1) How could this have happened? The entire weight and heft of the right-wing blogosphere stood behind a campaign to change the House leadership and nothing happened. Kos holds a putz-fest in Vegas and virtually the complete Democratic establishment comes to kiss his ring. Is the right wing blogosphere only capable of getting congressional types to give us a few minutes of their time on conference calls?
The right wing blogosphere has to deal with the facts. The politicians just arent that into us.
2) But how come the Democrats are so into the blogosphere and the Republicans arent? How come we dont generate fear and respect like the Kosfather?
Because all we do is opine, and often in an annoyingly independent way. While all of us root for the Republican Party, were also pretty expressive when members of the party let us down. We might carry a little water, but as a group, I bet the Republican establishment thought of us as more as a pain in the neck than an asset during the last campaign season. I know I wont be on George Allens Christmas card list.
3) And Kos is different?
Yes. Although he rips Democrats when hes of a mind to do so, he also brings something else to the party. He brings volunteers and money and buzz. Although my modem might well explode as I type these words, Jon Tester would not be a senator starting in January if it werent for the Daily Kos. Same for Jim Webb. He never would have made it out of the primary.
4) Okay. So we should be more like Kos?
Not me. I have no interest in being a tool for the Republican Party, or at least not anymore so than I already am. But, and again my modem might explode, there is no denying that the Daily Kos is an asset to the Democratic Party in terms of winning elections. Or at least it was this past cycle.
5) Back on topic how disastrous were the Republican leadership choices?
Eh. It would have been nice to have seen a new Newt Gingrich coronated, but Im not sure theres such a being in the Republican caucus. Besides, the congressional leadership just wont be all that important over the next couple of years.
6) Now you tell me, after I waste a week of my life on conference calls with these guys who seem to think book larnin is beneath them. Whys that?
Because starting in about four months, the presidential race gets engaged. The message that comes from the party will be formed in that contest, every bit as much as the Democrats message in the second half of 03 came from the fire-breathing mouth of Howard Dean.
7) But how about legislation? Wont the lack of leadership hurt us there?
Well, well probably cut-and-run on the minimum wage, but other than that I dont see any Democratic boondoggles that will pass with a veto-proof majority. So all in all, it should be two years of stasis in Congress, which incidentally will beat the hell out of the last four years. (See prescription drug benefits for more details.)
8) But how about the war?
As you all know by now, Ive had doubts raised this week about whether our Republican members of Congress actually understand the war beyond the battle in Iraq. As for the Democratic members of Congress, fuhgeddaboutit. A plane could crash into the Pentagon and they still wouldnt get it.
The case for the war will have to be made by the White House and the presidential candidates. Personally, I have a lot more hope for the presidential candidates doing it competently than the White House.
9) Whats been the reaction in the blogosphere about the same Republican congressional leaders being re-signed for the 110th congress?
The reactions that Ive read and that have come in my inbox have ranged from panic to outrage to outraged panic. Doesnt seem like anyone is very happy today.
10) And yet youre not on the verge of despair?
Not at all. Despair was last week with the election results, the shameful timing of the Rumsfeld firing and the Gates naming. The dye was cast then. Theres nothing that could have happened in the Republican leadership conference that could have put lipstick on this pig of a month.
Besides, Im very excited about my Leave No Congressman Behind education plan.
#1
The case for the war will have to be made by the White House and the presidential candidates. Personally, I have a lot more hope for the presidential candidates doing it competently than the White House.
A good point. The next two years will be more interesting than I'd thought.
H/T for this and the NYT "Pelosi Tempts Disaster" article to LGF. Let's put the new House speaker on probation.
Timothy Noah
I'll admit my timing could be better, since the incoming House Democrats, on a unanimous voice vote, just made Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaker of the House. But I think her party should give serious thought to dumping her.
The proximate reason, of course, is that she tried (and, thankfully, failed) to install as House majority leader Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. It's bad enough that Pelosi promoted Murtha (over the perfectly acceptable Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who won the caucus vote) in spite of Murtha's having once been named an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam, a 1980 FBI sting operation in which G-men posing as representatives of an Arab sheikh offered $50,000 bribes to members of Congress. Even worse is that Pelosi persisted even after a videotape of Murtha's Abscam performance ("I'm not interested at this point") turned up on the Web, and Democrats began fretting that they were about to erase all distinctions between themselves and the Abramoff-tainted Republicans from whom they'd only just wrenched a House majority. Almost before it began, Pelosi's honeymoon is over.
#1
Hoyer's victory is already being portrayed as a humiliating defeat for Pelosi, which it was. But it would have been an even greater defeat for Pelosi to push Murtha through and then suffer the consequences of her own idiotic decision. I doubt she understands that.
The danger now is that Pelosi will honor that promise, creating precisely the same impression that she threatened to create with Murtha, i.e. that House Democrats who engage in bad behavior but manage to escape indictment or beat the rap in court are welcome to positions of high responsibility. In the case of Hastings, we lack videotape, and the evidence is circumstantial. Nonetheless, it is still, as Marcus wrote, "too much to explain away"
If this is any indicator of what to expect from democrats over the next two years, I'd say that the 2008 presidential race is completely wide open.
#2
...I'm of really mixed emotions here. I think we're about to find out just how far out of her depth Grandma Marxist really is when she tries to appoint REP Hastings to run the House Intelligence Committee - after all, Napoleon said "Never interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes." OTOH, the fact is that Hastings - as an impeached Federal judge - is a convicted felon. Were he applying for a GS or military job that involved the handling of classified material and getting a security clearance, he couldn't do it. - and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/18/2006 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.
#4
correct, Mick. Alcee's a crook, not a spy. The Chicoms will have to pay cold cash for secrets, which will decrease our trade deficit with them. See, he's doing a public service.
Democrats began fretting that they were about to erase all distinctions between themselves and the Abramoff-tainted Republicans
apparently Noah doesn't read the papers. Hello, Harry Reid! Waiting for the other shoe to fall on the "eight or nine" Democrat senators
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/18/2006 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hastings - as an impeached Federal judge - is a convicted felon. Were he applying for a GS or military job that involved the handling of classified material and getting a security clearance, he couldn't do it. - and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.
I agree, Mike K. Hastings' potential appointment should represent grounds for Pelosi's (and his own) removal. This is simply outrageous.
#7
he's being pushed by the Black Caucus, strictly due to his race. They should be ashamed, but with a group containing Conyers, Waters, Rangel, et al, shame, patriotism, and conscience is not a factor. Black first
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/18/2006 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Black Caucus will be dead along with the rest of us. They don't believe we're in a war, you see.
#9
Right, .Com. The Senate convicted and removed him, but the criminal court jury acquitted him. The sad thing is that the articles of impeachment did not included any disqualification clauses, as specifically allowed by the Constitution, and so he was able to run for his House seat.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
11/18/2006 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
But only as a democrat. All corruption, all the time, your democrat party.
Hey, felons need representation too.
#11
RE: # 7 - the exception to the rule was Michael Steele, a Maryland Republican candidate for US Senate, who did not gather a great number of black voters, and lost the election.
He was just too republican - an Oreo. For our overseas readers, that's "black on the outside and white in the middle", like an Oreo sandwich cookie.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/18/2006 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#12
.com,
Respectfully sir, I'm going to disagree with you. An impeachment - whether by the Senate or the full house - is still a Federal conviction, or at least that's the way I've always been taught. We might end up agreeing to disagree on this one.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/18/2006 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The fact is, he's not a felon.
Facts! Shmacts!
Look, .com, I've already made up my mind. So there!
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 ||
11/18/2006 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.
But Ms. Pelosis damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape feasted upon by Pelosi enemies shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: Im not interested at this point.
Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.
As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism from within the party and without about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda.
It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority led by a presumably wiser speaker must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government.
#1
Peter Principle: The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter which states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are incompetent, and then stay in that position.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/18/2006 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Invest in popcorn! The next couple years will be entertainment at its best.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/18/2006 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pelosi deserves disaster. Never assume in politics.
Most Americans, including our policy makers in Washington, do not realize that Islam is creeping into America and other Western countries and threatening a very serious problem to those countries it inhabits. Read FSM Contributing Editor Amil Imanis explanation of why and how this is happening.
Democracys Problems with Islam
By: Amil Imani
A relatively recent demographic changesignificant increase in Muslim populationposes a serious challenge to the American system of governancedemocracy.
Historically, people from all over the world came to this land-of-take-all and made it their home. In becoming American, each new aspirant had to meet specific provisions and take the Pledge of Allegiance as sworn affirmation of his highest loyalty to his new homeland. After a couple of generations, all hyphenated Americans saw themselves as Americans with a special affection for their ancestral heritage. An Irish-American, for instance, considered himself every bit as American as a German-American, or a Chinese-American.
Traditionally, America did not homogenize its diverse people. The notion of the melting pot, is inaccurate. Instead, America did one better. As it welcomed its diverse people, America united them around a set of core values such as respect for human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law.
The large number of Muslims arrival of recent years is posing a serious problem to this nation of all nations. Bluntly speaking, no one can be a Muslim and an American at the same time. Here are some of the reasons.
* A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummehista citizen of international Islam. So, when a Muslim takes the Pledge of Allegiance, he is either ignorant of the implication of his pledge or is lying willfully. Ignorance is never a valid reason in the court of law, and lying in the process of becoming citizen is a ground for denying the application and even deporting the violator. Sadly enough, tagyyehlying, or dissimulationis not only condoned, it is recommended to the Muslims in their scripture. Hence, a Muslim can and would lie without any compunctions, whenever it is expedient.
* Muslims, by belief and practice, are the most blatant violators of human rights. We hardly need to detail here Muslims systemic cruel treatment of the unbelievers, women of all persuasions, and any and all minorities across the board. To Muslims, human rights have a different meaning, and it protective provisions are reserved strictly for Muslimsprimarily for Muslim men. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.
Oppression of women, for one, is so systemic in Islam that to this day women are, at best, second class citizens under Islamic law. Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islamdom, denies women the right to drive, vote or hold elective officesthe most basic rights of citizens in democratic societies.
For another, no non-Islamic literature are allowed in Saudi Arabia. A visiting Christian, for instance, is denied to enter the Kingdom with a Bible. Further, severe punishment is meted out to anyone daring to disagree with Islam or espouse a different religion. Irans resurgent Shiism often vies with Saudi Arabia in its mistreatment of religious and non-religious minorities. To the fanatical ruling gang in Iran, it is their brand of Islam or disenfranchisement of rights of citizenship and even death for the sin of apostasy. And of course, there is no point at all in talking about the savage Islamic Taliban.
* Respect for the rule of law, as it is understood and practiced by civilized people, is an instrument of convenience to be used to advantage and to be violated when it is not, for the Muslim. A Muslim believes in a different lawthe Shariah: a set of stone-age rules. Violation of the non-Muslim laws, therefore, is no violation at all to a Muslim.
What is incredible is the gall and audacity of Muslims in demanding that Western and other democracies legalize Shariah in their societies. Large populations of Muslims, mostly recent arrivals, in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden are experiencing the insistent demands by Muslims to have Shariah rule their Islamic communities. This is just the beginning and it may seem relatively harmless to the simpletons in our midst. Yet, once Shariah is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Shariah, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will, automatically have custody of the children, and literally toss the wife out of his home with just about no compensations.
* As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all. Muslims believe that Allahs rule must govern the world in the form of Caliphatea theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and ignoring its provisions is a Muslims way of falsifying what he already believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.
To Muslims, Ummeh-isminternational Islamismis the legitimate form of government. Ummeh-ism is another form of despotism such as Communism and Fascism, with the added feature of enjoying divine authority.
The world has good samples of Ummeh-ism in practice to scrutinize in Islamic autocracies. Khamenei of Iran is not called Caliph. He is called the Supreme Guide. The Saudi King is just another Caliph vessel of the divine. These Islamic despots are every bit as vile as the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, and the Mussolinis. The government these Islamic autocrats head is infested to the core with the Islamic disease of oppression, corruption and the absence of accountability to the people.
Democracies believe that government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ummeh-ism is anathema to this sacrosanct fundamental democratic ideal.
As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine the democratic rule. A consortium composed of pandering politicians, blinded with short-term self-interest and egoism; attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiot liberals, universities, is the witting or unwitting promoter of Ummeh-ism.
It is human nature to be concerned, first and foremost, with his personal well-being. Some people evolve to a higher level of humanness and place the welfare of the general public above their own. Yet, many remain fixated at the constricted stage of self first, self, last. Even if you belong to this latter group, your self-interest demands that you do all you can to make sure that the disease of Islamofascism does not devour democracy. Democracy is both fragile and corruptible. It takes vigilant citizenry to protect its integrity.
We fully agree with Churchills observation, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. Yet, as imperfect as it is, democracy is still humanitys best system of self-rule. We, one and all, must defend it with our all.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at http://amilimani.com
Even the moral relativists ought to be able to recognize that Islam is NOT just another religion, no better nor worse than the others. Take all the 'religious' references away and compare Islam and Judeo-Christianity, based on their written foundations, the Koran and the Bible.
1) Koran: written/transcribed by one person, in a short period of time, who was exposed to a small area of the world - and a primitive, barbaric area at that.
2) Bible: compiled over thousands of years from the experiences of many people throughout a larger part of the world, including several of the test grounds for civilization as we know it.
As a general guide for living and tool for understanding oneself and mankind which book, and thus which religion, should better fit the 'logical' moral relativist/secular humanist perspective?
#2
Muslims are compelled to believe that Mohammad was the last "prophet" whose purpose was to create believers of the Arab deity ("Allah"), by eradicating other religions. Muslims pose respect for seculars, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, where we are more powerful. If we decline, they will dominate this world.
BY STEVE HUNTLEY
The election results and the rethinking about Iraq now going on in Washington are coming together to focus on one of the great foreign policy myths: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of our troubles in the Middle East.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed the conventional wisdom in his annual foreign policy speech Monday when he said resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was at "the core" of achieving a broader Middle East peace. On Thursday, France, Italy and Spain announced they were working on a peace plan that had the usual components of a cease-fire, national unity government for the Palestinians and negotiations but no explicit call for recognition of the right of Israel to exist.
What nobody comes out and says in those kind of pronouncements, but what they mean, is that Israel and the United States must do more -- do something, even if that something is never articulated beyond returning to negotiations -- to bring an end to that bloody conflict.
If only it were that simple. But the simple truth is that the warfare will end when the Palestinians and their Arab and Islamic allies accept the existence of the Jewish state, call off the terrorist campaign against it and come to a negotiated resolution of borders based on a viable two-state solution.
It is not Israel, or its American ally, who stand in the way of peace. The implacable terrorist enemies of Israel would like for the world to forget -- and, unfortunately, to a large extent much of Europe as well as Arab and Islamic nations have come to ignore -- the events of 2000 when Israel offered territorial concessions unimaginable only days before in a bold gamble to achieve peace. President Bill Clinton threw the full weight of American influence and prestige behind the Camp David initiative. The gamble failed because Yasser Arafat had no interest in peace.
Another thing that few people, including many Americans, want to acknowledge is that Israel's struggle actually constitutes another front in the war against Islamist jihadism. For years, Israel was the focus of the radical Islamic war on the West while terror attacks on American targets such as U.S. embassies in Africa, the World Trade Center in 1993 and the USS Cole in 2000 were sideshows. That changed on Sept. 11, 2001.
By tucking away the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its own pigeonhole and finding a way to extricate ourselves from Iraq, many Americans wrap themselves in the comfortable fiction that neither is related to the war on terror.
It got little notice at the time, but the day after American voters swept Democrats into power in Congress in a show of rejection of President Bush's Iraq policy, the terrorist organization Hamas issued what could be called a declaration of war against the United States. After Israeli retaliation to Gaza rocket attacks that unfortunately killed civilians, Hamas' ''military wing'' said American should be taught ''hard lessons'' for supporting Israel.
The gravest threat to peace is the potential development of nuclear weapons by Iran. Does anyone doubt that Iran is as much a foe of the United States as it is of Israel?
Despite the state of denial about the nature of the conflict, focusing on Israel's plight at least holds the possibility of confronting some unpleasant possibilities of the phased withdrawal from Iraq that so many Democratic leaders are promoting now.
Israel tried withdrawing from its enemies twice. First, in 2000, the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon. It turned out that that only encouraged Arafat, Hamas and other terrorists to conclude that the Israelis had been run out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. Afterward, the Oslo peace process was torpedoed by Arafat despite the remarkable Israeli concessions at Camp David, and a wave of terrorist bombings engulfed Israel, killing and maiming thousands of noncombatant men, women and children.
Last year, the Israelis unilaterally pulled out of the Gaza Strip, uprooting long-established settlements and their residents. Rather than seizing the opportunity to show the world they were capable of responsible self-government, the Palestinians permitted Gaza to become a daily launching pad for rockets aimed at Israeli communities. Then Hezbollah joined in with its missile barrages from Lebanon aimed at indiscriminately killing Israeli civilians, plunging Lebanon into a war that saw much more destruction and death visited on it than Israel.
In pulling out of Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza last year, the Israelis were trying to make moves toward peace, but both instances were trumpeted by their enemies as defeats, as evidence that the Israelis could be made to run -- encouraging terrorist fantasies that they could run the Jews out of Israel.
#1
There are 3 conclusions.
(1) You cannot make peace by making concessions to Muzzies --- since they want it all, it just encourages them to demand more concessions.
(2) You cannot make peace with Muzzies by defeating them militarily---they're used to that.
(3) Barring a few, statistically insignificant exceptions, the World is just not ready to accept the existence of a Jewish state.
(2) Hard to tell.
They've never been really defeated, in that sense they never had to pay the piper... for example, lost territories are not really lost, like they are for every other wars... since their claims on them are backed by their foreign sponsors (Moderate Muslims, Eurabia, UN paid and bought by petrodollars).
On the other hand, whack them hard enough, like the conventional wars fought by Israel, and they back off... but they keep on fighting an undeclared subversive war (USSR-created "liberation struggle" by proxy), also because of said oustide backings (and btw, now the balance of power seems to move (Israel perceived defeat in lebanon, US perceived defeat tov come in iraq, coming iranian nukes, conventonal war becomes an option again).
If the World(Tm) suddenly came to its sense, and made explicit the arabs have a price to PAY for this insanity, they'd cease the conventional war (they'd loose) and the 1000-cuts war (they'd have a diplomatical/economical price to pay)... only to seethe, and keep the hope of regaining those lost islamic lands à la al-andalous from generations to generations, waiting for the opportunity, I agree.
(3) Don't be paranoid; if there wasn't the arab factor and its enablers (tranzis, leftists, the occasional rightwingers), no one would care about Israel, at least not the man on the street. It is only because Israel is seen as part of the Great Games by the Elites than the global media mold the public opinions. No sane european wants Israel to be erased and jews to be slaughtered, stop focusing on the LLL and the Euro Enlightened Elites.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival. 
