our failing in Afghanistan, and our sacrifices there being wasted. It has only one "upside" for anyone but the Taliban:  it will give President Obama a partisan boost on the eve of the 2012 election.

American and British military leaders are said to have reacted to the president's decision with "dismay." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, says that the president's plans are  "more aggressive and incur more risk" than he or our other leading military leaders think wise. Adm. Mullen has chosen to be a good soldier, so to speak, and publicly endorse the president's plan anyway, on the ground that only the president knows what the "best" course is. But in doing so, the admiral made it plain that the experts certainly do not believe it to be the safest one.

Let this much be clearly said: nobody claims that American forces need to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, or even that they can. It must be the Karzai govenment which ultimately defeats the Taliban. But 1,584 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan. On one hand, this is an incredibly low number of casualties as American wars- especially long American wars- go. In the only war we've ever fought that has lasted longer-Vietnam- we lost 58,000.

Of course, if one's husband or brother or father is one of those 1,584, that is little comfort. The casualties are then appallingly high by any standard that matters. But objectively, in view of these relatively low casualties, it is hard to justify not keeping the surge troops in Afghanistan for the relatively short additional time our military leaders believe would minimize the chances that those 1,584 Americans will have died in vain.

And contrary to what an incredible number seem to think, the death of Osama bin Laden does not change that one iota.

But the American people- apparently proving Gen. Giap of North Vietnam right once again when he said that citizens of democracies lack the will to fight long, protracted wars- have apparently decided that this war has gone on long enough, and that it is not in our national interest to give the Karsai government the best shot we can at surviving if it means staying there. The polls show somewhere around 85% of Americans favor pulling out precipitously- and running the very heavy risk that the fifteen hundred Americans who have died in Afghanistan will, as a result, have died for nothing.

I'll say it again: nobody says that our troops can, or should, stay there forever. But the Pentagon believes that
maintaining our hard-fought gains and giving the Karsai government a fighting chance would require keeping troop levels near their present number through 2013. That's a measurable and not very long period. It hardly represents a permanent or even long-term commitment. And the best assessment of our best military minds is that it is what will have to be done in order to give the Karsai government a fighting chance, deny the Taliban (and its al Quaeda allies) the chance to go right back to where they were on 9/11, and save the sacrifices of the coalition forces who have died in Afghanistan from being wasted.

President Obama has made his decision despite agreeing that- contrary to those polls and the absurd opinion of Michele Bachmann that the war is somehow "not serving our national interest-' we have a very large stake in a stable Afghanistan and its denial to al Quaeda and its ilk as a base of operations against us and the rest of the West. And with the possible exception of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, the Republican candidates- led notably by Jon Huntsman-  have not only endorsed this shameful decision, but want us to cave in to the Taliban even faster. And congressional Democrats seem with great unanimity to share the urge of Bachmann and Huntsman and, it would seem, the overwhelming majority of the American people to risk everything we've accomplished in Afghanistan in order to get out a few months earlier.

American and British military commanders are said to be "filled with dismay." If the Taliban recaptures control of Afghanistan, we will all have reason to be filled with remorse and regret. And a great many politicians of both parties should be filled with shame.

A noteworthy confession

Perhaps without intending to, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller has admitted to the pervasiveness of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) in America's newsrooms.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Ouch. Harry Reid endorses Huntsman!

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who announced for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, has a new problem.

Not only is he the pro-same sex civil unions former Obama ambassador to China, but he's the GOP candidate Harry Reid has endorsed.

Given that most Democrats see Huntsman as President Obama's most formidable possible opponent next year, the Senate Democratic leader's endorsement may have actually been a pretty smart move.

HT: The Bearnwalker

POTUS needs some love

According to a new poll, only one in three Americans are certain to vote for President Obama next year.

Even on the Left, Al Gore has led a chorus of raspberries for POTUS on the environment.

By a ten-point margin, Americans say that they are worse off now than when Mr. Obama took office. And fully two-thirds of the American people say that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, among Egyptians, the late Osama bin Laden is more popular than Mr. Obama, by a margin of 21%-12%.

One good bit of news for our Commander-in-Chief: those Egyptians do like him more than twice as much as Mahmoud Ahmadenijad of Iran.

No statistics are available on the relative popularity of Mr. Obama and Ebola.

HT: Drudge

Actually, the record of the Iowa Caucuses is pretty darned good

Kathie O'Bradovich of the Des Moines Register takes on the fiction that the Iowa Caucuses necessarily produce unelectable winners, and thus should be displaced as the first step in the nominating process.

It is true, as I myself have pointed out more than once, that both of Iowa's political parties tend to be somewhat more extreme than those in other states.  The nature of a caucus rather than a primary as the format for a presidential choice exacerbates the problem; participants tend to be the most politically active members of the body politic, who are generally found either on the extremes or within special interest groups, or both. It's the same phenomenon which results in such impressive showings by marginal candidates like Ron Paul in volunteer gatherings of party activists like the Republican Leadership Conference. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the extremist Paulistas, this triumph by an unelectable candidate whom the Republican party would never actually consider is a function, not of the candidate's support among voters or Republicans generally, but of the makeup of the group participating in the poll.
But the notion that Iowa produces losers is simply not borne out by history. People forget that Barack Obama became the Democratic front-runner last time out by winning in Iowa (true, Mike Huckabee was the Republican winner; the eventual nominee, John McCain, finished fourth). George W. Bush won the Iowa Caucuses in 2000 (and, of course, in 2004); Al Gore, the eventual nominee, was the 2000 Democratic winner. John Kerry, who ran a very competitive race in 2004, was the Democratic winner in Iowa that year. Bob Dole- hardly a fanatic- won the GOP caucuses in 1996; President Clinton was unopposed for the Democrats.  In 1992, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin ran as a favorite son on the Democratic side, while President George H.W. Bush was the Republican winner.

1988 was an aberration, with both eventual nominees- Vice-President Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis- finishing third (Dole and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt were the winners). But in 1984, the Democratic nominee (former Vice-President Walter Mondale) and President Reagan were both winners. The two eventual nominees- President Carter and Reagan- were the winners in 1980. 1976, of course, was the year Carter's strong showing on the Democratic side first put the caucuses on the map; he finished first among the candidates, though a slate of uncommitted delegates ran ahead of those committed to him  The Republican winner was the eventual nominee, President Gerald Ford.

1972 was another aberration, with Sen. Edmund Muskie, the 1968 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, defeating the eventual winner, Sen. George McGovern.

To sum up, then, the Democratic winner of the Iowa Caucuses has gone on to be the party's eventual nominee seven times in the last ten cycles, and the Republican winner has gone on to the nomination in six of the last nine. And despite all the complaints that Iowa produces unelectable winners, the fact is that only twice in the last ten presidential elections has anyone been elected president without winning the Iowa Caucuses first.

Criticism of the Iowa Caucuses will no doubt continue among those who are jealous of the state's influence on the presidential nominating process. And the fact is that marginal candidates do better here than they would in most places. But they rarely win. On the other hand, caucus winners go on to win their party's nomination at least twice as often as not, and 80% of the time the candidate who is eventually been elected has been the winner of his party's contest here in Iowa.

Off hand, I'd say reports of the demise of the Iowa Caucuses are much exaggerated. In fact, now that I actually look at the results they've produced over the years, I just may have to revise my previously-expressed opinion of them.

HT: The Beanwalker

McCain blasts "isolationist" Republican field

2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain has blasted the tendency of the 2012 field toward the isolationist Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul approach to foreign policy.

And rightly so. Like it or not, the United States- even in this time of declining influence- is the place the world looks for leadership, and when bloodthirsty tyrants like Qaddafi start threatening to massacre innocent people, the decent human beings of the world need to respond.

Further, after the price we've paid in Afghanistan, it behooves us not to turn the country over to the Taliban by a precipitate withdrawal, no matter what the polls may say. That, too, is a matter of leadership. True enough, we cannot win the Afghan civil war for the Karsai regime. But to withdraw before we've given it every chance to prepare to win it by its own efforts would mean handing Osama bin Laden victory even in death. It would be nothing short of obscene to waste all those lives by handing al Qaeda and the Taliban Afghanistan to use as a base of support in the future, just like they using  it on 9/11.

Yes, Gov. Huntsman. America's vital interests are very much involved in stopping that from happening.

HT: Drudge

Moonbat congresswoman calls for investigation of "Christian militants"

In a startling demonstation of just how far out of the mainstream many on  the left wing of the Democratic party truly are, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex) has called for a congressional investigation on the danger of  Christian militants "bringing down the country!"

Despite their attempts to seem mainstream, sometimes it seems that these people live in an entirely different universe than the rest of us. Certainly an entirely different country.

Lee cited the isolated incidents of Christians blowing up abortion clinics as justification for including Christian groups in investigations of jihadist Muslim organizations.



HT: Drudge

Oh, my.

I simply lack the words.

Too much grape juice, Paul.

Terry Brandstad for president?

Our national unemployment rate has just risen from 9.0% to 9.1%

Iowa's unemployment rate has just fallen from 6.1% to 6.0%.

This, the week that Sillyview has a cover story questioning whether Gov. Branstad can deliver on his promise to create 200,000 new Iowa jobs without cooking the numbers.

Maybe so, and maybe not. But Sillyview's man Barack Obama, in any case, could apparently take a lesson or two from ol' Terry Branstad.

HT: The Beanwalker

Generic Republican for President!

According to Gallup's latest poll, the generic Republican beats President Obama by five points.

Too bad the generic Republican won't be on the ballot.

HT: Real Clear Politics

ADDENDUM: Ross Kaminsky of The American Spectator opines.

RCP has the right of it

Ron Brownstein of the National Journal predicts that the 2012 election will be about ideology. In which case, the GOP wins. He's right- because America is Center Right.

Ed Kilgore of the New Republic says that Rick Perry will not save the Republcans. He's right- which is somethng that can't be said often of people who write for the New Republic. Perry is much too far to the Right.

Merrill Matthews of Forbes says that Hispanics will not save the Democrats. He, too, is right- for a whole bunch of demographic, sociological and poltical reasons, concerning each of which it's hard to suggest that he's wrong.

Radical columnist Reka Basu of our beloved Des Moines Register- aka "Iowa's Best Red Newspaper*-" whines that opponents of President Obama should give him a break. She is never Right, and almost never right.

HT: Real Clear Politics

*Due to the tendency of our friends on the Left to concrete thinking and a deficient sense of humor, it should be pointed out that this riff on the Register's slogan- "Iowa's Best-READ Newspaper-" is tongue-in-cheek. It is not the intention of this blog to suggest that those who run the Gannett chain of newspapers are Marxists.

Earth to Democrats!

The International Monetary Fund has not only scaled back its predictions for the growth of the U.S. economy, but warned us that we are "playing with fire" if we do not take immediate steps to reduce our budget deficit.

Even the IMF sees it.

HT: Drudge

Congrats to the Bruins

I'm really happy about yesterday's outcome:




Though it's hard, somehow, for me to get my mind around the concept of rioting Canadians...




And in any case, I find my mind somehow drifting back to June 6 of last year... a foretaste, I trust, of next June...

An English/Mediaspeak lexicon

In the mass media (except, perhaps, on Fox News):

Radicals are called "progressives" or, rarely, "liberals."

Liberals are called "moderates."

Moderates are called "conservatives."

Conservatives are called "right wingers," or sometimes "far right wingers."

And- as Mollie Hemingway points out here- liberals discuss, where as conservatives rail. In this particular case, it's Roman Catholic liberals and conservatives who do these things.

HT: Real Clear Religion

Yes we can (beat Obama)!

And here's a list of ways how, by somebody who still hasn't gotten the memo that unless the economy improves an awful lot by November of 2012, he's toast in any case.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Michele Bachmann, the Smalkald Articles, and the Council of Trent

Incidentally, Michele Bachmann announced her candidacy for president during the debate the other night.

Bachman has taken a great deal of heat for being a member of a church (the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) which considers itself bound by a statement by Martin Luther condemning the papacy as the antichrist refered to in the Bible (the un-Lutheran beliefs of her friend Jan Markel regarding the End Times referred to in the article linked to above are a seperate matter). But has she caved in to that criticism? I'm still awaiting a response to an email asking her campaign about a rumor I've heard from a reliable source that she's left the Lutheran church because of section of the Smalkald Articles in question, namely:

10] ...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.

11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

12] The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God s name.

13] This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven.

14] And when we distinguish the Pope's teaching from, or measure and hold it against, Holy Scripture, it is found [it appears plainly] that the Pope's teaching, where it is best, has been taken from the imperial and heathen law, and treats of political matters and decisions or rights, as the Decretals show; furthermore, it teaches of ceremonies concerning churches, garments, food, persons and [similar] puerile, theatrical and comical things without measure, but in all these things nothing at all of Christ, faith, and the commandments of God. Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one's own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing]), and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

Given the papacy's domination of Western Christendom, and its position on the doctrine of justification, (which Luther regarded as "the article by which the Church stands or falls) this is, given Luther's own position, not a stretch. One may not, of course, agree with his judgment in this matter. But again, given his convictions on the subject of justification and its relationship to the very essence of Christianity- which are constitutive of Lutheran identity, if anything at all is-  this was not an outrageous deduction.

 This is apparently (excuse the expression) anathema to many commentators invoking the concept of religious tolerance. Yet the following (which, despite the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, has as far as I know never been retracted) apparently is somehow acceptable:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

[Page 46] CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

As one thus cursed and anathamatized by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, I acknowledge the right of the Roman Catholic church to teach this without being accused of intolerance. I reserve te same right for Lutherans who agree with the judgment about the papacy made by the Smalkald Articles.

I also parenthetically observe that since the words "justification," "grace," and "faith" have different meanings in Lutheran and in Catholic theology, the "convergence" (the document makes no actual claim to agreement) on justification reported by the JDDJ is highly debatable- and that many precisely among those claiming the name of Lutheran who take confessional subscription most seriously question the degree to which there is actually even a convergence between the two traditions. The bottom line: neither the Roman Catholic nor Lutheran traditions have changed their positions on justification one iota, the ballyhoo over the JDDJ to the contrary. Luther's position- and Trent's- are each no more and no less valid today than they were when the words were first written.

Pope Benedict himself may disagree with Trent. I hope so. But it should be noted that despite Luther's identification of the papacy as an institution as the biblical Antichrist, neither he nor the Lutheran Confessions ever condemn any individual pope to hell, as the Tridentine degrees do everyone who accepts the Lutheran and Pauline doctrine of justification. I think it's reasonable to ask why the Catholic church gets a pass on this, while Luther and the Lutherans do not.

Just sayin'. I personally believe that everyone has the right to believe that I'm going to hell because of what I believe, and that only a religious bigot would criticize that person for it.

If, on the other hand, what Trent says about the Lutheran doctrine of justification and the salvation of those who believe it is somehow no longer applicable due to changed conditions, this would imply that the claims to which Luther refers in the Smalkald Articles are themselves no longer applicable.  We might well alter our judgment of the papacy if the papacy made ti clear that it had changed the doctrine which prompted it. So far, it hasn't happened; the judgements of Tremt have not been set aside, whatever Vatican II or the JDDJ may have said. And yes, Trent does (at least in the passages cited above) fairly describe our position.

In order to "unanathamatize" us, the Catholic church would have to admit that the Council of Trent was in error. Ain't gonna happen.

The question, then, is clear: why is Luther's position "intolerant," while Rome's is not? Am I a "seperated brother," or an anathamatized heretic? The answer of the Catholic church seems to be "both." And that's the best the Catholic church can do; to admit that Rome was wrong about justification would be to surrender its claim to indefectability. Certainly how confessional Lutherans regard Luther's position regarding the papacy as the Antichrist would be decisively effected by what would amount to a repudiation of Trent by Rome. But again, that hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen, no matter how earnestly the Lutheran World Federation and the ELCA play make-believe.

But in the meantime, when was the last time anybody made a poltiical issue about, say, John Kerry or John Kennedy belonging to a church which taught what Trent teaches about Lutherans and what we believe about justification?

It will be interesting to see what the Bachman campaign has to say in response to my inquiry. I hope the rumor is false. I hope she has the integrity and the courage to resist caving in to the double standard to which she has been subjected on this matter.

ADDENDUM: Oh. And incidentally...

Huntsman will join the hunt next Tuesday

The last of the three Republicans with a chance of beating Barack Obama next year- former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman- will announce his candidacy in New York next Tuesday.

Huntsman sees legalizing civil unions for gays and lesbians as a means of defusing the gay "marriage" issue, and wants to speed up our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

HT: Real Clear Politics

No, this is not a joke.

One of the things that disillusioned Newt Gingrich's campaign staff was his conviction that a key to winning the Iowa Caucuses would be carrying the Chinese community.

ABOVE: "Corn" in Chinese.

HT: The Bean Walker

How is Weiner different from Clinton? Well.. Clinton was worse.

Michael Medved, one of my favorite film critics and political commentators, asks a reasonable question: how, on  one hand, can Democrats argue that Bill Clinton should not have resigned as president after not only subjecting himself to public sexual humiliatiion but lying about it under oath, while insisting that Anthony Weiner should resign after subjecting himself to public sexual humiliation and lying while not under oath?

The big difference seems to be that Clinton broke the law, while Weiner apparently did not.

My hypocrisy detector is beeping.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Obama in a nutshell

Sometimes, Peggy Noonan observes, you can sum up a presidency in a sentence.

She quotes Claire Booth Luce to the effect that you don't have to have anybody tell you who they're talking about when you say, "He fought to hold the union together and end slavery," or "He brought America through economic collapse and a world war."

See Ms. Noonan's June 4 column for her four-word summary of the presidency of Barack Obama.

You'll find in the second from last paragraph of the column, with commentary in the last one.

HT: Real Clear Politics, The Daily Oklahoman

A man Christianity would be better off without

Here's a disturbing- and eye-opening- look by Reformed author and theologian Dr. Michael Horton at the man who is at once one of the primary influences on American "Evangelicalism," and one of the greatest heretics in the history of the Christian Church: Charles Finney (right).

And yes- he's just as frightening as he looks.

Finney's theology contradicted that of St. Paul at nearly every critical point. The arch-prophet of salvation by works alone, Finney went beyond medieval Catholicism and virtually everybody since Pelagius in making human agency and merit the only real factor in salvation. He said that the only sins Christ could have paid for on the cross would have been His own!

Denying the Holy Spirit any real role in either conversion or sanctification,  not only did Finney deny original sin and teach that salvation requires absolute moral perfection, but his emphasis on salesmanship, marketing, and other human techniques as methods of "evangelism" directly paved the way for the Church Growth Movement and many of the other shallow and unbiblical abberations of the contemporary American religious scene. Sadly, many "evangelicals" consider him a hero, not realizing the quantity or magnitude of his errors.

Finney was the inventer of altar calls, revival meetings, and the other historical innovations which marked the hysterical but spiritually shallow late Eighteenth Century movement ironically called the Second Great Awakening. In reality, the movement didn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the original and authentic Great Awakening of  the 1730's and '40's.  That first "awakening" featured preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, and was focused on God- and especially on Jesus Christ. The second focused on the human being, and his or her human striving. The First Great Awakening deepened the human encounter with God; the Second trivialized it and led to the birth of numerous new denominations more centered in human ideas and emotions than on God's grace.

Perhaps Charles Finney isn't to blame for all of the problems contemporary Protestantism faces. But you'll find his unbiblical and sub-Christian theology at the bottom of a goodly percentage of them. American Christians need to know this heretic better- and to steer clear of his continuing and baleful influence.

Will the 2012 election be more historic than the 2008 one?

On Election Day, 2008 I walked into the voting booth, put my marker on the spot next to John McCain and Sarah Palin's names- and hesitated.

It wasn't that I really had doubts. I believed strongly- and still do- that McCain was several orders of magnitude more qualified than Barack Obama to be president, and that his policies would be much, much better for the country.  In fact, several months earlier, I had stood before my neighbors at my precinct caucus and urged them to join me in supporting. Sen. McCain's nomination. My route to the McCain camp hadn't been either direct or easy; I had spent brief periods of time supporting Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee before deciding that each was lacking in some critical way. But once I'd settled in the McCain camp, I had no doubts whatsoever that he was the best choice available. I still don't.

But as I stood there in the voting booth back on that November afternoon, just for a moment, the historical significance of the decision I was about to participate in got to me. I was about to vote in an election which would probably result in an African-American becoming President of the United States- an eventuality which I could barely have imagined only a year before.

I hesitated. It struck me how much it would mean to African-Americans, and to a country whose history has been so blighted by slavery and discrimination and racism of every description, for a black man to live in the White House. I was so conscious of the importance of the moment that I was moved to weigh, at the last possible instant, all my concrete disagreements with Barack Obama and all my concrete agreements with John McCain against the abstract significance of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help  make a black man president.

The moment passed. I vaguely sensed that there would be something patronizing in my voting for a man I regarded as unqualified and with whose program I so thoroughly disagreed because of the color of his skin. I voted for McCain after all, and I do not regret that decision.

But I wonder whether an even more historic moment might be possible next year. Herman Cain, CEO of Godfather's Pizza and former chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, is also an African-American. He is running for president as a Republican. He has been given little chance of winning by most people, including me. Yet in the two most recent polls, Cain has finished fourth in the race for the nomination, with numbers more impressive than Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, or any other candidate than Romney, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani.

This moment, too, may pass. But just for an instant, I'm led to contemplate the fact that it isn't entirely beyond the realm of possibility that next year might see a moment even more historic than the election of Barack Obama.

Next year might see a presidential election in which both candidates are African-American. And what a kick in the teeth that would be to the racism of our American past and present!

Harold Camping suffers a stroke

His left side is affected, and his speech is slurred.

The stroke occured on Thursday night.

HT: Drudge

Corn's "civil" Leftists and those Palin emails

I've already demonstrated the absurdity of left-wing columnist David Corn's bizarre claim in the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) by Jared Loughner that incivility and threats of politically-motivated violence are primarily a phenomenon of the Right. Even though Loughner turned out to be a left winger, that ironic accusation became something of a fad after the Giffords shooting among Loughner and Corn's fellow liberals. Corn's strange column took this game of pots and kettles to extremes. It turned the reality that hate speech and the rhetoric of violence is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the Left exactly on its head.

It seems that the media's ong salivated-over search of Sarah Palin's emails while she was governor of Alaska has produced tis first major story:: the number of death threats she received.

Of course, the media is largely ignoring the death threats. After all, the whole purpose of the email search is to get some dirt on Palin, not on her opponents.

HT: Real Clear Politics, Michelle Malkin 

For the GOP, it's beginning to look like Mitt is it

Looks like Republicans are reverting to form.

When they're out of office, the GOP usually nominates the guy who is "next in line-" generally the candidate who finished second four years before.

This time it's Mitt Romney- and it's looking more and more like Republicans are accepting him as their 2012 nominee with a unanimity that should frighten the White House.

Media's Palin hatred is embarrassing

Investor's Business Daily is right:.

Sarah Palin is a joke- but the media's ongoing frenzy of Palin hatred is not only unseemly to people who seriously claim objectivity, but borders on the pathological.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Even the Obama-loving Brits are getting it

The Economist perceives that Barack Obama's re-election prospects are in trouble- and only questions which Republican can beat him.

But  it sort of answers its own question:

In terms of talent, the current line-up is not without hope. Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mr Romney have all been first-rate governors: they can claim the sort of hands-on experience of government that Mr Obama so signally lacked in 2008. Mr Romney could get it right this time; or the more charismatic Mr Huntsman could soar. All the same, there are other current and former governors who this newspaper wishes were in the race—notably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and Rick Perry. As for Sarah Palin, her antics are helping no one, other than Mr Obama; she should put up, or preferably shut up. Michele Bachmann, a right-wing congresswoman, can carry the tea-party banner.

Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are, of course, irrelevant; none of them would have a chance against Mr. Obama, and only a Republican party which has completely taken leave of its collective senses would consider nominating any of them. But Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman (as well as some theoretical dark horse not yet in the race) might well defeat The One next year. In fact, unless the economy stages a remarkable comeback before then, one of them very likely will.

HT: Real Clear Politics

How about drafting Bob Gates for president?

Robert Gates, the retiring Secretary of Defense appointed by Dubyah and retained by Barack Obama, has let our NATO "allies" have it right in the chops in his valedictory speech to his fellow defense ministers of the alliance.

Questioning the viability and future of NATO, Gates excoriated our allies for lacking the political will to carry their fair share of the financial burdens of NATO and instead cutting their defense budgets, counting on the United States to take up the slack.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration and disgust with the restrictions other NATO nations have placed on the missions on which their troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere can be dispatched, and the general lack the political will necessary for the alliance to continue to exist, much less succeed. "Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," SecDef told the meeting.

About time somebody let our often sanctimonious and unanppreciative "allies" off. If Gates needs a new job, there's one coming open next year that has a nice white mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue as one of its perks. Having served as SecDef and as DCI, as well as Deputy National Security Advisor to President George H.W. Bush, his foreign policy and national security credentials might even be better than Bush 43's were.

ADDENDUM: Good grief! Even the New York Times approves!

HT: Drudge, Real Clear Politics

What is the sound of one thesis synthesizing?

The Dalai Lama says that he's a Marxist- though not a Leninist.

First he resigns as head of the Tibetan government in exile, and now this.

He must be getting homesick.

Or maybe not. He also speaks of the repression of the Chinese government, which he says "cannot last forever."

HT: Drudge

Niveaux français d'alerte de sécurité de patrie : COUREZ, CACHEZ, RENDEZ, et COLLABOREZ*

An Iraq vet I know told me about the Google result pictured at the left.

It should be said that whatever the reason for this result, my own Google search turned up a different result.

HT: About.com

*"French Homeland Security Alert Levels: RUN, HIDE, SURRENDER, and COLLABORATE."

Romney opts out of Iowa Straw Poll, casting its relevance- and future- into question

Republican front-runner Mitt Romney's decision to skip the Iowa Straw Poll, a fund-raising event held by the state Republican party every four years at Iowa State University in Ames- has at least badly crippled the event, and may eventually kill it.

Iowa Republicans are permitted to cast a ballot in the straw poll if they contribute $35. Candidates traditionally bus their supporters in from all over the state, paying their way in order to get the boost in publicity and momentum that comes from finishing first in the opening event of the campaign leading up to the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses.

But with the front-runner sitting the straw poll out, it's doubtful whether its outcome will matter much. It remains to be seen how many of the other candidates will bother with the time and expense of an event which no longer has the potential to demonstrate an ability to compete with the leader.

The straw poll- which really proves more about the finances of the various campaigns and their organizational strength than about the popularity of the candidates- has been widely criticized for years. Romney's decision could be the beginning of the end for a custom which, while a great deal of fun and a good source of income for the state party, tends to be rather expensive and ultimately a great deal less significant than the time, energy and publicity involved really warrant.

HT: The Bean Walker